The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 27, 2014, 04:28 PM   #1
Captchee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2013
Posts: 328
convicted for having muzzleloading bullets

for those who have not seen this . you might want to give it a read .
the man didnt own the gun , but had muzzleloading bullets produced by Knight .
50 dollar fine , time served . but then was required to sign up for the firearms affender registry
be sure to also read the internal link in the artical

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2x6bFEpHI
Captchee is offline  
Old March 27, 2014, 06:20 PM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,589
Quote:
Nevertheless Judge Morin said, “I’m persuaded these are bullets. They look like bullets. They are hollow point. They are not musket balls.”
But, your honor, musket balls are also bullets.

This is the result of allowing judges (and juries) to make decisions on matters about which they know nothing. A number of years ago I testified as an expert witness in a lawsuit involving a fire that wiped out eight or ten units in a three-story condominium building. The fire was started when a plumber stuck a soldering torch into a wall to replace a shower valve and ignited the paper covering on some fiberglass insulation that probably shouldn't have been there anyway. The fire spread because the bathroom backed up to the kitchen of an adjacent unit, and the wall wasn't firestopped at the soffits above the wall cabinets.

The opposition told the judge that the bathroom where the fire started backed up to another bathroom. I testified that it did not, that I had walked the entire building, that I had examined the original construction plans, and that I had drawn an accurate floor plan showing the relationship of the units -- which plan was submitted into evidence.

The judge determined that the bathroom backed up against another bathroom ... because a plumber said so, and who would know more about a bathroom than a plumber?

In another case, I testified (as an expert witness) that the third boiler in a public housing complex could not be repaired in less than three months because there was only one company in the U.S. who could make the parts needed to repair the boiler, and that was the earliest they could produce the parts.

The judge ordered the housing authority to have the boiler on line within three weeks.

You can't make this stuff up.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 27, 2014, 08:02 PM   #3
Scimmia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
Sounds like you're not a very convincing witness...

Scimmia is offline  
Old March 27, 2014, 09:27 PM   #4
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 176
Quote:
the man didnt own the gun , but had muzzleloading bullets produced by Knight .
I think he owned a 40 cal in Virginia. That is legal for a DC resident. But the first disallowed search, based on a false claim of threat with a gun, found a box of 40 cal bullets. The second search found the FTF shotgun shell and the copper jacket hollow point muzzle loader sabot cased rounds. He had no powder.

Last edited by TDL; March 27, 2014 at 10:08 PM.
TDL is offline  
Old March 27, 2014, 10:05 PM   #5
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,513
Quote:
Assistant Attorney General Peter Saba said that the government wanted to open the shell but that, “It is dangerous to do outside a lab.”
Don't tell that to 8-year-old Tom Servo, who did that all the time. I still have all my fingers.

If antique firearms are exempted from the law, I can't conceive of why their ammunition wouldn't be. I also can't imagine this surviving on appeal.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 27, 2014, 10:34 PM   #6
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 176
Quote:
I also can't imagine this surviving on appeal.

I agree. I think the exclusion of the shotgun shell means the case for appeal is good.

The shotgun shell presented the problem that there was a (less clean) case in Massachusetts which lost on appeal and upheld conviction on their similar consistent part of ammunition law.

But here is what looks to be current antique firearm law in DC, ie not required to be registered


Quote:
(3) “Antique firearm” means:
(A) Any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion
cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898;
and
(B) Any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica:
(i) Is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire
fixed ammunition; or
(ii) Uses rimfire or conventional ammunition which is no longer manufactured
in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels
of commercial trade.

here is the ammo law:
Quote:
(2) “Ammunition” means cartridge cases, shells, projectiles (including shot),
primers, bullets (including restricted pistol bullets), propellant powder, or
other devices or materials designed, redesigned, or intended for use in a
firearm or destructive device

Last edited by TDL; March 27, 2014 at 10:53 PM.
TDL is offline  
Old March 27, 2014, 10:38 PM   #7
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scimmia
Sounds like you're not a very convincing witness...
True.

Thanks for the reminder.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 28, 2014, 02:55 AM   #8
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
The thing about those who prosecuted this case is that they have outed themselves as utter frauds who, having spent considerable resources targeting this poor man, have squandered those same resources because they failed to direct them at any actual object of a threat to public safety. There can be no more compelling evidence of zealous, blind ideology than the willingness to abandon an actual worthy cause over a theoretical, technical, and in this case, fallacial cause.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 28, 2014, 10:15 AM   #9
Gbro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,056
TDL states;
Quote:
I think he owned a 40 cal in Virginia. That is legal for a DC resident. But the first disallowed search, based on a false claim of threat with a gun, found a box of 40 cal bullets. The second search found the FTF shotgun shell and the copper jacket hollow point muzzle loader sabot cased rounds. He had no powder.
Actually the fruits of the search found,
Quote:
At the second hearing, the judge disallowed the first warrantless search and the fruits of it. This eliminated a box of rifle ammunition from the charges.
Now that certainly sounds like it may be more than a box of musket balls even though musket balls look to be listed in the ammo law.
It looks like the prosecution was attempting to make the muzzle loading bullets into cop killers for their cause, and of course those bullets could probably be loaded into .45apc cases.
The shotgun shell is a very different issue IMO.
A dimpled primer will NOT at all render a cartridge as inert/inoperable. The only way of doing that is to drill a hole through and through the powder chamber.
That is a requirement we have for ammo used in firearms safety instruction.
That came about after a cartridge with a dimpled primer was chambered thinking it was a dummy round and discharged in a classroom.
Yes i feel for this man, but he lives in a place that should not be called America!
__________________
Gbro
CGVS
For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, But to us who are being saved, It Is The Power Of God. 1Corinthians 1-18
Gbro is offline  
Old March 29, 2014, 10:44 PM   #10
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 599
The incredible firearms ignorance displayed throughout this whole case makes it impossible to believe in any competence in the govt's ability to prosecute. The need to open a shotgun shell in a lab??? The obvious ignorance as to what a musket is or what is shot from a muzzle loader??? The Knight is a muzzle loader company that only makes muzzle loaders and supplies for them and does not make ammunition. Any 10 year old from the midwest would have more technical knowledge and could have identified saboted muzzle loader bullets.

Judges and prosecutors who can't identify which end of the gun the projectile comes out of should recuse themselves from firearms cases.
TimSr is offline  
Old March 30, 2014, 06:48 PM   #11
Gbro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,056
Tom's
Quote:
Quote:
Assistant Attorney General Peter Saba said that the government wanted to open the shell but that, “It is dangerous to do outside a lab.”
We teach all young Tom's Billy's etc not to explore what is inside a cartridge.
That is why we have boards with all the components separated for those young inquisitive Tom's and these boards were made of components disassembled in a Lab, in this case MY Lab which is my reloading room that certainly fits the definition of a Laboratory.

TDL's (Bolding mine)
Quote:
here is the ammo law:
Quote:
(2) “Ammunition” means cartridge cases, shells, projectiles (including shot),
primers, bullets (including restricted pistol bullets), propellant powder, or
other devices or materials designed, redesigned, or intended for use in a
firearm or destructive device
Can you imagine a more "ambiguous" list? We can certainly understand that all this was intended to aid in the prosecution of someone who is a danger to society however we all know that when it gets to court the letter of the law is fought over, however unfortunate.
__________________
Gbro
CGVS
For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, But to us who are being saved, It Is The Power Of God. 1Corinthians 1-18
Gbro is offline  
Old March 31, 2014, 12:03 AM   #12
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 219
The rounds for which he was convicted were .45 caliber solid copper hollow points sold by Knight. They are used with a sabot. The technicality in this case is that the D.C. law specifies that you may have ammunition, including components, only for weapons registered in the City. His muzzleloader, being an antique firearm exempt from the registration law, was not registered in the City. Therefore he possessed hollow point bullets for an unregistered firearm. The judged was obviously confused, and I am pretty sure thought the whole thing was baloney, hence the minimal fine and sentence to registration on the gun offenders registry--which also eliminated, I believe, his right to own any firearm.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old April 1, 2014, 10:54 PM   #13
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 176
Quote:
Can you imagine a more "ambiguous" list? We can certainly understand that all this was intended to aid in the prosecution of someone who is a danger to society however we all know that when it gets to court the letter of the law is fought over, however unfortunate
Look I am not defending the case. But I am giving you factual background and the precise law.

And if you know DC gun law ( and I know it intimately) you know it is all simply cribbed by two people in the DC council's judiciary committee staff from other laws. So if you see it in DC law it likely to exist elsewhere. In this ammo case ; very close to Massachusetts law. In DC it is also a slightly modified holdover law from when all new firearms were prohibited (late 70s to 2008)

You are not allowed to have primers or casings or projectiles without having undergone the registered weapons holders requirements. One of the requirements is to take a test on DC's gun laws (along with an online firearms familiarity/safety course, and background check done in addition to the FFL's).


You have quoted me a couple times.

Yes I agree the box of modern, fully functional, compete, 40 cal ammo was rightfully excluded from the case. But that doesn't mean that the fact of him having it there isn't for you and I to consider when thinking about this guy's judgment. Or the fact that when primary evidence is excluded it is common to prosecute on lesser offenses.

There are many cases in the US where prosecution on lesser offenses, technical offices is more rigorous, when the worse offense is excluded on evidentiary rules. I am not opposing or defending that practice, but simply noting it is something that does occur more than rarely.

Without supporting the particular law or practice, we should acknowledge that if you are found with drugs in your car and they get exclude for bad warrant would you really be surprised at a rigorous than normal prosecution of driving under the influence?

This prosecution is an abuse for other reasons. the entire body of ammo law, and certainly any prosecution in DC should be about 1) an aggravating circumstance in a primary offence of having an illegal firearm, ie a bad guy with a gun is prosecuted, a bad guy with a gun and ammo is prosecuted more.; b) people seeking to distribute ammo to persons unlicensed.

Again the law is bad, the prosecution is an abuse, I would give to this guy's defense fund -- but I was adding facts Emily Miller has left out of her reporting.
TDL is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10435 seconds with 9 queries