View Full Version : Illegal Flintlock in NYC

August 4, 2009, 08:54 AM
Maybe this has already been posted. I keep pretty up to date with the site and I have not seen it. A search for littlejohn also turned up nothing related.

Copy of firearm in use at time of Constitutions writing
The guy doesn't even have ball or powder.

If all the other cases out there fall on their butt, I think this is the perfect one to push incorporation with. I am hoping one of the others work as it will be years before this get up to the supreme court, but if all else fails I can't believe this case would, assuming they do press charges. Is there something to this case being omitted by BFA?

New Yorker fights attempts by city to license his Revolutionary War-style flintlock
printable page
Submitted by cbaus on Mon, 08/03/2009 - 00:05.

* Gun Grabbers

The New York Daily News is reporting that, like America's first soldiers at the Battle of Brooklyn, NYC resident Michael Littlejohn is fighting for his right to bear arms.

And his fight proves beyond any doubt that, despite their claims, gun banners want ALL guns.

From the story:

The Revolutionary War buff charges the Bloomberg administration with tyranny for trying to seize his handmade flintlock rifle - a dead ringer for the weapon once used against the redcoats.

"This is the last legal gun that you can have without registration in New York," Littlejohn said. "And yet Mayor Bloomberg is driven crazy by my flintlock gun - the one that won the American Revolution."

Littlejohn fired the first shot when he hired a Tennessee blacksmith to recreate the vintage rifle. It arrived at his Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, apartment in June - followed quickly by city cops.

Police claim it's illegal for Littlejohn to keep the flintlock without a gun license.

The story goe sn to say that Littlejohn, 50, cites the earliest American patriots as his inspiration while refusing to surrender his firearm or apply for a license.

The social worker is also clinging to a little-known exemption in the city's strict gun laws.

The loophole allows license-free ownership of "antique firearms" - defined as rifles that require the bullet and gunpowder to be loaded separately.

Littlejohn's rifle appears to fit the bill.

Loading the weapon, he explains, is a multistep process that takes several pokes with a ramrod and up to a minute to complete.

To fire, the rifle relies on a sharpened piece of flint that produces a spark when the trigger is pulled. That point is moot, Littlejohn says: He doesn't own gunpowder or bullets.

That's not enough to make the NYPD retreat.

The cops visited Littlejohn's apartment and sat down this month with the Tennessee blacksmith who forged the rifle.

The lead detective on the case told Littlejohn's lawyer that he had orders "from higher-ups" to pursue the case, according to an e-mail the lawyer sent to Littlejohn.

A police source told the newspaper the war could end peacefully if Littlejohn applied for a permit with the NYPD handgun license division.

But Littlejohn says he would rather fight. The Brooklynite says he's willing to sue for his rifle rights.

When it comes to gun control, too often there are gun owners willing to look the other way, or even support it, out of the belief that their own brand of firearm is safe from the gun grabbers. But finally the truth is exposed:

If it fires a shot they want it!

Mayor Bloomberg is going after a reenactors' flintlock (200 + year old technology) with the same venom he goes after any other gun.

Combine that with NYC going after toy guns, another city banning cap guns and air guns, and Ireland following the disastrous lead of Great Britain and banning handguns, and it should be obvious to any and every gun owner:

If it looks like a gun of any type the gun banners and anti-gun politicians want it.

They do not care what kind of gun. They do not care that the United States of America would not exist as we know it today without this gun in its history. They hate the gun - they hate us for liking the gun - and they want the guns gone.

The truth is, they are only settling for the guns being gone. What they really want is anyone who thinks like us gone also. They just haven't quite admitted that yet.

August 4, 2009, 09:08 AM
If this went to court it would certainly do away with the argument of "when the second amendment was written the writers never considered (insert modern type of gun here)"

This is also a good example of why we as gun owners need to stick together. No type of gun is safe once they get what the antis get what they want.

August 4, 2009, 09:21 AM
I am glad I did not join the NRA this year. If this guy holds out and has a legal fund I am dropping that money into it.

August 4, 2009, 09:42 AM
I am very surprised and disappointed thet the NRA isn't on this like stink on a skunk supporting him.

Brian Pfleuger
August 4, 2009, 09:46 AM
When it comes to gun control, too often there are gun owners willing to look the other way, or even support it, out of the belief that their own brand of firearm is safe from the gun grabbers. But finally the truth is exposed:

If it fires a shot they want it!

The sooner ALL of us pro-gun types understand that concept the sooner some of us will stop suggesting that "common sense" restrictions and "public sentiment" should influence our cooperation with the anti's.

August 4, 2009, 09:48 AM
They know the gun is legal. They don't care what the law says unless it's a useful tool to beat somebody over the head with.

What does the law say about harrassment? Maybe Littlejohn can take the legal offensive. Perhaps get a restraining order against Bloomberg?

August 4, 2009, 09:50 AM
I am very surprised and disappointed thet the NRA isn't on this like stink on a skunk supporting him.
He probably is not a member.
Remember, this guy is a history buff, not a shooter.

August 4, 2009, 03:41 PM
Maybe this will open his eyes a bit. I was an NRA member during a period in my life when I did little shooting (maybe 2 or 3 times in 30 years). Also, the point a different poster made about this being a wake-up call for all gun owners is very correct. Too many gun owners are willing to let some others be thrown under the bus in the hope that the grabbers will leave their guns alone. There is even an organization for those types that claims to represent "moderate" voices in the debate. Now, we see that no gun is suitable for civilian ownership as far as the grabbers are concerned. In the words of one of the founders of this country, "We must all hang together, or we shall all surely hang, separately."

August 4, 2009, 03:55 PM
TexasFats your spot on

G'day folks from the land of gun control ( Australia)

when the laws changed here various groups tryed to exclude others from the debate.

Shotgunners stated they did no harm it was the black rifle mob, hand gunners blamed mil rifle people , all where looking after thier own interests, just as the planners wanted

the result? we all lost in many ways

now only the criminals have guns and we dont have a right of self defence

act now before its too late folks

act together act with thought and passion , but act, NOW!

tomorrow maybe too late

cheers and good luck to you all


August 5, 2009, 07:33 AM
because it is a flint lock.... the problem with applying the 2nd amendment only to the the technology of the time is then we also need to apply the same to the 1st....

hand presses and quill pens are all that the first amendment covers... forget Radio, TV and the internet.

it would seem like the way to solve this problem is to somehow get the Supreme Court to address that.... does the first amendment actually apply to our current mass media?.... If they rule yes.... then......

August 5, 2009, 08:46 AM
Maybe this will open his eyes a bit.
He never was a shooter as far as I can tell from the various news stories I have heard. Why would he even think to join?

I just think this case, which appears to be absolutely absurdly perfect from my limited legal perspective, is being ignored b/c he s not a member, when it obviously could push great benefits for all members.

Of course, maybe they are staying off it in order let the case develope formally. It would stink if NY backed off of it. Probably better to let the DA and such get as committed as possible before jumping in.

There is also the probability he is unwilling to forego the "loophole" defense in favor of pressing the larger incorporation issue. In which case I can't see any organization supporting him.

August 5, 2009, 08:51 AM
that citizens of NYC can own flintlocks (with no powder or ammo) with out having to get permission from the government? Boy, that'll shake the foundations of the legal community... (tongue in cheek)

August 5, 2009, 09:17 AM
well, that is what I was trying to point out, but if he wants to go with the "loophole" defense, which will almost certainly get him out of hot water, then it will not. If he wants to ignore that defense, and press the larger issue, which from some of his quotes I think he could be convinced to do, it would not. He seems to hold the constitution in high regard.
I wouldn't hold it against him if he just stuck with the loophole deal. At the very least he is brought to many peoples attention that they may own BP pistols for HD. Not the best HD solution, but a pretty good one.