|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 27, 2014, 04:28 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 2, 2013
Posts: 439
|
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 |
March 27, 2014, 06:20 PM | #2 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
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. |
|
March 27, 2014, 08:02 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
|
Sounds like you're not a very convincing witness...
|
March 27, 2014, 09:27 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Last edited by TDL; March 27, 2014 at 10:08 PM. |
|
March 27, 2014, 10:05 PM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
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 |
|
March 27, 2014, 10:34 PM | #6 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
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:
here is the ammo law: Quote:
Last edited by TDL; March 27, 2014 at 10:53 PM. |
|||
March 27, 2014, 10:38 PM | #7 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
Thanks for the reminder. |
|
March 28, 2014, 02:55 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
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.
|
March 28, 2014, 10:15 AM | #9 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,084
|
TDL states;
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
||
March 29, 2014, 10:44 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
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. |
March 30, 2014, 06:48 PM | #11 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,084
|
Tom's
Quote:
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:
__________________
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 |
||
March 31, 2014, 12:03 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
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.
|
April 1, 2014, 10:54 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|