Last edited by dan_bgblue; 09-29-2015 at 05:33 PM.
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
I'm all for keeping firearms out of the hands of felons, but 5 years for a felon having a BB gun seems outrageous even for a "tough on crime" guy like myself. It also seems a huge waste of resources. Lots of people who deserve that jail cell more than he does.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
That's nothing. Here in FL these are illegal according to Florida Statute 790.161
And yes, I'm a law breaker
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
I try to look at what the cause is of the poor decision (which is what I find here).
Here, they claim there's no clear definition of firearm in the state, and they're following a 1977 state Supreme Court decision that used the definition from state game and fish laws. Those laws are designed for a specific purpose, related to hunting and fishing (obviously), and there's no doubt that pellet guns, and even BB guns, can be used for mild hunting. My neighbor's housekeeper person (and don't read that wrong--we lived in a lower middle class neighborhood in Mobile, AL, but with 2 working parents, it was cheaper to have her pick up kids, cook and be there until parents arrived) had many squirrel stews and such from our BB and pellet gun hunts, so I'm well aware that they can be used as such.
But I digress.
Plucking that definition from an area that's not really designed for criminal violence laws seems wildly inappropriate. While I'm not a huge fan of courts overturning their own precedence, it seems they could have carved out an interpretation here that would prevent this from being used as *the* definition in a matter like this. While, true, the state legislators probably should have had a specific definition of firearm in a case like this, I think that judicial notice could have applied a generic definition that would have required more than a BB gun. Throwing up your hands and saying it's out of your control seems to be irresponsible. They tried to make it appear to be a black and white, does it fit or not, scenario (hence the discussion of not looking at whether it subjectively looked like a gun, etc.), which makes it sound like they're objective here, but I don't see it that way.
JMO, not having read anything more than the news story.
I guess my 2nd thought--which I could've put in that post, but thought it was separate enough to warrant a distinct post--is whether we want a felon being able to own a BB gun. Is the line firearm (the way most normal people view it)/BB gun a proper demarcation?
Of course, the felon can commit crimes with fists, with sticks, with rocks, with anything. Anything *can* be a weapon. So would a low-powered, no gunpowder fueled, generally recreational use only BB gun be OK for them to own?
(I'd say yes. Obviously, if they use it in the commission of a crime, all of the requisite "armed robbery" laws apply, etc., but allowing them a BB gun but not a handgun isn't going to cause armed robbery, is it? I mean, a felon who is going to rob a store with "any" gun would be somebody that would get an illegal weapon anyway, wouldn't he? In my mind, you're just keeping a recreational item out of their hands by prohibiting it. Regardless, without a specific law prohibiting it, my view is it is ok anyway.)
That nails it IMO. That definition was from an unrelated area and has to do with protecting wildlife, so you don't have people running around parks shooting birds and such (or each other) with BBs. That's not a bad place to draw that line for a forest service, but it has nothing to do with a criminal situation.Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
Their logic seemed to be that someone somewhere in that state's government defined it a certain way, and since they can't find another way they just went with that one. Why not look at the intent of the legislature maybe within the context of longstanding federal and state definitions.
As to your 2nd point, that's my bigger problem with it from a policy standpoint. Way more high priority things to worry about than a felon having a bb gun. He can carry a knife but not a bb gun. Good plan.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Technically speaking, a pump BB gun is nothing more than a tool that uses compressed air to send a small round object through the air...so no fire...therefore, not a firearm. So those knuckleheads can stick it.
tumblr_lsvj2t3hsT1qep45v.jpg
My question would be why was this person pulled over in the first place? Was he causing problems post release? Were people looking for any reason to lock him back up and this was the easiest to put him where he should be? The article completely fails to mention why he was pulled over or anything else relevant to this person.
The justice system looks for any reason to lock up those that belong in jail, from Al Capone and tax evasion to OJ Simpson getting 33 years for stealing memorabilia. If it's something like that, then I'm all for it.
Otherwise, it's kind of BS.
It was a "traffic stop". Odds are speeding, running a stop sign etc... and the weapon was found at that time. The initial conviction was 10 yrs ago so I doubt they were targeting him like Capone or Simpson. Likely just a routine stop where the gun was found in the course of a traffic stop.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
I looked for a little more detail and found that his traveling companion was someone for which he had a no-contact OP active, so something tells me there's probably a little bit more to the story. Couldn't really find much more than that. We don't know if they were traveling together willingly, or maybe the gun was used as a threat and there was nothing else to get a conviction.
I wasn't comparing him to a Simpson or Capone, but was highlighting on an extreme end how the justice system will use the smallest of offenses to put those that belong behind bars where they belong. That could certainly be the case here. If it's not, however, it's a pretty BS situation.
Why are police searching a car in a routine traffic stop?
The gun was in the glove box per the article. I know I keep my vehicle registration and proof of insurance in the glove box. If I get pulled over I always wait till the officer gets to the car before reaching into the glove box. To do so prior is certainly going to cause concern for the officer and his/her safety so the correct thing to do is wait until the officer gets to the car before opening the glove box. Perhaps when the officer requested the registration, he/she saw it. I believe that is a pretty common police tactic, and they always ask for registration and proof of insurance on a routine traffic stop.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Also, keep in mind too that there are several states that have laws on the books regarding "look-alike" articles, as in objects that look like firearms but are not. That may have been in play in Minnesota too, although I cannot state that for certain.
MOLON LABE!
That's a very convenient answer, although I'm not saying it's the wrong answer. I still feel there's way more to this story. Too many holes. I feel like my scenario is more plausible.
Regardless of what the real scenario was, the real point is that t's just irresponsible journalism that really just stokes fears, fuels divisiveness and continues to build walls around the table where people need to come together to solve problems. Sensational journalism that preys on the audiences inabilities to read something and ask why.
Convenience has nothing to do with it. Logic, experience and common sense do. Mostly experience though. I hope Suncat will confirm that
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
I read the appellate court decision, hoping it would get into the facts of the case. Unfortunately, it simply focused on the definition of firearm and the various arguments made. It was an interesting decision, and it is not quite as one sided as the newspaper articles might suggest, but I was looking for the reason for the initial search in the first place. Unfortunately, I did not find it.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
I said it was convenient because you are essentially making an assumption that a convicted felon who is transporting a passenger for which there is an OP against him on her would behave as you have in the past when pulled over.
Either you're giving that man WAY too much credit, or you're bringing yourself down to the repetitive behavior of a convicted felon that is in the process of violating a crime.
Well, count me in with Doc on this. He usually has a good handle on stuff like this, and on this I have to agree with him.
This is just another odd situation. And again, I have to reference my prior statement about states that have that "look-alike" firearms laws. If Minnesota has a law of that nature, that could well be the basis for a law enforcement response. And it wouldn't matter if it was a BB gun, a pellet gun, an airsoft gun, or a perfecly chiseled wooden replica of a gun........if, on first inspection, it looks like a real gun, then I am treating it as such. And if there is a law on the books that says that anything that resembles a real gun gets charged like it's a real gun.
At least that is how I would respond to the threat as displayed.
Last edited by suncat05; 10-08-2015 at 10:43 AM. Reason: spelling error
MOLON LABE!
The law enforcement officers job is to enforce the law. Its not to interpret it. Its not to write it. It's not too dole out the punishment. If the law states if it looks like a gun its illegal then the guy is arrested and if the law says the officer sees what looks like a the gun the guy is arrested. If there was a problem, that's what the courts are for
Edit--I hate auto correct. The first go around made no sense
Last edited by Doc; 10-11-2015 at 06:41 AM.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
I don't have the vast experiences with being pulled over that Doc has, but I have always needed to show only my license. If it is something other than a roadblock they run your license anytime you are pulled over. Running the license would reveal the OP; but I don't know that would be probable cause for a search.
I don't have "vast" experience either. I would not know about roadblocks either because I guess I'm not a drunk who drives where and when they have them, like you, so I'll have to rely on your expertise in dealing with those. (I can play that game too).
Pretty common knowledge when pulled over that you will be asked for your driver license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. I had to Google it
http://driving-tests.org/beginner-dr...olice-officer/ from the BEGINNERS DRIVER GUIDE which apparently you didn't read
Last edited by Doc; 10-10-2015 at 08:39 AM.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Doc, in KY, officers do not have to ask for anything but to see the operators license unless the registration sticker is out of date on the plate. The proof of insurance, and registration info are already in their computer database for them to access when running the drivers license. I know we are a backward state, but the powers that be are doing a great job of computerizing all the DMV info for the LEO's ready access.
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
Never driven drunk, in fact never been drunk. I have been through a few roadblocks though. They have all been about the same, ask for your license, ask how you're doing, etc. I have been pulled over a couple of times, but never been cited or asked to produce registration. The registration is pretty useless these days, they can do a database search by your plate number to quickly determine car ownership and insurance.
Florida has the same technology. I suspect MN does as well but I bet if you ask the police officer who posts on this board he will support the idea that when pulled over you should be ready to produce those three documents because that's what the law says you need to do. Doesn't matter that the LEO can check to see if the car is registered and insured. Its not his responsibility to do that, its the drivers. If the officer wants to be nice and do it, fine. If he wants to be a dick and cite you for not having them, he can.
But back to the topic..... I doubt the police tailed this guy for 8 years, waiting to make a stop so they could bust him for having a bee bee gun. I suspect they have better things to do. Or even if they pulled him over and saw he had a conviction 8 years ago and decided to make sure he wasn't violating the terms of his conviction and searched the car, good for them. That's their job. Maybe if 8 years ago the guy hadn't committed a crime, he wouldn't have been in a position that he is in.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
Let's see if they get it right. Looks like the courts there have done a little of everything, they need to standardize on the federal definition, which works well. It also is the commonly accepted definition for the language.
Also a firearm implies a lethality not met by bb guns. By small extension a blow gun could be a firearm as it is an air powered projectile, so is shooting a spitwad now discharging a firearm?
It's just more sound to use the federal definition.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks