Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Says Muzzleloaders are Legally Firearms
Al P ^ | 6/28/06 | staff

Posted on 06/29/2006 10:22:18 AM PDT by Redcloak

Supreme Court Says Muzzleloaders are Legally Firearms
Cheyenne- Posted 6/28/06
Associated Press

The ruling comes in an appeal by a convicted felon who says he thought he was allowed to own a black powder rifle. Such rifles are excluded from the federal definition of firearms.

A spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department says the ruling will come as a blow to some Wyoming residents who have felony convictions in the past but who are now dedicated black powder hunters.

Governor Freudenthal says he would favor changing the state law to allow convicted felons to continue to hunt with black powder guns.

The court ruling released Wednesday upholds the conviction of Frank Alan Harris in a Casper court on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

According to the court ruling, Harris was previously convicted of aggravated robbery and robbery.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; US: Wyoming
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; blackpowder; felons; firearms; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last

1 posted on 06/29/2006 10:22:20 AM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

WYOMING Supreme Court, right? not SCOTUS?


2 posted on 06/29/2006 10:23:06 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

This should be interesting.


3 posted on 06/29/2006 10:23:16 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
This thread has just added to the FreeRepublic "bang list" (firearms interest list) by adding the keyword "banglist".

Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it.

Let Freedom Ring,

Gun Facts v4.0!

Click the pic to go to the Gun Facts v4.0 download page!

4 posted on 06/29/2006 10:24:01 AM PDT by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

+


5 posted on 06/29/2006 10:25:27 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

Well, through out history there have been a lot of people shot with them.


6 posted on 06/29/2006 10:26:42 AM PDT by U S Army EOD (I SHOT DOWN TWA 800 AND FR IS CLOSING IN ON ME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

Some quibble about legal definition? Seems like if it is a weapon and works by fire it is a firearm.


7 posted on 06/29/2006 10:27:01 AM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

This opens the door for background checks to purchase muzzleloaders.


8 posted on 06/29/2006 10:31:10 AM PDT by flying Elvis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flying Elvis

Smokeless powder is a passing fad.


9 posted on 06/29/2006 10:33:11 AM PDT by Concho ((I'd rather be hunting.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

Y'know, I'm just as Pro 2A as anyone, but I've always wondered about this.


10 posted on 06/29/2006 10:35:40 AM PDT by VoiceOfBruck (Are we not men we are De Vos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flying Elvis
This opens the door for background checks to purchase muzzleloaders.

Darn right it does!

11 posted on 06/29/2006 10:36:39 AM PDT by beltfed308 (Nanny Stater's are Ameba's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Some quibble about legal definition? Seems like if it is a weapon and works by fire it is a firearm.

I'd say yes, generally, except that apparently the state has a law defining them and specifically excludes black powder muzzle loaders. If that is so, this ruling sounds like capriciousness.

12 posted on 06/29/2006 10:36:42 AM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

It would avoid a lot of hassle if they'd simply amend the law concerning felons and not the laws about firearms. I think many states simply prohibit felons from possessing deadly weapons. Period. That would do it. Next case.


13 posted on 06/29/2006 10:37:10 AM PDT by Migraine (...diversity is great (until it happens to you)...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Migraine

It would also avoid a lot of hassle if jaywalking wasn't a felony.


14 posted on 06/29/2006 10:41:39 AM PDT by BikerJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: beltfed308

Of course, not to recognize it as a firearm, opens the door to banning them altogether.


15 posted on 06/29/2006 10:42:05 AM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lepton

Probably. Somewhere there is a definition of water as a 'mineral.' It seems a stretch, but it amounts to having to get a permit from some gov't agency to put in a water well on your own property if you don't outright own subsurface rights. Well, if the law as it stands doesn't stand community standards or common sense it won't last.


16 posted on 06/29/2006 10:47:32 AM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
You want an "assualt rifle"?

This weapon has killed more people in the United States than any other single weapon:


17 posted on 06/29/2006 10:48:18 AM PDT by Fido969 (The law is an ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fido969
You want an "assualt rifle"?

This weapon has killed more people in the United States than any other single weapon:

And according to federal law, that's not a firearm.

18 posted on 06/29/2006 10:50:31 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

Back then, all rifles were 'assault rifles'.


19 posted on 06/29/2006 10:51:00 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: VoiceOfBruck

Well, sure, but black powder weapons do not lend themselves to criminal activity.

A claw hammer would probably be a more effective weapon if you were looking to take up a life of mayhem.

If you were looking to 'disarm" criminals, you would have to prohibit kitchen knives, many tools, household chemicals and even automobiles.

Black powder should be exempt because you have to draw the line somewhere.

Anyway, a criminal act should be a crime because it is a criminal act. Robbery, rape, assault and murder are the crimes, whether they are committed with a weapon, brute force or whatever. Making mere possession of firearms illegal just creates new crime and makes new criminals.


20 posted on 06/29/2006 10:55:04 AM PDT by Fido969 (The law is an ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VoiceOfBruck

Well, sure, but black powder weapons do not lend themselves to criminal activity.

A claw hammer would probably be a more effective weapon if you were looking to take up a life of mayhem.

If you were looking to 'disarm" criminals, you would have to prohibit kitchen knives, many tools, household chemicals and even automobiles.

Black powder should be exempt because you have to draw the line somewhere.

Anyway, a criminal act should be a crime because it is a criminal act. Robbery, rape, assault and murder are the crimes, whether they are committed with a weapon, brute force or whatever. Making mere possession of firearms illegal just creates new crime and makes new criminals.


21 posted on 06/29/2006 10:56:33 AM PDT by Fido969 (The law is an ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

Remember Frank and Jessie James?


22 posted on 06/29/2006 10:58:29 AM PDT by U S Army EOD (I SHOT DOWN TWA 800 AND FR IS CLOSING IN ON ME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Of course, not to recognize it as a firearm, opens the door to banning them altogether.

You hit the nail on the head.

23 posted on 06/29/2006 10:59:10 AM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
"Shall not be...."

Oh... never mind. Suffice it to say that the GCA of '68 and a lot of other unConstitutional legislation leaves open "legal" doors that should never have been unlocked.

If someone is that dang dangerous to "society", then just friggin' keep 'em locked up or EXECUTE them. Once the debt is paid, let 'em get on with life.

24 posted on 06/29/2006 11:06:12 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Actually, the Feds only regulate 100 year old or less firearms.

Any firearm manufactured over 100 years ago, or is a reproduction of one, is not regulated.

Just think, the 1911 .45ACP is 95 years old, and counting...

25 posted on 06/29/2006 11:23:51 AM PDT by Burro Driver (Arm the Homeless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Migraine
It would avoid a lot of hassle if they'd simply amend the law concerning felons

They're doing that as hard and fast as they can.

Pretty soon, we'll all be criminals.

Then, nobody will pass the background check and "Voila!" mission accomplished.

26 posted on 06/29/2006 11:28:18 AM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Burro Driver
Any firearm manufactured over 100 years ago, or is a reproduction of one, is not regulated.

Not true or else a lot of single action pistols and some revolvers would be unregulated by now.

27 posted on 06/29/2006 11:32:05 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (If Christians can go nuclear in a biblical way, would the Israelis go nuclear in a talmudic way?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

is there a distinction between muzzle and breech loading black powder rifles? for example, the 45-70 gets best performance from black powder.


28 posted on 06/29/2006 11:37:44 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
There's always a qualifier, and here it is...

The BATFE decided that "Certian" cartridge weapons will be regulated. They keep a list on their website, but don't always maintain it, and don't post changes.

Hence, you can buy almost any 100 year old .22 (for example) or shotgun without any paperwork, and ship it in the mail, but you are not going to get certian other listed weapons until the BATFE gets around to upgrading the C&R and FFL lists.

29 posted on 06/29/2006 11:42:57 AM PDT by Burro Driver (Arm the Homeless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I agree, if an ex-con is too dangerous to have firearms then why isn't he still behind bars? I have no problem with nonviolent convicted felons having the right to defend themselves with firearms. Nonviolent felons need protection from violent criminals just like you and me (and maybe have more of a reason to because they know how bad violent criminals really are!). If we are not careful with discriminating between violent and nonviolent crime even the slightest jaywalker will be striped of the right to defend themselves with firearms.
30 posted on 06/29/2006 11:46:11 AM PDT by 2001convSVT ("People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
It was a State high court ruling. Here is the version of the Al P story in the Billings Gazette that makes that point more clearly.
31 posted on 06/29/2006 11:47:11 AM PDT by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

If they have served thier time, these rights should be restored. If they haven't served thier time, why are they out?


32 posted on 06/29/2006 11:48:07 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

Yes, I understand; it just seems like an odd place to draw the line. OTOH, I don't guess too many banks have been held up with cap-and-balls lately.

And of course laws and rulings like this just serve to magnify the point that the law is powerless to affect the behavior of lawbreakers (who aren't already locked up). If an ex-con is going to hold up a 7-11 or off his ex, he's not going to be thinking, I'll get in less trouble if I use my flintlock!


33 posted on 06/29/2006 11:50:13 AM PDT by VoiceOfBruck (Are we not men we are De Vos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Migraine

It would avoid a lot of hassle if they'd simply amend the law concerning felons and not the laws about firearms. I think many states simply prohibit felons from possessing deadly weapons. Period. That would do it. Next case.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Simple solutions are easy for those who fail to think! You have just advocated banning dang near everything! Do you have any idea how deadly a simple claw hammer is in the hands of an experienced carpenter? Let's not even talk about chainsaws!


34 posted on 06/29/2006 11:52:11 AM PDT by RipSawyer (Does anybody still believe this is a free country?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

How many gang-bangers are packing Springfield muskets?


35 posted on 06/29/2006 11:52:51 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Pretty soon, we'll all be criminals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Pretty soon" passed us by a generation or two back, it ain't so pretty anymore.


36 posted on 06/29/2006 11:53:32 AM PDT by RipSawyer (Does anybody still believe this is a free country?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

Felons lose some of their civil rights even after serving their prison sentence. They cannot vote either.


37 posted on 06/29/2006 11:54:48 AM PDT by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Burro Driver

It doesn't work that way. Guns manufactured before 1898 are considered antiques. There's also a classification called "Curios & Relics", but they're still considered firearms. In fact, most machine guns made before 1945 have C&R status, but the laws still apply to them.


38 posted on 06/29/2006 11:56:12 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

According to NY law, neither are rifles or shotguns.

In law, definitions are verrrry important - and often NOT what is meant in common venacular.


39 posted on 06/29/2006 11:56:49 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Burro Driver

The trick will be FINDING a 1911 over 100 years old, functional, and not being so valuable as to preclude reasonable use.


40 posted on 06/29/2006 11:58:37 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

Name another right they lose.
Name another Bill Of Rights right they lose.


41 posted on 06/29/2006 12:00:17 PM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

civil rights are not Constitutionally protected.


42 posted on 06/29/2006 12:05:11 PM PDT by SFC Chromey (We are at war with Islamofascism, now ACT LIKE IT, PRESIDENT BUSH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
They can't serve in elective office. IIRC, their 4th Amendment rights are also impaired; the police can search their persons and property more easily than would otherwise be the case. They can lose their freedom to travel as well as their freedom of association. (i.e. a paroled gangbanger can be told not to "hang wid his homies" and would have to ask permission to visit his dying mom in another state.)

The felonious act is a serious breach of the individual's relationship to the rest of society. Spending a little time getting his three hots and a cot doesn't repair that breach.

43 posted on 06/29/2006 12:09:56 PM PDT by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus
How many gang-bangers are packing Springfield muskets?

I'm sure the British Regulars considered the Massachussets Militia to be not much more than "Gang-bangers". ;)

44 posted on 06/29/2006 12:22:44 PM PDT by Tallguy (When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
Felons lose some of their civil rights ...

I know. I don't think the practice is just.

45 posted on 06/29/2006 12:41:50 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
You can order old (Model 1896)Mauser rifles in working condition through the mail, no permit required, so I believe the 100-year rule applies at least to rifles.

Until 1968 you could order any shotgun, rifle or pistol through the mail...

46 posted on 06/29/2006 12:46:02 PM PDT by Max in Utah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
The trick will be FINDING a 1911 over 100 years old, functional, and not being so valuable as to preclude reasonable use.

why would anyone want to own a gun that they wouldn't or couldn't use?
47 posted on 06/29/2006 1:31:51 PM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: flying Elvis

That and needing to purchase from an FFL or go through one if you buy one on the internet.


48 posted on 06/29/2006 2:02:57 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.


49 posted on 06/29/2006 2:03:54 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Migraine
It would avoid a lot of hassle if they'd simply amend the law concerning felons and not the laws about firearms. I think many states simply prohibit felons from possessing deadly weapons.

A feel-good and immoral law.

50 posted on 06/29/2006 2:05:50 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson