What country could this happen in?

[Gilligan]

This is actually insane. Simply..incredibly..insane.

A Virginia businessman has been convicted of violating Washington, D.C. gun laws for possessing what amounts to, wait for it, replica musket balls. For that he was sentenced to time served, fined $50, and forced to enroll in the District's gun-offender registry.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2014/03/26/washtimess-miller-dc-judge-convicts-man-attempting-own-musket-balls

 

[PsyOps]

From the article:

There was much debate over whether the bullets were legal since D.C. residents are allowed to buy antique replica firearms without registering.

The judge seemed inclined to throw out this charge since he repeatedly asked how the bullets could be illegal if the gun that they go in was not.

Once again our well-educated judges show what an education is worth.

I'm curious, though, what this guy did that the cops found this ammo in the first place?

 

[Retrodeb54]

uh oh... here we go again.

 

[Gilligan]

From the article:



Once again our well-educated judges show what an education is worth.

I'm curious, though, what this guy did that the cops found this ammo in the first place?

Went through an ugly divorce.

http://www.freedomfighterradio.net/?p=1073

Of course the mainstream media simply cannot grasp the simple fact that there was absolutely no controlled ammunition found at the home. None.

 

[Tilted]

From the article:



Once again our well-educated judges show what an education is worth.

I'm curious, though, what this guy did that the cops found this ammo in the first place?

I'm not sure why you'd fault the judge's education. Yeah, it's an azzhat law. The judge even seemed to recognize the silliness of the law as applied in this context. But the law says what it says, and it makes Mr. Witaschek's position of the bullets illegal. Contrary to how the piece quoted in the OP characterizes them, we aren't talking about replica musket balls but rather actual bullets. That's based on all the reporting I can find, including the Washington Times piece quoted by the piece quoted in the OP and various other pieces that are critical of Mr. Witaschek's conviction.

The best I can tell, we're talking about something like this: http://www.knightrifles.com/Bloodline-.45-185-20-pack-M900485/

Those are bullets. No, they aren't cartridges, but they are bullets - bullets designed to be used in muzzleloaders / blackpowder firearms. They fall within the definition of "ammunition" provided for in D.C. Code (§ 7-2501.01(2)). That makes it illegal to possess them in D.C. unless you fall under one of the exceptions (e.g. you're a licensed dealer, you hold a valid firearm registration certificate). See D.C. Code 7-2506.01(a). It may have been legal for Mr. Witasheck to possess a firearm that he could have used those bullets in, but D.C. law makes it illegal for him to possess the bullets themselves.

Stupid law, yes. Unconstitutional law in my assessment, yes, based on a proper interpretation of the Second Amendment. But that is what the law says, and the best I can tell the judge interpreted the law correctly.

I wish Mr. Witasheck luck on appeal, hopefully the defense preserved various grounds for appeal (e.g. constitutionality).

 

[Tilted]

Went through an ugly divorce.

http://www.freedomfighterradio.net/?p=1073

Of course the mainstream media simply cannot grasp the simple fact that there was absolutely no controlled ammunition found at the home. None.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when you mention controlled ammunition, but the bullets that he possessed (at least, according to every source I've found) would fall within the definition of ammunition that's provided in the D.C. Code. And so, unless he had a valid firearm registration permit (or fell under one of the other exceptions listed in 7-2506.01(a)), it was illegal for him to possess those bullets. As the law is written it wouldn't seem to matter that he could legally possess the kind of firearm that those kind of bullets were meant to be used with.

Stupid? Sure.

 

[PsyOps]

I'm not sure why you'd fault the judge's education. Yeah, it's an azzhat law. The judge even seemed to recognize the silliness of the law as applied in this context. But the law says what it says, and it makes Mr. Witaschek's position of the bullets illegal. Contrary to how the piece quoted in the OP characterizes them, we aren't talking about replica musket balls but rather actual bullets. That's based on all the reporting I can find, including the Washington Times piece quoted by the piece quoted in the OP and various other pieces that are critical of Mr. Witaschek's conviction.

The best I can tell, we're talking about something like this: http://www.knightrifles.com/Bloodline-.45-185-20-pack-M900485/

Those are bullets. No, they aren't cartridges, but they are bullets - bullets designed to be used in muzzleloaders / blackpowder firearms. They fall within the definition of "ammunition" provided for in D.C. Code (§ 7-2501.01(2)). That makes it illegal to possess them in D.C. unless you fall under one of the exceptions (e.g. you're a licensed dealer, you hold a valid firearm registration certificate). See D.C. Code 7-2506.01(a). It may have been legal for Mr. Witasheck to possess a firearm that he could have used those bullets in, but D.C. law makes it illegal for him to possess the bullets themselves.

Stupid law, yes. Unconstitutional law in my assessment, yes, based on a proper interpretation of the Second Amendment. But that is what the law says, and the best I can tell the judge interpreted the law correctly.

I wish Mr. Witasheck luck on appeal, hopefully the defense preserved various grounds for appeal (e.g. constitutionality).

You know, you’re right. The letter of the law rather than a dose of common sense. I don’t suppose if this judge had dismissed the case on grounds of its stupidity, it could have set precedence that could result in the stupid law from being over-turned? I mean what is the intent of such a law if you have ammo that you can’t even fire? Laws are intended to have the effect of protecting innocent people from harm. Do these judges and lawyers not see it as part of their responsibility to challenge these laws and get them off the books so their courtrooms don’t get clogged up with such nonsense? Is our legal system really this ignorant?

 

[Tilted]

You know, you’re right. The letter of the law rather than a dose of common sense. I don’t suppose if this judge had dismissed the case on grounds of its stupidity, it could have set precedence that could result in the stupid law from being over-turned? I mean what is the intent of such a law if you have ammo that you can’t even fire? Laws are intended to have the effect of protecting innocent people from harm. Do these judges and lawyers not see it as part of their responsibility to challenge these laws and get them off the books so their courtrooms don’t get clogged up with such nonsense? Is our legal system really this ignorant?

Well, then people would complain that judges are legislating from the bench - that they're making up what they want rather than enforcing the laws as written (or assessing their constitutionality). They'd say that it's the legislatures job to write the laws, not judges'; the latter is just supposed to interpret them.

We have way too many laws and many of them, particularly many possible applications of them, are beyond stupid. It's something I point out quite often. We make ####-tons of stuff illegal, or at least arguably illegal because of vague or just overly broad laws, and then we hand the power to law enforcement and prosecutors to decide who they want to go after and seek to punish. It's a major problem with our legal / judicial system, it makes us a nation of men more so than a nation of laws.

But as it is, no, I don't think the judge is empowered to just say - well, I think this law is silly so I'm gonna ignore it. I mean, he could do that, but then he could also be punished in some way or, depending on the circumstances, have a higher court overturn what he'd done. If he's going to refuse to enforce the law as written it would have to be on some recognized legal basis - e.g. it isn't constitutional, it's overly vague. I don't even know that the defense in this case challenged the law as unconstitutional.

 

[itsbob]

You know, you’re right. The letter of the law rather than a dose of common sense. I don’t suppose if this judge had dismissed the case on grounds of its stupidity, it could have set precedence that could result in the stupid law from being over-turned? I mean what is the intent of such a law if you have ammo that you can’t even fire? Laws are intended to have the effect of protecting innocent people from harm. Do these judges and lawyers not see it as part of their responsibility to challenge these laws and get them off the books so their courtrooms don’t get clogged up with such nonsense? Is our legal system really this ignorant?

If he dismissed than nobody would be "injured" and there would no grounds to fight it try to repeal it.. With the conviction he can do both.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Damn, my grandfather had a couple bags of lead shot in the back of his truck used in the winter to give him some rear end traction, could he get charged with a crime for that?

I have a 50 cal brass on my desk at work I picked up for a souvenir after a successful test, i bet they would love that....

 

[PsyOps]

Well, then people would complain that judges are legislating from the bench - that they're making up what they want rather than enforcing the laws as written (or assessing their constitutionality). They'd say that it's the legislatures job to write the laws, not judges'; the latter is just supposed to interpret them.

We have way too many laws and many of them, particularly many possible applications of them, are beyond stupid. It's something I point out quite often. We make ####-tons of stuff illegal, or at least arguably illegal because of vague or just overly broad laws, and then we hand the power to law enforcement and prosecutors to decide who they want to go after and seek to punish. It's a major problem with our legal / judicial system, it makes us a nation of men more so than a nation of laws.

But as it is, no, I don't think the judge is empowered to just say - well, I think this law is silly so I'm gonna ignore it. I mean, he could do that, but then he could also be punished in some way or, depending on the circumstances, have a higher court overturn what he'd done. If he's going to refuse to enforce the law as written it would have to be on some recognized legal basis - e.g. it isn't constitutional, it's overly vague. I don't even know that the defense in this case challenged the law as unconstitutional.

Point taken.

 

[Hijinx]

If you think the law is stupid you should look at the people that wrote it.

It's DC what can you expect.

Heller was complete waste of time ---the idiots in DC can pass more idiotic laws faster than they can reach the Supremes---and they know it ,and do it.

 

[Gilligan]

If the firearm the bullets were intended for is excluded from the DC registration requirements (and it clearly is/was), how then can the ammunition for said firearm be illegally possessed?

 

[GURPS]

If the firearm the bullets were intended for is excluded from the DC registration requirements (and it clearly is/was), how then can the ammunition for said firearm be illegally possessed?

no exception / distinction in the LAW ... that is what you get when Politicians are trying to feel good

 

[Tilted]

If the firearm the bullets were intended for is excluded from the DC registration requirements (and it clearly is/was), how then can the ammunition for said firearm be illegally possessed?

Because the law prohibiting the possession of ammunition doesn’t make exceptions for ammunition that can be used in firearms that are legal to possess without a valid firearm registration certificate (there’s a nuance to this statement that, for 100% accuracy sake’s might be relevant, but it isn’t relevant to the point here so I’m not going to get lost in it now). It doesn’t make exceptions for certain ammunition, it makes exceptions for certain people. If you want to legally possess ammunition in D.C., you have to have a firearm registration certificate - not necessarily one for a gun that can fire the kind of ammunition you have, but one for some firearm. (Or, of course, you can qualify under one of the other exceptions; but Mr. Witaschek apparently doesn’t qualify based on them either.)

I can think of reasons why they would have set the law up to work that way (which I’ll share if you’re interested). But I suppose it’s also possible that it is the result of oversight on the part of legislators, it’s possible that they didn’t pay enough attention to how various parts of the law (perhaps as amended) would interact with others.

That said, and now that I’ve looked into it a little more, it isn’t clear to me that all of the firearms that this kind of ammunition is intended to be used with are excluded from D.C’s registration requirements. Certainly some of them are, but the best I’ve been able to figure out some of them aren’t. I’m happy to be convinced otherwise, I can’t say I’ve gone through every bit of potentially relevant D.C. Code to make sure.

If you look carefully you’ll find that the definition of “antique firearm” that’s found in D.C. Code is not the same as the definition found in federal law (specifically, 18 USC § 921(a)(18)). Notably, the definition found in D.C. Code doesn’t include all black powder muzzleloaders, it only includes those manufactured before 1898 and replicas thereof. It would be based on that definition that certain muzzleloaders would be excluded from D.C.’s registration requirement. I’d also note that even the federal law definition wouldn’t include muzzleloaders that can readily be converted to accept fixed ammunition.

Further, leaving other muzzleloaders out of the definition in D.C. Code seems intentionally. The language used in D.C. Code is exactly the same as the language used in the federal law definition (and it’s complicated enough language that that can’t be explained by coincidence alone), except that the additional federal law provision that extends the definition to other muzzleloaders is left off. (And obviously, the federal law definition having that additional provision suggests that all muzzleloaders aren’t meant to be referred to by the rest of the definition, which makes up the entirety of the D.C. Code definition.)

So I’m not sure that modern muzzleloaders, which these bullets can be used with and which they are designed to be used with, are excluded from D.C.’s registration requirement.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

If anything, be pissed at the DA for selectively enforcing the law.

David Gregory wasn't charged because they thought he didn't cause any public harm.....

 

[Gilligan]

So I’m not sure that modern muzzleloaders, which these bullets can be used with and which they are designed to be used with, are excluded from D.C.’s registration requirement.

Interesting...and not surprising either. But there is nothing I'm aware of that is would prevent those bullets from being used in any muzzleloader of the correct caliber..modern, replica or true antique. So who can look at any bullet and make a determination from that alone exactly what weapon will fire it?

 

[Tilted]

If anything, be pissed at the DA for selectively enforcing the law.

David Gregory wasn't charged because they thought he didn't cause any public harm.....

Oh, there's plenty of reason to be upset by this situation. What you mention is a ways down the list I think (though I'm not suggesting that it isn't, in itself, a valid gripe).

As written, the law outlaws the possession of shot. Shot. Not shotgun shells. Shot. Think about that. It outlaws the possession of shot, and primers, and propellant powder designed or intended to be used in firearms - those things aren't outlawed in combination, they're each outlawed individually.

 

[Gilligan]

Hypothetically speaking...of course...I have to wonder what would happen if someone randomly sprinkled spent brass and empty shells all over DC.

 

[Tilted]

Interesting...and not surprising either. But there is nothing I'm aware of that is would prevent those bullets from being used in any muzzleloader of the correct caliber..modern, replica or true antique. So who can look at any bullet and make a determination from that alone exactly what weapon will fire it?

For purposes of this law, I don't think they would need to. If those bullets are designed or intended to be used in a modern muzzleloader (even in addition to being designed or intended to be used in an antique firearm), then they would seem to fall under the definition of ammunition found in D.C. Code and it would be illegal to possess them unless you qualify for one of the exceptions.