Man arrested in Monroe for carrying a pellet gun

KBCraig · Nov 16, 2009

imported post

By my reading, RS 14:95 doesn't apply.

http://www.ktbs.com/news/man-arrested-for-carrying-a-gun-in-the-mall/

Posted: Nov 16, 2009 9:33 AM
Updated: Nov 16, 2009 9:50 AM

Monroe police officers arrested a man on charges of carrying a weapon in the mall.

Authorities say Joshua Willis, 20, was walking around the Pecanland Mall in Monroe with a gun. Willis was said to have been seen carrying the gun in the waistband of his pants. As police recovered the weapon, they found it was a pellet gun that looked like a semi-automatic handgun.

Willis was arrested on charges of illegally carrying a weapon and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon.

Louisiana Carry · Nov 16, 2009

imported post

If you'regonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.

KBCraig · Nov 16, 2009

imported post

Agreed, he's an idiot, but that doesn't make him guilty. Do you agree with me that a pellet gun doesn't fit the definition of "weapon" in 14:95?

(BTW, I sent you a private message a couple of days ago. Check your inbox.)

georg jetson · Nov 16, 2009

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

Agreed, he's an idiot, but that doesn't make him guilty. Do you agree with me that a pellet gun doesn't fit the definition of "weapon" in 14:95?

(BTW, I sent you a private message a couple of days ago. Check your inbox.)

14:95
1) The intentional concealment of any firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, on one's person; or

From what I have read, the officer thinks he was concealing some instrument "intended" for probable use as a dangerous weapon on one's person.

So your question is... what is the definition of "dangerous weapon?"

14:2 gives
3) "Dangerous weapon" includes any gas, liquid or other substance or instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

Hmmmm. Can a pellet gun produce such a result??

firefighter9158 · Nov 17, 2009

imported post

Yes , a pellet pistol Can penetrate the body, I know a guy that was shot with one, the pellet lodged 1 cm from his heart, the doctor stated that if the pellet had been 1cm to the right, it would have killed him.

sraacke · Nov 17, 2009

imported post

OK, I can get the felon with a gun charge. What about teh illegal carrying of such? I assume while it may be against Mall POLICY to have a weapon, I doubt it's against the LAW. So maybe he was attempting to conceal it when he had it tucked in his wasteband and someone noticed the bulge? As I understand the mall policies, they are just like any other store in that they may have policies against weapons on site and can ask you to leave. If you don't leave they can have you arrested for refusing to leave/tresspass. But it's not actually against the law to carry in a store/mall.

georg jetson · Nov 17, 2009

imported post

The best I can ascertain is thatthe pellet gun was "concealed" in the waistband of his pants. That's the only way 14:95 would apply here.

KBCraig · Nov 17, 2009

imported post

backdraft522 wrote:

Yes , a pellet pistol Can penetrate the body, I know a guy that was shot with one, the pellet lodged 1 cm from his heart, the doctor stated that if the pellet had been 1cm to the right, it would have killed him.

The question isn't whether a pellet pistol can cause harm, it's whether it is "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".

I submit that it is not. Especially if it's not a .177, but instead is a 5mm Airsoft.

firefighter9158 · Nov 17, 2009

imported post

The law is ''Convicted Felon In Possession Of A Firearm '', not ''Convicted Felon In Possession Of a Weapon'', Felon's may possess a weapon, such as pocket knifes, Baseball bat, Pellet gun, Bow & Arrow etc. etc. I think all of those charges will probably be dropped. Also, a pellet pistol is NOT a firearm !

georg jetson · Nov 17, 2009

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

backdraft522 wrote:

Yes , a pellet pistol Can penetrate the body, I know a guy that was shot with one, the pellet lodged 1 cm from his heart, the doctor stated that if the pellet had been 1cm to the right, it would have killed him.

Click to expand...

The question isn't whether a pellet pistol can cause harm, it's whether it is "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".

I submit that it is not. Especially if it's not a .177, but instead is a 5mm Airsoft.

Ok... what you could do at trial (if you had done such a thing and were charged) would be to make the prosecution proof EVERY element of the crime. The burden of proof is on the state. This is one of those cases where the defendant MAY indeed be innocent(of ONE of the charges) but, has to go to trial to win.

georg jetson · Nov 17, 2009

imported post

backdraft522 wrote:

The law is ''Convicted Felon In Possession Of A Firearm '', not ''Convicted Felon In Possession Of a Weapon'', Felon's may possess a weapon, such as pocket knifes, Baseball bat, Pellet gun, Bow & Arrow etc. etc. I think all of those charges will probably be dropped. Also, a pellet pistol is NOT a firearm !

Nope... It's La. RS 14:95.1. Possession of firearm or carrying concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies... of course this is state law we speak of.

XD-GEM · Nov 18, 2009

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

backdraft522 wrote:

Yes , a pellet pistol Can penetrate the body, I know a guy that was shot with one, the pellet lodged 1 cm from his heart, the doctor stated that if the pellet had been 1cm to the right, it would have killed him.

Click to expand...

The question isn't whether a pellet pistol can cause harm, it's whether it is "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".

I submit that it is not. Especially if it's not a .177, but instead is a 5mm Airsoft.

In Louisiana, you would be wrong. I was on the voir dire for a jury for a guy who carried out a robbery with an airsoft that he had painted to look like a Berretta. The judge said that under Louisiana law, anything that could cause death or serious bodily injury would qualify as a weapon. Since you can shoot someone's eye out with it, it's a dangerous weapon. I can't remember his name, unfortunately or I would provide you a link to the case.

The guy was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

ETA guy's name was Oneil Carter. here's a link to his story:
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/pellet_gun_bandit_heading_to_p.html

KBCraig · Nov 19, 2009

imported post

XD-GEM, that is not the first time a judge has directed a jury that the law said something other than what it plainly says.

A pencil can cause death or serious bodily harm, but that doesn't make it "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".

Louisiana Carry · Dec 2, 2009

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

XD-GEM, that is not the first time a judge has directed a jury that the law said something other than what it plainly says.

A pencil can cause death or serious bodily harm, but that doesn't make it "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".

It does if you rob a bank with it. :?

turbodog · Dec 2, 2009

imported post

Louisiana Carry wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

XD-GEM, that is not the first time a judge has directed a jury that the law said something other than what it plainly says.

A pencil can cause death or serious bodily harm, but that doesn't make it "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".

Click to expand...

It does if you rob a bank with it. :?

So, it comes down to, as many things with the law seem to, a matter of a persons intent?

georg jetson · Dec 3, 2009

imported post

turbodog wrote:

Louisiana Carry wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

XD-GEM, that is not the first time a judge has directed a jury that the law said something other than what it plainly says.

A pencil can cause death or serious bodily harm, but that doesn't make it "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".

Click to expand...

It does if you rob a bank with it. :?

Click to expand...

So, it comes down to, as many things with the law seem to, a matter of a persons intent?

That's why the word "intended" is used

.

LA Confederate · Dec 3, 2009

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

XD-GEM, that is not the first time a judge has directed a jury that the law said something other than what it plainly says.

A pencil can cause death or serious bodily harm, but that doesn't make it "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".

True, but a pellet gun is customarily used as a dangerous weapon. Many hunters I know use a pellet gun to hunt squirrels with for example. It can be used to cause death. I know as a kid I had a pellet gun that looked just like a .357 revolver and I used it to shoot all sorts of critters in the woods.

KBCraig · Dec 3, 2009

imported post

LA Confederate wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

XD-GEM, that is not the first time a judge has directed a jury that the law said something other than what it plainly says.

A pencil can cause death or serious bodily harm, but that doesn't make it "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".

Click to expand...

True, but a pellet gun is customarily used as a dangerous weapon. Many hunters I know use a pellet gun to hunt squirrels with for example. It can be used to cause death. I know as a kid I had a pellet gun that looked just like a .357 revolver and I used it to shoot all sorts of critters in the woods.

If you extend it to mean non-humans, then you're in possession of a deadly weapon every time you get in your car, which "customarily" has splattered bug corpses all over the front.

LA Confederate · Dec 4, 2009

imported post

KBCraig wrote:
If you extend it to mean non-humans, then you're in possession of a deadly weapon every time you get in your car, which "customarily" has splattered bug corpses all over the front.[/quote]

That is an inaccurate correlation. The car's primary purpose is to transport people from point A to point B whereas the pellet gun's purpose is to kill. It's based on the primary use for which you have the tool.

turbodog · Dec 4, 2009

imported post

georg jetson wrote:

turbodog wrote:

Louisiana Carry wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

XD-GEM, that is not the first time a judge has directed a jury that the law said something other than what it plainly says.

A pencil can cause death or serious bodily harm, but that doesn't make it "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".

Click to expand...

It does if you rob a bank with it. :?

Click to expand...

So, it comes down to, as many things with the law seem to, a matter of a persons intent?

Click to expand...

That's why the word "intended" is used .

LOL yeah, I got that George. Once again, my phraseology isn't up to par. But if one paints a squirtgun to look real and uses it to rob someone, you're charged with armed robbery even though a squirtgun is never "customarily used" as a dangerous weapon, nor is it possible to "intend" to use it as a dangerous weapon as it cannot ever BE a dangerous weapon. It's a hollow plastic toy. If I threw it at you, could you, in all honesty, say you were actually hurt by it beyond an imediate sting? I've stubbed my toe worse than that. Knowing what it is, I just can't call it a weapon.

To use it in a robbery would be better described as "intent to intimidate" by fooling a victim into thinking it was a real weapon and robbing them because of that.

Man arrested in Monroe for carrying a pellet gun

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member