Joined
·
72,842 Posts
So, this guy is cleaning out granny's garage and finds an old shotgun. Not sure what to do with such a dangerous instrumentality, he locks it in a bathroom.
A week later, Officer Friendly appears looking for Mr. Juvenile offender. Mr. Williams, being the dutiful citizen that he is, helps Officer Friendly.
They've caught him with a gun . . .
Officer Friendly arrests Mr. Williams but not Mr. Juvenile Offender, who was, as Mr. Williams initially stated, not at the house.
Mr. Williams contends he did not know the shotgun was illegal. Ignorance is no excuse!
The Opinion
The Concurrence
The Dissenter, who had the silly thought that the case implicated the constitutional right to keep and bear arms
Somehow, the opinion has to drag out how the law is "for the children."
What is really interesting about this case is that it cites U.S. v. Staples, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated that one must know about the illegal characteristics of the gun in order to violate the law. One of the reasons is that somebody who inherits a gun but leaves it untouched in an "attic or basement" would be subject to prosecution otherwise. In THIS case, it was granny's, and he put it back in granny's room.
Court held:
Now this gun's overall length is 1 and 5/8 inches shorter than allowed, and the barrel is 5 inches shorter than allowed.Mr. Williams took the shotgun and placed it in the bathroom that was inside the back bedroom -- the bedroom that had been his grandmother's -- because there was a lock on that door and the garage did not have a lock. He then locked the door to the bedroom to prevent others from stumbling upon the gun and hurting themselves.
A week later, Officer Friendly appears looking for Mr. Juvenile offender. Mr. Williams, being the dutiful citizen that he is, helps Officer Friendly.
You know it means no mercyMr. Williams said that the juvenile was not at his grandmother's house. At Deputy Malloque's request Mr. Williams allowed him to search the house for the juvenile. He unlocked the bedroom door to allow Deputy Malloque to look for the juvenile. Inside the bathroom Malloque saw the shotgun sitting on top of the toilet tank and noticed that the barrel was shorter than allowed by law.
They've caught him with a gun . . .
Officer Friendly arrests Mr. Williams but not Mr. Juvenile Offender, who was, as Mr. Williams initially stated, not at the house.
Mr. Williams contends he did not know the shotgun was illegal. Ignorance is no excuse!
The Opinion
The Concurrence
The Dissenter, who had the silly thought that the case implicated the constitutional right to keep and bear arms
Somehow, the opinion has to drag out how the law is "for the children."
What is really interesting about this case is that it cites U.S. v. Staples, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated that one must know about the illegal characteristics of the gun in order to violate the law. One of the reasons is that somebody who inherits a gun but leaves it untouched in an "attic or basement" would be subject to prosecution otherwise. In THIS case, it was granny's, and he put it back in granny's room.
Court held:
Williams' weapon was considerably modified. The barrel was shortened to only 13 inches and the overall length of the shotgun was only 24 3/8 inches. We think the jury was more than justified in finding that he knew or should have known that the barrel of his shotgun was less than 18 inches (5 inches shorter than the law permits) and thus met the legal definition of a short-barreled shotgun.