« Record for criminal stupidity: robbing a gun store | Main | Justice Breyer and Active Liberty »
Amusing note on definitions
I've seen this in some state laws, but only now realized it was the case in Arizona... the legislature has managed to define "firearm" out of existence!
Arizona Revised Statutes, title 13, chapter 31, contains all the firearm law restrictions, including prohibited possessors, concealed carry, etc.. Section 3101 is the definition section, which applies to the entire chapter. Here are the two key definitions:
"3. "Explosive" means any dynamite, nitroglycerine, black powder or other similar explosive material including plastic explosives. Explosive does not include ammunition or ammunition components such as primers, percussion caps, smokeless powder, black powder and black powder substitutes used for hand loading purposes."
"4. "Firearm" means any loaded or unloaded handgun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other weapon that will expel, is designed to expel or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive."
So firearm is anything that expels a project by explosive, but explosive does not include ammunition or gunpowder.....
{update: note that key is that gunpowder and ammo are not explosives. So a gun that shoots those is not legally a "firearm." A spud gun probably wouldn't qualify, either, unless the hair spray or whatever used to power it is considered an "explosive." A good argument could be made that, even tho it will detonate, it isn't, since the statute lists nitro, blasting powder, plastic explosive and other "similar" explosives, and hair spray vapor has little similarity there.
I've seen another definition of "firearm" somewhere in statutes -- that which expels a projectile by action of an expanding gas. Now, that would encompass spud guns, not to mention BB guns and airsoft guns. Maybe cork guns. But it's not the definition used here.]
Comments
Nope.
Read section 4 again. A 'firearm' is any loaded or unloaded [handgun], [pistol], [revolver], [rifle], [shotgun], or [other weapon that will expel, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive].
Then, back to 3: Explosive does not include [ammunition] or [ammunition components such as primers, percussion caps, smokeless powder, black powder and black powder substitutes used for hand loading purposes].
First, there are all sorts of firearms by these definisions, notably handguns, pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns. Their existence is not contingent upon any definition of explosive.
What's outlawed by these definitions are other weapons which expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, if that explosive isn't ammunition or ammunition components.
A potato gun, which propels a projectile by the action of an explosive, the explosive being a mixture of air and hairspray propellant, would be considered a firearm, ferinstance.
Posted by: Phanatic at November 21, 2005 12:49 PM
Kewl!
Now AZ firarms laws only apply to spud guns.
This makes CCW much easier.
Posted by: Kristopher at November 21, 2005 01:34 PM
No, AZ firearms laws apply to handguns, pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and spud guns.
Posted by: Phanatic at November 21, 2005 04:41 PM
No. AZ firearms laws still apply to pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc., because they "may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive", as they may all be readily converted to some variant of a spud gun.
Posted by: Windy Wilson at November 23, 2005 10:30 AM
i was wondering if you can carry a black powder revolver without a ccw in wa state if anybody knows, i cant find it on my local laws reguarding concealed carry. thanx
Posted by: Dave at December 5, 2006 11:13 PM