Latest Headlines
- Softball Team Remembers Teammate Killed In Pace Wreck
- Rainy And Warmer Pattern Through Saturday Night
- ECFR Says McDavid Mobile Home Fire Was Sparked By Trash Fire; Firefighters Respond To Ascend
- Vote-By-Mail Ballots Mailed For 2025 Special Primary Election
- Two More Nights Planned For Christmas Lights, Hayride, Goats In Pajamas At Bratt Ranch
- OK, So It’s After Christmas. When Is My Next Trash Collection Day?
- FHP Seeks Info On Fatal HIt And Run In JCPenney Parking Lot
- Two Charged After Backpack Found With Drugs, Cell Phones Near Atmore Prison
- First Responders Put On Christmas Light Show For Children’s Hospital Patients (With Gallery)
- Santa And Mrs. Claus Take Last Minute Trip Through Century, Byrneville
Appeals Court Overturns Escambia Man’s Conviction In Gun Replica Case
December 27, 2013
An appeals court Thursday sided with an Escambia County man arrested for possessing a gun as a convicted felon, finding that a state law related to replicas of antique guns is unconstitutionally vague.
A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of Christopher Douglas Weeks, who was arrested in February 2012 in Santa Rosa County by the Florida Fish and & Wildlife Conservation Commission on charges including possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Weeks pleaded no contest to the gun-possession charge after a judge denied arguments that it should be dismissed.
But the appeals court agreed with Weeks’ arguments, which focused on a legal definition of “firearm” that excluded antique firearms manufactured in 1918 or earlier and replicas of such antiques.
“Weeks possessed a black powder muzzle loader rifle with a percussion cap firing system,” said Thursday’s ruling, written by appeals-court Judge William Van Nortwick. “It is undisputed that this type of firing system is of ancient vintage. His firearm also had a scope. Given the type of firing system, his firearm was arguably a replica of an antique, regardless of the scope.”
Prosecutors argued that the gun was not an antique replica because of the scope. But the appeals court ruled that the law banning possessions of guns by convicted felons was unconstitutionally vague as it related to the meaning of a firearm.
The court said the legal definition “does not give adequate notice of what type of firearm may be lawfully carried by a convicted felon and, because of the imprecision, may invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
Comments
26 Responses to “Appeals Court Overturns Escambia Man’s Conviction In Gun Replica Case”
I am an ex-felon who has paid my debt to society in full, yet i am stigmatized for life and banned from my GOD given rights because of past mistakes. This is a dangerous precedent because if they can take your Second Amendment rights for life, then what’s to stop them from taking you First Amendment rights for life, even after paying your debt to society in full?
The first thing tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao did was criminalize gun ownership and disarm the citizenry. The Second Amendment was placed there to enable Americans to protect our freedoms from those who would have this great country become a totalitarian police state, and an armed citizenry is the only way to do that.
A scope does not make an antique firearm modern, by any means.
The first rifle scopes were made around 1840, and manufactured, starting in 1855, by William Malcolm. They were primitive by modern standards and of low power. They were commonly used by Civil War snipers, and buffalo hunters used them for long range shots.
Replica Malcolm scopes can be purchased new from $250 to $400 through muzzle loading suppliers.
REGARDING:
“The charge of “felony” should be reserved for heinous crimes only. Taking away someone’s rights to vote or own a firearm is severe.”
Just to be certain, you don’t believe any of the following for which he was convicted should be felonies?
GRAND THEFT 300 OR MORE LESS THAN 20000
DEAL IN STOLEN PROPERTY
DEAL IN STOLEN PROPERTY ORGANIZED
FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF PROP TO PAWNBROKER
STALKING
VIOLATION OF AN INJ FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Not convicted here but arrested for transfer for felony charges in a nearby county: FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE
Should people who practice preying on others be treated better than those they prey upon?
I’m not talking about restoration of rights after keeping nose clean for a while.
I’m talking about the initial treatment of the above crimes.
David for safe homes, property and lives
I agree with BettyH. The charge of “felony” should be reserved for heinous crimes only. Taking away someone’s rights to vote or own a firearm is severe.
@Jeeperman, rifle scopes and stainless steel have been around over 100 years.
100 years as in antique. Here in America when an artifact or object reaches 100 years of age it is generally considered an antique.
While on the subject of antiques, I still bird hunt with the 1902 Browning Auto 5 that belonged originally to my Great Grandfather. BTW other than a few unpaid parking tickets in Europe, my record is clean.
I would suggest that if a person is a convicted felon, convicted of a non violent offense, they should petition to have their civil rights restored.
Blame the lawmakers for making a vague law.
The judge can then use that vagueness either way.
If the scope on the muzzle loader rendered it a “modern” firearm, then the prosecutor could say a chromed or stainless steel barrel muzzle loader is also a “modern” firearm.
@Betty H., I cannot say that all FWC officers are jerks, but they certainly seem to show up at times when they are least needed. Be observant when camping on Escambia River as those 4 stroke outboards they use are quite and you cannot hear them as they approach. Best to keep things stowed away when not in use.
I just show them my management pass and permits and that usually sends them on their way. Remember that these officers are observing you just as you are observing them. Keep things lite and easy, maintain eye contact and most of all be polite as there is no percentage in rudeness. Works for me and have a good day.
To answer the “Hunting” question. The FWC now runs radar and does traffic stops/enforcements on public, state and federal roads.
Marshall you do still have to measure powder, even if you have premeasured powder packs you still have to ram the slug or ball to keep from having any gaps between the powder and the projectile. Any gaps can cause the weapon to blow up in your face or the ball to become lodged midway down the barrel, thats why they have ram rods, it’s not just for looks.
FWC are jerks anyway..Nothing but a bunch of wanna be cops. I am happy this guy won. He was hunting..not robbing a bank. It’s stupid that a felon who committed a non violent crime maybe 20 years or more ago can’t enjoy his favorite past time and stay out of trouble. If a felon stays straight for 20 years and is a good citizen he should get his rights restored…IMO
Henry Coe – You need to read up on current muzzle loaders…many now have Rifled Barrels and no longer use Ball Ammo. They are very accurate rifles and a scope can definitely be used on them. It just takes longer to load than a modern weapon, but are no longer the pour in power and pack with a long rod! With the one shot, they can be just as deadly as a modern weapon…especially being in the .50 Cal range…
The law may be vague, but one thing is a fact…if you pull a trigger and it fires a bullet, it is a Firearm!
Judging from his previous criminal records including battery, domestic violence, stalking, multiple charges for dealing in stolen property and multiple traffic tickets…he should never have a gun of any type that is capable of firing a projectile or for that matter a driver’s license again.
@Lilly, of course he can go hunting. Take a bow, take a blow gun, set traps, or a sling shot He just can’t take a fire arm.
In my opinion, if the NRA backs this case, it is setting itself up for some serious backlash. Legal possession of firearms has been the message the NRA has been promulgating. They can’t have it both ways.
ANSWERING:
“Since when can’t felons go hunting?”
Since they were convicted of committing a felony and their civil rights were not yet restored.
Been that way a loooooooong time.
David for bare-handed hunting
Judges look for clarity in the law so they can judge. Vague is vague.
The funniest thing for me in this story is the idea of a scope on a muzzleloader. I mean, you could put a scope on a slingshot, it doesn’t change it from being a slingshot.
It would be important to see the weapon we are talking about. When I think of a muzzleloader, I think of a really really heavy and long Civil War riffle that takes your shoulder off when you fire it.
Fellowconvict,
I’m all for spotting a guy one mistake in life if he didn’t hurt anybody. There may be other folks with the same name getting arrested, but it looks like you would have to forgive a lot to hold this dude up as a model citizen.
Since when can’t felons go hunting?
“fellowconvict” it doesn’t matter one iota what the crime was,he’s a felon period!
it was at one time a deterent to crime to be labled as such,but now it’s a street credit prize to be labeled as one….anyway maybe someone will stick a loaded .50 cal black powder replica fully capable of firing ,in your face while they rob you…….
Convicted felons have lost their right to possess any firearms, there is nothing vague about that, now that the judge has set this precedent it will come back to haunt him
Just because you are a convicted fellon it doesn’t make you a danger to society. Yall should really do your homework before you pass judgement. You don’t know what his original
conviction was in the first place. But regardless he was hunting. Not hurting anybody. And an outbreak of robberies is highly unlikely because if you knew anything about muzzleloaders u would know that the loading process takes forever.
gst: … He was arrested by the Florida Fish and & Wildlife Conservation Commission…so I think He was hunting.
I can imagine a rash of robberies with black powder guns once word of this gets out.
so a felon can carry a bazooka?
@ 429SCJ…..
Have heard more than once that the decision of whether to charge / prosecute is based greatly upon the likelihood of a conviction.
If there’s any chance a jury will not convict then the “person of interest” walks.
no matter if its a replica or not it will kill if not he would not have been in the woods hunting. bad call by the court system
Prosecutors are not interested in guilt or innocence. They are interested only in seeing if the charges will stick to the wall.
I think that is what they call arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.