My cousin is a convicted felon and his father told him that he could go hunting with a modern, scope-mounted, black-powder muzzle-loading rifle without any problems from FWC or the local LEOs.
Since I wasn’t sure if this was correct, I did a little research in Gutmacher’s book and he referred to Bostic v. State 902 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) in which Judge Edward E. Hedstrom filed the following opinion:
http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2005/050905/5D03-3270.op.pdf
Quote from page 4 & 5 of the opinion:
A plain reading of the statute requires that, in order to be exempt, a firearm must be either manufactured in or before 1918 or be a “replica” thereof. A replica is defined by Florida case law as meaning a reasonably exact reproduction of the object involved that, when viewed, causes the person to see substantially the same object as the original.
The rifle possessed by the defendant, which included visible differences from an antique firearm such as a fiber optic sight, was not a “replica” of a firearm manufactured in or before 1918. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Quote from page 7 of the opinion:
"Based on the information he obtained, Bostic purchased a Thompson Center Arms Model Black Diamond muzzle-loading rifle from a Wal-Mart store. This rifle is an in-line percussion-cap, black-powder weapon. The rifle is loaded with a propellant through the muzzle and tapped into place with a ram rod. The ignition system uses a percussion cap, a copper cap with an explosive substance to cause the flame to ignite the propellant."
Quote from page 12 of the opinion:
492 So. 2d at 1053-1054
On the other hand, it says that a felon cannot rely on the fact that the firearm may be an antique or replica of an antique to escape prosecution.
After I finished reading the Judge's entire opinion, it's clear that he believes the statute to be vague enough that one jury might choose to acquit a defendant, whereas another jury might choose to convict another defendant under the same circumstances. Based on the Judge's opinion, my cousin may or may not have further legal problems if he's found in possession of a muzzle-loading rifle.
I'd like to provide my cousin with the facts before he goes hunting. The opinion was filed in May of 2005 and I was wondering if there are any recent court cases dealing with convicted felons in possession of muzzle-loading rifles? Does anybody know if there is any further clarification of Florida statute in the case of Bostic v. State of Florida?
Since I wasn’t sure if this was correct, I did a little research in Gutmacher’s book and he referred to Bostic v. State 902 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) in which Judge Edward E. Hedstrom filed the following opinion:
http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2005/050905/5D03-3270.op.pdf
Quote from page 4 & 5 of the opinion:
A plain reading of the statute requires that, in order to be exempt, a firearm must be either manufactured in or before 1918 or be a “replica” thereof. A replica is defined by Florida case law as meaning a reasonably exact reproduction of the object involved that, when viewed, causes the person to see substantially the same object as the original.
The rifle possessed by the defendant, which included visible differences from an antique firearm such as a fiber optic sight, was not a “replica” of a firearm manufactured in or before 1918. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Quote from page 7 of the opinion:
"Based on the information he obtained, Bostic purchased a Thompson Center Arms Model Black Diamond muzzle-loading rifle from a Wal-Mart store. This rifle is an in-line percussion-cap, black-powder weapon. The rifle is loaded with a propellant through the muzzle and tapped into place with a ram rod. The ignition system uses a percussion cap, a copper cap with an explosive substance to cause the flame to ignite the propellant."
Quote from page 12 of the opinion:
492 So. 2d at 1053-1054
On the other hand, it says that a felon cannot rely on the fact that the firearm may be an antique or replica of an antique to escape prosecution.
After I finished reading the Judge's entire opinion, it's clear that he believes the statute to be vague enough that one jury might choose to acquit a defendant, whereas another jury might choose to convict another defendant under the same circumstances. Based on the Judge's opinion, my cousin may or may not have further legal problems if he's found in possession of a muzzle-loading rifle.
I'd like to provide my cousin with the facts before he goes hunting. The opinion was filed in May of 2005 and I was wondering if there are any recent court cases dealing with convicted felons in possession of muzzle-loading rifles? Does anybody know if there is any further clarification of Florida statute in the case of Bostic v. State of Florida?