# Friend want to MuzzelLoader hunt On Probation



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Firearm laws are so complex if anyone has a question they should talk to an attorney specializing in Second Amendment issues.

Michigan passed a law prohibiting felons from sitting on a jury, since then there is no way to have your firearm rights restored in Michigan and have them recognized by the Feds. Sitting on a jury is one of three basic civil rights, the other two are running for office and voting. All three must be restored for the Feds to acknowledge gun rights. Read the 6th Circuit Wegrzyn opinion, it explains this.

Back to the poster with a friend on probation, The SCOTUS just heard a case on the Lautenberg Law last month, their ruling will come out early next year. The case is US v Hayes, the 'Heller 5' justices who voted in favor of Heller last June just might strike down the law. Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote in this case like he was in Heller.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Firearm laws are so complex if anyone has a question they should talk to an attorney specializing in Second Amendment issues.

Michigan passed a law prohibiting felons from sitting on a jury, since then there is no way to have your firearm rights restored in Michigan and have them recognized by the Feds. Sitting on a jury is one of three basic civil rights, the other two are running for office and voting. All three must be restored for the Feds to acknowledge gun rights. Read the 6th Circuit Wegrzyn opinion, it explains this.

Back to the poster with a friend on probation, The SCOTUS just heard a case on the Lautenberg Law last month, their ruling will come out early next year. The case is US v Hayes, the 'Heller 5' justices who voted in favor of Heller last June just might strike down the law. Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote in this case like he was in Heller.


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

Spartan88 said:


> Firearm laws are so complex if anyone has a question they should talk to an attorney specializing in Second Amendment issues.
> 
> Michigan passed a law prohibiting felons from sitting on a jury, since then there is no way to have your firearm rights restored in Michigan and have them recognized by the Feds. Sitting on a jury is one of three basic civil rights, the other two are running for office and voting. All three must be restored for the Feds to acknowledge gun rights. Read the 6th Circuit Wegrzyn opinion, it explains this.


They were restored in the Hampton vs United States case in the 6th Circuit. This case dealt with a felon and firearms. The Wergrzyn case I believe addressed domestic violence/misdemeanants and firearms and cite Hampton in the ruling. 

There was no law passed I'm aware of specifically prohibiting felons from sitting on juries, but a Michigan Court Rule. The 6th originally held in several cases that Michigan law did not restore the right to sit on a jury to Michigan felons upon completion of sentence. This was overturned by the Hampton decision and restored a felon's right to sit on a jury so you are incorrect, the gun rights can then be restored under State Law which is honored by Federal Law...albeit this may prove very difficult in many cases. 

But I agree firearm laws are complicated and my advice to anyone would be to retain an attorney who specializes in this.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Howdy M1, not trying to argue with ya, I don't know the year Hampton was decided or case details. Felons are barred from sitting on a jury now in Michigan(I think since 2004). The same 'loop hole' that cleared Wegrzyn (civil rights restoration) prohibits felons under Federal Law of gun ownership after Michigan set new jury standards. There are other cases from other circuits that are about as clear as mud on gun rights, reading some of them can really make your head hurt. The patch work of gun laws is a big mess, I'm sure we can agree on that too.


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

To my knowledge Hampton has not been overturned. I did speak to both the ATF and US Marshals office in GR about a year ago and was told this. If there is a case overturning this opinion please post it so incorrect info is not posted by myself or others.

To clarify the difference in Federal and State definitions as it pertains to MZs, federally all MZ's are defined under antique firearms which is most likely why they can be shipped to non FFL holders. In MI, only certain MZ's meet the criteria (as do certain fixed ammuntion firearms). Under MI law antique firearms are not exempt from the firearm definition where they are specifically exempt in the federal definition:

_(3) The term "firearm" means (A) any weapon (including a starter
gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to
expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or
receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm
silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include
an antique firearm._

Hopefully that clears up some things and I apologize if I hijacked the thread somewhat from the original question.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I have to jump in here just with an opinion of a problem I have had with that definition. I may be wrong too but.......

_"Such term does not include an *antique* firearm."_

Antique is what I have a problem with. Does this mean a look alike that was built within the last year or does it mean a weapon that was used in the civil war and is part of a collection that are not normally used. A quick example I can think of is antique license plates for a vehicle, you can't just go get them for any vehicle anytime you wish.

Just food for thought because I have never seen any court case truely define antique.


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

Good question Ray. Here is how Federal Law defines antique firearm:

_(16) The term "antique firearm" means - 
(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock,
flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system)
manufactured in or before 1898; or
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if
such replica - 
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or
conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition
which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which
is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial
trade; or

(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle
loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black
powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For
purposes of this subparagraph, the term "antique firearm" shall
not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or
receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading
weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily
converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt,
breechblock, or any combination thereof._

And how it is defined by Michigan Law:

_(a) "Antique firearm" means either of the following:_
_(i) A firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica of such a firearm, whether actually manufactured before or after 1898._
_(ii) A firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade._


----------



## Sam22 (Jan 22, 2003)

Don't consider this hijacked, I am learning alot here. I am confused by the definition of "_antique firearm_" the definition provided it worded to include common Muzzelloaders? I believe Boehr, and don't want to see this guy in trouble just for the sake of huniting, so he will likely abstain. However, it seems to me the issue is open for interperetation. Especially in his case. Also, I don't like the line containing "_any destructive device_ in the fire arm definition. That's bogus, and makes me wonder if a bow is even allowed?


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

The Federal description of antique firearm includes all MZ's and they are specifically exempt under the firearm definition. The State definition of antique firearm only includes certain MZ's and none are exempt from the firearm definition. Thus under State Law, they can be prosecuted for possession of firearm if they are restricted from doing so and have a MZ. So in a nutshell, no your friend cannot be in possession of a MZ if he is forbidden to possess a firearm. And FYI, here is the federal definition of "destructive device":

_(4) The term "destructive device" means - 
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - 
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four
ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more
than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the
preceding clauses;

(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell
which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as
particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name
known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a
projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and
which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in
diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for
use in converting any device into any destructive device
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive
device may be readily assembled.

The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is
neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device,
although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is
redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing,
safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given
by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section
4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the
Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an
antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for
sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.
_
Bottom line is it's complicated and the single best advise as he seeks to do things the legal way is to consult an attorney to make sure it's done right. Laws change as do opinions and they will be most up to speed on changes and requirements he needs to meet.


----------



## hyperformance1 (Dec 18, 2006)

I had a domestic and could not hunt when i was on probation with a gun of any kind. But after i was off I could hunt with a long gun. I'm still not supposed to have any pistols. Not they have ever came and got them but the Michigan state police sent me a notice. And I also lost my CCW of course. I would make sure he tries to get his charged deferred. Then if he does not get in any more trouble he will be able to have everything back in about a year. This is from my long drawn out experience with the courts and my lawyer. Hope it might help.


----------



## Sam22 (Jan 22, 2003)

If by deffered you mean delayed, he already mentioned that. I think this is all pretty well settled. Thanks so much guys, this is one of the better quality threads i have ever read on these boards. At least he can use his bow, so he can still deer and turkey hunt that way.


----------



## hyperformance1 (Dec 18, 2006)

No if he has not been in any other trouble before the prosecutor will deffer it. Which means after certain amount of time it will come of his record as long as he does not get in trouble during that time frame. It's best to have a lawyer with you because those prosecutor's don't like the domestic case's. Part of my nine month probation was nine month's of domestic classes and ten day's of community service. With my lawyer, fines, classes and community service it cost me almost three grand.


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

Thank Lautenberg. Should have sold a senate seat or drownded someone and he'd still be hunting.


----------

