Fucking fascists. <_<
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/07/29/2009-07-29_replica_rifle_has_brooklyn_man_at_odds_with_cops.html
QuoteUp in arms over gun: Replica rifle has Brooklyn man at odds with cops
BY Joseph Goldstein
DAILY NEWS WRITER
Wednesday, July 29th 2009, 4:00 AM
Like America's first soldiers at the Battle of Brooklyn, Michael Littlejohn is fighting for his right to bear arms.
The Revolutionary War buff charges the Bloomberg administration with tyranny for trying to seize his handmade flintlock rifle - a dead ringer for the weapon once used against the redcoats.
"This is the last legal gun that you can have without registration in New York," Littlejohn said. "And yet Mayor Bloomberg is driven crazy by my flintlock gun - the one that won the American Revolution."
Littlejohn fired the first shot when he hired a Tennessee blacksmith to recreate the vintage rifle. It arrived at his Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, apartment in June - followed quickly by city cops.
Police claim it's illegal for Littlejohn to keep the flintlock without a gun license.
Littlejohn, 50, cites the earliest American patriots as his inspiration while refusing to surrender his firearm or apply for a license.
The social worker is also clinging to a little-known exemption in the city's strict gun laws.
The loophole allows license-free ownership of "antique firearms" - defined as rifles that require the bullet and gunpowder to be loaded separately.
Littlejohn's rifle appears to fit the bill.
Loading the weapon, he explains, is a multistep process that takes several pokes with a ramrod and up to a minute to complete.
To fire, the rifle relies on a sharpened piece of flint that produces a spark when the trigger is pulled. That point is moot, Littlejohn says: He doesn't own gunpowder or bullets.
That's not enough to make the NYPD retreat.
The cops visited Littlejohn's apartment and sat down this month with the Tennessee blacksmith who forged the rifle.
The lead detective on the case told Littlejohn's lawyer that he had orders "from higher-ups" to pursue the case, according to an e-mail the lawyer sent to Littlejohn.
Littlejohn's interest in the Revolutionary War dates to his childhood. He grew up playing tag outside the upstate Newburgh house used in 1782-83 as Gen. George Washington's headquarters.
As an adult, he joined in Colonial American reenactments in Virginia and Georgia.
The NYPD learned about Littlejohn's $825 rifle when he left a receipt inside a Staples copy center, prompting a call to the cops.
Cops aren't threatening to arrest Littlejohn - yet. Lawyer Joyce David, who represented Littlejohn until it became too expensive, says her ex-client could wind up with a summons.
A police source says the war could end peacefully if Littlejohn applied for a permit with the NYPD handgun license division.
Littlejohn would rather fight. The Brooklynite says he's willing to sue for his rifle rights.
http://24.97.137.100/nyc/
The exemption in question.
Quote§ 10–305 Exemptions. The sections requiring rifle and shotgun permits and certificates and prohibiting the possession or disposition of assault weapons shall not apply as follows:
b. Antiques and ornaments. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to antique rifles and shotguns which are incapable of being fired or discharged or which do not fire fixed ammunition, or those weapons manufactured prior to eighteen hundred ninety-four and those weapons whose design was patented and whose commercial manufacture commenced prior to eighteen hundred ninety-four and whose manufacture continued after eighteen hundred ninety-four without any substantial alteration in design or function, and for which cartridge ammunition is not commercially available and are possessed as curiosities or ornaments or for their historical significance and value...
:lol: Yankees.
Glad the NYPD is devoting so many resources to this case :D
Wow a guy owns a replica of an incredibly inaccurate fire arm that he has neither shot nor powder for. That strikes me an incredibly dangerous threat to city security.
Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2009, 01:26:01 PM
Wow a guy owns a replica of an incredibly inaccurate fire arm that he has neither shot nor powder for. That strikes me an incredibly dangerous threat to city security.
Lets fly a detective out to Tennessee to interrogate the gunsmith immediately!
Just get a license, ffs.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 29, 2009, 01:34:31 PM
Just get a license, ffs.
Why should he if the law's on his side?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 29, 2009, 01:35:46 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 29, 2009, 01:34:31 PM
Just get a license, ffs.
Why should he if the law's on his side?
Law's ambigous, according to your extract. Whether or not the exemption applies depends on what he intends to use his flintlock
for. If he's using it for home defence, he needs a license; if to hang over the mantel as a sort of Revolutionary War Decor, he doesn't.
Quote... and are possessed as curiosities or ornaments or for their historical significance and value...
In short, it's not a "right to bear arms" sans license so much as a "right to arms-themed interior decorating". :D
These journalists deserve to be shot for that opening.
I might be wrong but I think the article is ignoring the real legal issue created by the guy having this gun in the city which is that there is a city ordinance about not having a gun (I am not sure if long guns are included or not) within the limits of NYC without a special permit or permission.
I don't know the exact ordinance. I do know it exists because the only two classes of people in NYS that can carry handguns in NYC without a permit are State Troopers and Parole Officers. Any one else must have a permit or receive permission including any visiting law enforcement.
They are pretty strict about it. Just ask Plaxico Burress.
DON'T TREAD ON ME :mad:
Quote from: Strix on July 29, 2009, 03:17:03 PM
I might be wrong but I think the article is ignoring the real legal issue created by the guy having this gun in the city which is that there is a city ordinance about not having a gun (I am not sure if long guns are included or not) within the limits of NYC without a special permit or permission.
Is that ordinance not the one with the exemption the guy is pointing at?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 29, 2009, 03:38:40 PM
Quote from: Strix on July 29, 2009, 03:17:03 PM
I might be wrong but I think the article is ignoring the real legal issue created by the guy having this gun in the city which is that there is a city ordinance about not having a gun (I am not sure if long guns are included or not) within the limits of NYC without a special permit or permission.
Is that ordinance not the one with the exemption the guy is pointing at?
I wasn't sure. The article said New York but they may have been talking about NYC. They tend to refer to NYC as New York. That's why I stated I might be wrong. NYS Law also has an exemption for antique firearms.
You know, all you fuckers are poking fun at the NYPD over this, but who's going to be laughing when he affixes his bayonet.
If he was black the president would stand up for him :contract: :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2009, 06:16:43 PM
You know, all you fuckers are poking fun at the NYPD over this, but who's going to be laughing when he affixes his bayonet.
Those of us who are smart enough to stand at least 15 feet away from people armed with bayonets.
Is Flintlocks the poorer cousin of Goldilocks?
Quote from: Malthus on July 29, 2009, 01:41:46 PM
In short, it's not a "right to bear arms" sans license so much as a "right to arms-themed interior decorating". :D
Exactly my thought, as well.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2009, 06:16:43 PM
You know, all you fuckers are poking fun at the NYPD over this, but who's going to be laughing when he affixes his bayonet.
If it is a period rifle, and not a musket, it has no provisions for a bayonet. :nerd:
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2009, 06:58:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2009, 06:16:43 PM
You know, all you fuckers are poking fun at the NYPD over this, but who's going to be laughing when he affixes his bayonet.
If it is a period rifle, and not a musket, it has no provisions for a bayonet. :nerd:
:frusty: :frusty: :frusty:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2009, 06:16:43 PM
You know, all you fuckers are poking fun at the NYPD over this, but who's going to be laughing when he affixes his bayonet.
Me.
Still, when the guy goes nuts and starts spearing Jewish lawyers in Manhattan, I guarantee that somebody is going to regret his agenda of cop-hatred.
Quote from: Armyknife on July 29, 2009, 07:33:58 PM
The exemption in question.
Quote§ 10–305 Exemptions. The sections requiring rifle and shotgun permits and certificates and prohibiting the possession or disposition of assault weapons shall not apply as follows:
b. Antiques and ornaments. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to antique rifles and shotguns which are incapable of being fired or discharged or which do not fire fixed ammunition, or those weapons manufactured prior to eighteen hundred ninety-four and those weapons whose design was patented and whose commercial manufacture commenced prior to eighteen hundred ninety-four and whose manufacture continued after eighteen hundred ninety-four without any substantial alteration in design or function, and for which cartridge ammunition is not commercially available and are possessed as curiosities or ornaments or for their historical significance and value...
The weapon isn't antique, though it is an antiquated design.
The bolded section would seem to cover that if I'm not mistaken.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 29, 2009, 07:37:29 PM
Quote from: Armyknife on July 29, 2009, 07:33:58 PM
The exemption in question.
Quote§ 10–305 Exemptions. The sections requiring rifle and shotgun permits and certificates and prohibiting the possession or disposition of assault weapons shall not apply as follows:
b. Antiques and ornaments. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to antique rifles and shotguns which are incapable of being fired or discharged or which do not fire fixed ammunition, or those weapons manufactured prior to eighteen hundred ninety-four and those weapons whose design was patented and whose commercial manufacture commenced prior to eighteen hundred ninety-four and whose manufacture continued after eighteen hundred ninety-four without any substantial alteration in design or function, and for which cartridge ammunition is not commercially available and are possessed as curiosities or ornaments or for their historical significance and value...
The weapon isn't antique, though it is an antiquated design.
The bolded section would seem to cover that if I'm not mistaken.
Well, you are mistaken. He had it custom-made in Tennessee. Its commercial manufacture was not commenced prior to 1894, and its manufacturing was not continued after 1894. It was made to order, and very recently.
A rifle is still deadly without rounds and without bayonet.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 07:42:35 PM
A rifle is still deadly without rounds and without bayonet.
A flintlock isn't rifled though.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 07:42:35 PM
A rifle is still deadly without rounds and without bayonet.
Sure, but baseball bats aren't illegal.
Quote from: Barrister on July 29, 2009, 08:47:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 07:42:35 PM
A rifle is still deadly without rounds and without bayonet.
A flintlock isn't rifled though.
Flintlock is just a method of setting off the charge of powder. There certainly were rifled flintlocks. Hell, there were rifled flintlock
pistols.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 07:42:35 PM
A rifle is still deadly without rounds and without bayonet.
So's a vacuum cleaner, desk lamp, or even the Staten Island Yellow Pages, if you want to be technical.
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2009, 10:17:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 29, 2009, 08:47:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 07:42:35 PM
A rifle is still deadly without rounds and without bayonet.
A flintlock isn't rifled though.
Flintlock is just a method of setting off the charge of powder. There certainly were rifled flintlocks. Hell, there were rifled flintlock pistols.
I could be wrong I suppose, but I thought rifles (that is - firearms with rifling) only came into use in the 19th century - and that is what a quick wiki search seems to confirm. So while there may exist some rifled flintlocks out there, the flintlock seems far more commonly associated with muskets.
The Kentucky Long Rifle was rather famous during the American Revolution. There were certainly rifles prior to the 19th century, they just weren't used by masses of troops. They were generally for private use or specialized or irregular troops.
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 12:24:12 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2009, 10:17:15 PM
Flintlock is just a method of setting off the charge of powder. There certainly were rifled flintlocks. Hell, there were rifled flintlock pistols.
I could be wrong I suppose, but I thought rifles (that is - firearms with rifling) only came into use in the 19th century - and that is what a quick wiki search seems to confirm. So while there may exist some rifled flintlocks out there, the flintlock seems far more commonly associated with muskets.
Beware, you are entering Napoleonic territory... (we need a Nappy smiley, by the way) Rifles were certainly used during the Napoleonic Wars and earlier ones too. However, they were expensive, required more maintenance, they took far more time to reload, couldn't use bayonets, and quite simply most soldiers didn't get to fire their weapons once a month, they were too badly trained to benefit from their improved accuracy. Rifled muskets were - going a bit over the top here - the sniper rifle of the period until roughly 1850-1870.
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 12:24:12 AM
I could be wrong I suppose, but I thought rifles (that is - firearms with rifling) only came into use in the 19th century - and that is what a quick wiki search seems to confirm. So while there may exist some rifled flintlocks out there, the flintlock seems far more commonly associated with muskets.
There were far more flintlock muskets (ie smoothbores) than flintlock rifles because, as Alariste points out, rifles had less military utility. Rifles had far more hunting utility, though, and so were fairly common on the American frontier in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Is there such a thing as a breechloading flintlock? Can a breechloading flintlock work?
Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2009, 08:16:54 AM
Is there such a thing as a breechloading flintlock? Can a breechloading flintlock work?
Yes, but they were fragile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 30, 2009, 08:18:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2009, 08:16:54 AM
Is there such a thing as a breechloading flintlock? Can a breechloading flintlock work?
Yes, but they were fragile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle
wow, I didn't know they were flint locks...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 29, 2009, 07:37:29 PM
Quote from: Armyknife on July 29, 2009, 07:33:58 PM
The exemption in question.
Quote§ 10–305 Exemptions. The sections requiring rifle and shotgun permits and certificates and prohibiting the possession or disposition of assault weapons shall not apply as follows:
b. Antiques and ornaments. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to antique rifles and shotguns which are incapable of being fired or discharged or which do not fire fixed ammunition, or those weapons manufactured prior to eighteen hundred ninety-four and those weapons whose design was patented and whose commercial manufacture commenced prior to eighteen hundred ninety-four and whose manufacture continued after eighteen hundred ninety-four without any substantial alteration in design or function, and for which cartridge ammunition is not commercially available and are possessed as curiosities or ornaments or for their historical significance and value...
The weapon isn't antique, though it is an antiquated design.
The bolded section would seem to cover that if I'm not mistaken.
The section covers "antiques and ornaments". If this guy is intending to use his newly-minted flintlock as a
weapon, the exemption doesn't apply and he needs a licence.
Thus, should he go on about a "right to bear
arms" he'd be providing proof that the exemption doesn't apply. If he comes across as an outraged interior decorator, on the other hand ...
A just use of state power is to prevent interior decorating atrocities such as hanging rifles on the wall. I'm with NYC on this one.
Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2009, 09:11:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 29, 2009, 07:37:29 PM
Quote from: Armyknife on July 29, 2009, 07:33:58 PM
The exemption in question.
Quote§ 10–305 Exemptions. The sections requiring rifle and shotgun permits and certificates and prohibiting the possession or disposition of assault weapons shall not apply as follows:
b. Antiques and ornaments. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to antique rifles and shotguns which are incapable of being fired or discharged or which do not fire fixed ammunition, or those weapons manufactured prior to eighteen hundred ninety-four and those weapons whose design was patented and whose commercial manufacture commenced prior to eighteen hundred ninety-four and whose manufacture continued after eighteen hundred ninety-four without any substantial alteration in design or function, and for which cartridge ammunition is not commercially available and are possessed as curiosities or ornaments or for their historical significance and value...
The weapon isn't antique, though it is an antiquated design.
The bolded section would seem to cover that if I'm not mistaken.
The section covers "antiques and ornaments". If this guy is intending to use his newly-minted flintlock as a weapon, the exemption doesn't apply and he needs a licence.
Thus, should he go on about a "right to bear arms" he'd be providing proof that the exemption doesn't apply. If he comes across as an outraged interior decorator, on the other hand ...
He said that he doesn't have gunpowder or bullets for it, so it doesn't sound like he intends to use it as a weapon.
However, I'd say that the section about not firing fixed ammunition would apply, but the wording is a bit ambiguous.
Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2009, 09:11:18 AM
The section covers "antiques and ornaments". If this guy is intending to use his newly-minted flintlock as a weapon, the exemption doesn't apply and he needs a licence.
I am not so sure about that (and also commonly mis-spell license) since he could fire it as a "curiousity."
I am more interested in why 1894 as the cutoff date, though. I suppose I could look it up, but why spoil the fun of the person here who knows?
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 30, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
The Kentucky Long Rifle was rather famous during the American Revolution. There were certainly rifles prior to the 19th century, they just weren't used by masses of troops. They were generally for private use or specialized or irregular troops.
What was the range of those things, and who manufactured them.
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 30, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
The Kentucky Long Rifle was rather famous during the American Revolution. There were certainly rifles prior to the 19th century, they just weren't used by masses of troops. They were generally for private use or specialized or irregular troops.
What was the range of those things, and who manufactured them.
How much are they paying you for this information?
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 30, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
The Kentucky Long Rifle was rather famous during the American Revolution. There were certainly rifles prior to the 19th century, they just weren't used by masses of troops. They were generally for private use or specialized or irregular troops.
What was the range of those things, and who manufactured them.
How much are they paying you for this information?
Drop and give me 25 push ups.
Diamond push ups.
All the way down, all the way up.
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:07:54 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 30, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
The Kentucky Long Rifle was rather famous during the American Revolution. There were certainly rifles prior to the 19th century, they just weren't used by masses of troops. They were generally for private use or specialized or irregular troops.
What was the range of those things, and who manufactured them.
How much are they paying you for this information?
Drop and give me 25 push ups.
Diamond push ups.
All the way down, all the way up.
Make me, hooknose
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 09:14:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:07:54 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 30, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
The Kentucky Long Rifle was rather famous during the American Revolution. There were certainly rifles prior to the 19th century, they just weren't used by masses of troops. They were generally for private use or specialized or irregular troops.
What was the range of those things, and who manufactured them.
How much are they paying you for this information?
Drop and give me 25 push ups.
Diamond push ups.
All the way down, all the way up.
Make me, hooknose
Come anywhere near me, internet brave, and you gonna do the push ups while crying with my boot in your ass all the way to the ankle.
And my nose ain't hooked.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.tinypic.com%2Fif1zsj.jpg&hash=f328e8215d6c5369a213f4a39a24f1ad71908c38)
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2009, 09:11:18 AM
The section covers "antiques and ornaments". If this guy is intending to use his newly-minted flintlock as a weapon, the exemption doesn't apply and he needs a licence.
I am not so sure about that (and also commonly mis-spell license) since he could fire it as a "curiousity."
I am more interested in why 1894 as the cutoff date, though. I suppose I could look it up, but why spoil the fun of the person here who knows?
Certainly the gun can be in working order - nothing in it about rendering the gun inoperative, and can be fired for demonstrations or re-creations. What you can't do, seemingly, is deliberately keep it about for hunting or defense.
No gangs of toughs with flintlock pistols allowed. :D
Sounds to me like the NYPD either needs to cite him & get him into court so that a judge can rule whether or not his rifle is exempt or leave him the fuck alone. I can see the merits of a judge's decision either way, but I can't see why they're dragging their feet with this -- unless he lives near a Dunkin' Donuts or something...
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:17:35 PM
And my nose ain't hooked.
Yeah, it's all flat and squishy-like, like a Negroloid. Fucking Arab.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hotflick.net%2Fflicks%2F2006_300%2FThumb%2F006300_Tyrone_Benskin_003.jpg&hash=c5d60272e79c0191573851c9aab737545530f155)
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:17:35 PM
And my nose ain't hooked.
You fail at being Jewish :(
Quote from: C.C.R. on August 02, 2009, 07:17:40 PM
Sounds to me like the NYPD either needs to cite him & get him into court so that a judge can rule whether or not his rifle is exempt or leave him the fuck alone. I can see the merits of a judge's decision either way, but I can't see why they're dragging their feet with this -- unless he lives near a Dunkin' Donuts or something...
Shh...Stop using logic.
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2009, 09:17:35 PM
Come anywhere near me, internet brave, and you gonna do the push ups while crying with my boot in your ass all the way to the ankle.
So Jaron has to do pushups, you get court-martialed. He wins.