I got into a discussion over an article where someone stated, “we need to get these illegal guns off the street.” It is my position that an inanimate object, ie a gun is not in itself illegal, only the criminal possession of such an item is actually illegal. The person then tried to name objects that are illegal such as marijuana, switch blade knives, etc…I continued to explain that I do not believe an object to be illegal, it only becomes illegal after human intervention (criminal possession). What do you think? (I am in CT in the US and I know laws vary by location but I would think this would be pretty universal no matter the object or location).
Well, yes, the item itself isn’t breaking any laws, it’s the act of being in possession of the item, or using the item, or whatever, that’s illegal. But since everybody knows what you mean if you say ‘illegal weapons’, it’s a valid bit of linguistic shorthand. Not everything people say is always to be interpreted with clinical precision.
What about a crucifix hanging on a court house wall? The presence of the object in it of itself is illegal, right?
… and needless to say, arguing a such a nitpick in a real world scenario (“No, officer, this isn’t a cache of illegal weapons, because the term ‘illegal weapon’ is semantically invalid”) isn’t going to work at all.
The “discussion” came about because we are both “gun guys” one pro and one anti and I detest the term illegal gun…my point was guns themselves are not illegal unless possessed by a non legal or prohibited person and I am tired of seeing that term used, because when viewed or heard by some in the general public it puts the idea in some people’s head that there are all these illegal guns out there when what they should really be saying is we need to get these guns out of the hands of criminals who are possessing them illegally. I never hear the term “illegal car” when someone is operating a stolen car.
I think you are a frontrunner for the Nitpicker of the Year 2007 Awards. Your nomination has been filed, check back in December for a list of winners.
Bolding mine. Yes, its presence may be illegal, but the object itself is not.
Objects and people are not, per se, illegal. Actions are what are proscribed by law. But the phrase “illegal weapon” is - or should be - understood to mean “weapon that is illegal to possess.”
Insert head slapping emoticon here.
Yeah, 'cause that just rolls off the tongue. Nobody misunderstands what is meant by the term ‘illegal gun’ - you’re trying to solve a problem that exists in your imagination.
What about a gun with filed off serial numbers? Is it illegal by itself?
The list is long: marijuana, for instance, is illegal in most states. Sure it’s against the law to possess or grow it, but if marijuana is found growing and not in anyone’s possession, the authorities will cut it down and burn it, since its very existance is illegal.
Many other drugs are illegal and can be confiscated by the police even if no one possesses them (e.g., a bag of cocaine is found on a park bench).
Obviously, you can’t put the contraband on trial, but it still will be destroyed simply because it exists.
I think a bale of marijuana would be illegal, even without anyone around to blame, and could be confiscated.
Same with a proscribed weapon, scope, over sized clip, etc.
And, contextually, “illegal [object]” always means 'object the possession of which is illegal in the context referred to."
While a “crucifix hanging on a courtroom wall” might often be an improper display of a religious object in a civic setting, consider the following: Joe Culprit is accused of assaulting Violet Victim, a petite woman, who allegedly grabbed a crucifix off her wall to defend herself. The crucifix may have been placed there at the same height as an identical one, the alleged self-defense weapon, was in Ms. Victim’s home, so that a jury can judge something related to the testimony of witnesses and arguments of prosecution and defense related to the disputed sequence of events involving the crucifix. In which case it would not be illegal but relevant to the case being considered.
Regardless of what you believe, you are wrong. Just read a dictionary.
If a particular weapon or firearm is “forbidden by law” then it is illegal. It can be just laying on the street and still be an “illegal firearm”. No human intervention is needed.
Even if you want to be picky, and say that certain weapons are only forbidden when they are possessed by certain people. That may be the case sometimes. However, it is not universally true and your statement that “No inanimate object can be illegal” is completely FALSE. A banned object is an illegal object.
There are firearms on the streets that are illegal no matter what. There is no possible way for any person, agency, or dealer to legally possess an NFA Weapon that is not ON the Registry. Therefore, any such weapon is illegal no matter what. Also, someone has already mentioned the lack of serial numbers making a firearm illegal.
The term “illegal firearm” is not automatically wrong. Not even in the most semantically idiotic retorts.
“we need to get these illegal guns off the street.” Is a perfectly valid statement. Even in the strictest of sense, there are still firearms that were illegally imported into this country and therefore are illegal, regardless of who possesses them.
I understand your argument is also that “An illegal firearm is only illegal because the person possesses it without proper permits, etc”
But this is not always the case. There are pleanty of firearms that cannot be legally possessed by anyone or any agency, save an evidence locker. And then, after the investigation, and trial is through, the weapons MUST be destroyed. They are “illegal”, you know… “forbidden by law”.
and the bench is free to go? That don’t seem right. A bench warrant should have been issued.
Are there actually any objects forbidden by law in the US? Every single law I have seen makes exemptions for the government owning it or somebody authorized by the government to do so. Otherwise chemical companies woudln’t be able to sell forensic standardized drugs for example, or military contractors wouldn’t be able to make ‘illegal weapons’.
Along a similar line, I was in a pool for a jury. It was a slip and fall case in a supermarket. Before questioning the jurors, they tell us a bit about the case. The injured party apparently either tripped over, or started to fall and grabbed a cardboard display on packages of nuts in the produce department of this supermarket.
The when describing what happened the lawyer said “The cardboard display of nuts was negligent.”
That night I found myself awake at 3AM wondering just how a piece of cardboard could be negligent. I can understand that it could have been placed in a negligent manner (bad location), or it could be a piss poor design (negligent design). But for the life of me I could not see how a stack of cardboard could by itself be negligent. I wrote a note to the judge asking to be excused, and citing my reasons. He thanked me for my honesty and excused me.
“The cardboard was displaying its nuts negligantly,” is what the lawyer meant.
a cardboard display of nuts sounds more indecent than negligent.
Are there any objects which can be confiscated by a law enforcement officer on sight, regardless of context? That’s the only practical application of “illegal object” (in the literal sense) that comes to mind, but guns and even bombs in the right context are none of the LEO’s busness.