Florida law makes possessors of Exploder ammo felons

M

Mello2u

New member
I was researching getting a Florida non-resident concealed weapons permit and found this Florida law.

Florida Law:
790.31 Armor-piercing or exploding ammunition or dragon’s
breath shotgun shells, bolo shells, or flechette shells prohibited.—
(1)(b) “Exploding bullet” means any bullet that can be fired from
any firearm, if such bullet is designed or altered so as to detonate or
forcibly break up through the use of an explosive or deflagrant contained
wholly or partially within or attached to such bullet. The term
does not include any bullet designed to expand or break up through
the mechanical forces of impact alone or any signaling device or
pest control device not designed to impact on any target.
(2)(b) Any person who possesses an armor-piercing bullet or
exploding bullet with knowledge of its armor-piercing or exploding
capabilities loaded in a handgun, or who possesses a dragon’s
breath shotgun shell, bolo shell, or flechette shell with knowledge of
its capabilities loaded in a firearm, is guilty of a felony of the third
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.
775.084.
exploder3copy.jpg


exploder1copy.jpg


exploder2copy.jpg


Don't you just love it when your legal acts can be turned into a felony years or decades later by an act of a state legislature? No intent or act is necessary to turn you into a felon. Mere possession of something that you bought 10 or 20 years earlier can make you a felon in Florida. I wish that all laws which have penalties that take away your life, liberty or property would require the state to prove two things to convivt: 1) mens rea or criminal intent and 2) some act which caused some harm to someone other than the actor.

Good thing I didn't move to Florida a few years ago.
 
Don't you just love it when your legal acts can be turned into a felony years or decades later by an act of a state legislature?
Click to expand...

So we can't make new laws? There weren't laws against many new addictive drugs that home chemists used to make. There were laws against certain specific ones. Then the home chemists twisted the molecular chains and made a new variant. They were technically legal - so a new law was passed.

If the issue is you want exploding bullets - go lobby Florida legislators or start a court challenge.
 
"loaded in a handgun" is not an element of the offense. It is "with knowledge of its armor-piercing or exploding capabilities loaded in a handgun," that is an element or the offense.

I have a problem with any law which seeks to make a felon of someone without the requirement on the part of the state to prove both mens rea/intent and an act which harmed someone other than the actor. Where is the legitimate state interest? Because the "state" decides something is "bad" the possessor becomes a felon.

Prior to the "possession laws" (which were created in the 50s I think) criminal laws of the states always required to proof of mens rea/intent.
 
Last edited:
So we can't make new laws?
Click to expand...
Of course you can make new laws, but without a requirement that all owners of a once-legal item be notified or grandfathered, the guy could go into a coma and wake up a felon. There has to be some provision for good faith ignorance.
 
If I'm reading this right....

There is no crime until you load them in a handgun/shotgun, knowing what they are.

SO, if you bought some when legal, you better stop using them for carry ammo! Otherwise, no crime, if I am reading this right.
 
No, what's funny is legislature's passing felony laws against the possession of ammunition that is of Very dubious effectiveness based on 'good feelings'.

I doubt the miniscule amount of explosive compound in a primer can even be seen in a comparison to the wound channel created by a properly designed hollow-point.

As for flechette shotgun ammunition; I would Much rather be shot at with flechette ammunition from 15-20 yards away than with anything larger than birdshot. The performance of flechette ammunition in a shotguns is a joke and not even a funny one. cf., GA Carry.org flechette test.
 
44 AMP
There is no crime until you load them in a handgun/shotgun, knowing what they are.
Click to expand...

"(2)(b) Any person who possesses an armor-piercing bullet or
exploding bullet with knowledge of its armor-piercing or exploding
capabilities loaded in a handgun, . . ."

The only requirement of this part of the law is that it be possessed with the knowledge of its capabilities. It does not require that the possessor actually load it into a handgun. With a name like Exploder it would be easy for a prosecutor to argue that the only reasonable conclusion of a jury would be that the possessor knew of the capabilities loaded in a handgun.

This is another of that class of laws which has been created by a state without regard for there being some sort of conflict in rights between persons. Traditional criminal offenses involve conflict in rights of individuals and that those conflicts be intentional; such as theft, assault, battery, trespass, and murder. To convict someone of a criminal offense has traditionally required a prosecutor to prove all of the elements of the crime which includes mens rea/intent.
 
The only requirement of this part of the law is that it be possessed with the knowledge of its capabilities. It does not require that the possessor actually load it into a handgun.
Click to expand...

That's what it would appear to say, but it is poorly written.

Any case law on this?
 
Mello2u said:
This is another of that class of laws which has been created by a state without regard for there being some sort of conflict in rights between persons.
Click to expand...
This type of law is an offense against the State... Been going on a long time.
 
Through the years I have seen several attempts of someone making an exploding handgun cartridge.All of them were expensive failures.Give he a good HP design any day.
 
The way I read it....

(2)(b) Any person who possesses an armor-piercing bullet or
exploding bullet with knowledge of its armor-piercing or exploding
capabilities loaded in a handgun, or who possesses a dragon’s
breath shotgun shell, bolo shell, or flechette shell with knowledge of
its capabilities loaded in a firearm, is guilty of ...
Click to expand...

And, yes, it is poorly written, depending on what you believe the writer's intentions were, and how you parse the phrasing.

The placement of the commas, AND particularly the phrase "loaded in", indicate to me that the crime exists ONLY if one knowingly loads this ammunition into a handgun or shotgun. Mere possession and knowledge of the capabilities of the ammo does not, in itself constitute a crime.

That's the way I read it. And, if the intent was not to penalize the possession, but the use of this ammo, I can see why it was written that way. One must load the round into a gun in order to use it.

If the intent was to criminalize posession of the ammo, why would they have included the phrase "loaded in"?

One could make the argument, in the first portion of the section that posessing a "...bullet...loaded in a handgun" might be referring to loaded (assembled, live) ammunition, in which case, a more clear wording would have been to say loaded in a handgun cartridge. They certainly have the technical knowledge to clearly state that, if that had been the actual intent. But they did not. And, the second section, referring to specific shotgun shells uses the phrase "loaded in a firearm", which clearly (at least to me) indicates that until loaded in a firearm (along with knowledge of the ammo capabilities) no crime is committed.

Why would they use different terms? I am not familiar enough with the states legal definitions to say with certainty, but it is possible that the state has specific, and different definitions using the terms handgun and firearm. If they intended to mean simple possesion of these rounds (which were legal), was to become illegal (with the passage of the section), why include the words "loaded in"?

Thats the way I read it. Obviously someone else could read it differently. I'm no lawyer, and am offering no legal advice, just an old man's opinion, which is worth what you pay for it. But I can't see how one could read this any other way.

Until a court hears a case, and makes a ruling on this, it is open to interpretation. If I lived under this law, and had some of the restricted ammo, I believe I would have a lawyer petition a court for a ruling. Sure, the easiest, simplest, and cheapest thing to do would be to just get rid of the ammo, but that would not clarify the law. Until this is done, my interpretaion is just as valid an anyone else's, IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top