Police confiscated musket, after discharge during a practice. Utterly ridiculous.

https://www.boston.com/news/lo.../?p1=hp_featurestack

quote:

“I hope that they do continue to do the reenacting because I think I enjoy seeing the reenactments. I think it can be fun for children to see and really bring history alive,” Howard told WCVB. “I just hope that it doesn’t bring it too alive.”

Just without the Muskets...

Hmmmm... maybe this bit from the linked article might give a bit more background...

quote:

A musket was fired inside a Massachusetts museum Sunday, accidentally sending a projectile into a wooden pole and ceiling beam. No one was injured.

As might this, a bit later in the article...

quote:

The muskets were not supposed to have live ammunition

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
Hmmmm... maybe this bit from the linked article might give a bit more background...

quote:

A musket was fired inside a Massachusetts museum Sunday, accidentally sending a projectile into a wooden pole and ceiling beam. No one was injured.

As might this, a bit later in the article...

quote:

The muskets were not supposed to have live ammunition

Seems to me it is almost impossible for a musket (ESPECIALLY in a museum) to 'just go off.' It looks like somebody was either GROSSLY negligent or loaded the gun on purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
It looks like somebody was either GROSSLY negligent or loaded the gun on purpose.

Where's Baldwin?

If a period firearm, it is possible that the gun was loaded in the 18th century, placed in storage, where it has sat since, until some unlucky renactor didn't make certain it was unloaded using a ramrod or suitable device.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
Hmmmm... maybe this bit from the linked article might give a bit more background...

quote:

A musket was fired inside a Massachusetts museum Sunday, accidentally sending a projectile into a wooden pole and ceiling beam. No one was injured.

As might this, a bit later in the article...

quote:

The muskets were not supposed to have live ammunition

Thanks Joel.


"OMG!! The gubbermints took their guns!!! It was just a reenactment!!!1"

is very different from

"Man has musket confiscated after negligently discharging it inside a museum."

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
If a period firearm, it is possible that the gun was loaded in the 18th century, placed in storage, where it has sat since, until some unlucky renactor didn't make certain it was unloaded using a ramrod or suitable device.

It was a not a period firearm held by the museum. It was a reenactor's personally owned musket. The reenactors were not affiliated with the museum. They had been given permission to hold drill practice there. The drill practice was supposed to be held outside, and they weren't supposed to have any live ammunition.

Then the reenactor is an idiotic, irresponsible, negligent twatwaffle.

Besides, I doubt that loose Revolutionary War-era gunpowder that had been sitting inside a musket barrel and flash pan for nearly 250 years would have been able to ignite anyway.

Clearly this needs to be thoroughly investigated. It was likely lucky that this happened as it did. Imagine if this musket, loaded with a live round, made it on the reenactment field and was fired at a 'enemy soldier'?

This is more than just having a loaded musket and forgetting it had a round in it and taking it to a meeting. This is a Revolutionary War group so this is a flintlock musket. That means there had to be a flint in the lock and powder in the pan. Who allows a musket in a building with out checking the pan and barrel first?

Honestly, how hard is it to have everyone who brings a musket or piston into the building to open the pan and drop the ramrod down the barrel?

Not enough info. I'd like to talk to the guy who did it.

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
Not enough info. I'd like to talk to the guy who did it.

I disagree.

In the law, we use a phrase - res ipsa loquitur - literally, "the thing speaks for itself". It's a standard of negligence that requires only circumstantial evidence. Relevant here are the first two of three prongs - that whatever happened typically wouldn't without negligence, and that the cause of the negligence was solely in control of the defendant.

Call it an accidental discharge, a negligent discharge, or whatever. But either way, the guy holding the weapon didn't make it safe before playing with it. It went off. Therefore, he was negligent.

Feel free to hypothesize some reasonable facts that would change that logic.

-Rob

Yea this doesn’t seem like you need SCOTUS to portion out blame. What a knob.

I once witnessed a re-enactment group "execute" a guy by firing squad. They put him up against a wall and 6-10 of them took aim at about 10-15 yards and fired. It made me very uncomfortable, and I didn't like it at all. All it takes is one dude screwing up his load or one guy getting a foreign object down the bore and now we've got a dead dude to deal with.

GarandThumb had an interesting video sometime in the past year about wound ballistics from black powder muskets...pretty devastating stuff !

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
Not enough info. I'd like to talk to the guy who did it.

I disagree.

In the law, we use a phrase - res ipsa loquitur - literally, "the thing speaks for itself". It's a standard of negligence that requires only circumstantial evidence. Relevant here are the first two of three prongs - that whatever happened typically wouldn't without negligence, and that the cause of the negligence was solely in control of the defendant.

Call it an accidental discharge, a negligent discharge, or whatever. But either way, the guy holding the weapon didn't make it safe before playing with it. It went off. Therefore, he was negligent.

Feel free to hypothesize some reasonable facts that would change that logic.

-Rob

Whose firearm was it?

Who gives a shit? If I hand you a gun are you going to verify it’s unloaded or just trust me?

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Who gives a shit? If I hand you a gun are you going to verify it’s unloaded or just trust me?

FYI, a muzzle loader that is charged but not primed or capped is not considered loaded, at least in my state.

The lack of curiosity as to the facts, especially by one purported to be an attorney, is interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by sse:

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Who gives a shit? If I hand you a gun are you going to verify it’s unloaded or just trust me?

FYI, a muzzle loader that is charged but not primed or capped is not considered loaded, at least in my state.

The lack of curiosity as to the facts, especially by one purported to be an attorney, is interesting.

A muzzle loader that is not primed or capped cannot fire. This one fired. It is logical that it was in fact capped or primed (likely as it was pre civil war era). The fact that it discharged proves this.

The question is how and why was it primed/capped AND loaded inside a building and who was responsible to make sure weapons capable of firing were not present?

1. Weapon owner
2. Group leader
3. Facility director
4 __________

If any of the 3-4 above would have taken a simple step this would not have happened.

Was Alec Baldwin anywhere on the property?

Loaded, the pan charged, and the hammer in cocked position. This guy needs to become the regimental drummer.