quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
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.

quote:

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

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
WHY was a 're-enactor' carrying a charged rifle, AT ALL?

Then, why was there powder in the pan?

Then, why did he pull the hammer back?

Then, why did he pull the trigger?

Take away ANY of those four steps and the rifle would not fire.

Hence, gross negligence or criminal intent (if he was just handed the weapon).

This is MUCH different than a nutjob at a gun show slipping liveammo into a gun at some random seller's booth.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

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

I never said that I wasn't curious as to the facts. I was responding to your comment, "not enough info," making the point that there certainly IS enough information to identify proximate cause, which is negligence on the part of the guy holding the weapon when it discharged.

The identity of the owner is wholly irrelevant to that question.

-Rob, Esq. (Admitted in Maryland, U.S. District Court (Dist. MD), 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the US Supreme Court, purportedly)

quote:

Originally posted by sse:

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

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

I never said that I wasn't curious as to the facts. I was responding to your comment, "not enough info," making the point that there certainly IS enough information to identify proximate cause, which is negligence on the part of the guy holding the weapon when it discharged.

The identity of the owner is wholly irrelevant to that question.

-Rob, Esq. (Admitted in Maryland, U.S. District Court (Dist. MD), 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the US Supreme Court, purportedly)

wrong

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

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

I never said that I wasn't curious as to the facts. I was responding to your comment, "not enough info," making the point that there certainly IS enough information to identify proximate cause, which is negligence on the part of the guy holding the weapon when it discharged.

The identity of the owner is wholly irrelevant to that question.

-Rob, Esq. (Admitted in Maryland, U.S. District Court (Dist. MD), 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the US Supreme Court, purportedly)

wrong

You make a compelling argument. I am clearly incorrect.

You didn't happen to be in the Westford Museum in Boston on Sunday, did you?

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
I'm not the one making definitive pronouncements about what happened without any facts.

quote:

I will say this, if the proposition is that anyone who happens to be in possession of a firearm, with an accidental D/C, is fully culpable, regardless of the circumstances, then I disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
First of all you're assuming it was a flintlock. Next, if a flintlock, depending on the condition of the firearm, none of the 3 'thens' are 100% necessary for a flintlock to D/C.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
First of all you're assuming it was a flintlock. Next, if a flintlock, depending on the condition of the firearm, none of the 3 'thens' are 100% necessary for a flintlock to D/C.

If Revolutionary War era, it WAS a flintlock as percussion locks weren't invented until the early 1800's. I don't know how possible it would be to have a mechanical failure that led to enough spark from a flint making it into the flash hole without a charge in the pan. The flash hole is something like a sixteenth of an inch. If there were some sort of mechanical failure, then at the very least, I think he'd have had to have a charged pan to set off the main charge.

What I think is likely enough is that he was attempting to demonstrate a "flash in the pan" without setting off a main charge. Such would be a relatively safe and interesting display in the setting of a museum, provided he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no projectile in the bore. How he could have insured that is using a "ball puller," commonly known and used by muzzle loader hunters and anyone else who knows jack shit about these firearms. It's threaded onto a rod, inserted in the bore, and screwed into any loaded projectile, then pulled. You at least attempt, and yes, you should either know how far it inserts when empty vs. loaded, or be able to tell when it's tapping the back of the chamber, because it feels different than it does when it contacts a lead projectile. That he didn't do so is negligent.


You have your lens you view life through and I appreciate your perspective. All the legal stuff aside, I think the conversation as firearm enthusiasts is interesting enough on it's own to try to determine exactly how one ND's a flintlock.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
I said negligent. I don't know what fully culpable means.
-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
First of all you're assuming it was a flintlock. Next, if a flintlock, depending on the condition of the firearm, none of the 3 'thens' are 100% necessary for a flintlock to D/C.

If Revolutionary War era, it WAS a flintlock as percussion locks weren't invented until the early 1800's. I don't know how possible it would be to have a mechanical failure that led to enough spark from a flint making it into the flash hole without a charge in the pan. The flash hole is something like a sixteenth of an inch. If there were some sort of mechanical failure, then at the very least, I think he'd have had to have a charged pan to set off the main charge.

What I think is likely enough is that he was attempting to demonstrate a "flash in the pan" without setting off a main charge. Such would be a relatively safe and interesting display in the setting of a museum, provided he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no projectile in the bore. How he could have insured that is using a "ball puller," commonly known and used by muzzle loader hunters and anyone else who knows jack shit about these firearms. It's threaded onto a rod, inserted in the bore, and screwed into any loaded projectile, then pulled. You at least attempt, and yes, you should either know how far it inserts when empty vs. loaded, or be able to tell when it's tapping the back of the chamber, because it feels different than it does when it contacts a lead projectile. That he didn't do so is negligent.

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
It's not a good idea to ignite the primed pan indoors.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
It's not a good idea to ignite the primed pan indoors.

And never would I argue that it is, only that I can imagine certain scenarios in which an ignorant or inexperienced person might think it was an OK idea.