Opinion ID: 2033799
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does use of the term firearm in section 724.26 require a showing of operability?

Text: Defendant contends trial court should have sustained his directed verdict motion, grounded on the State's failure to prove his shotgun was operable when the alleged section 724.26 violation occurred. Defendant relies on our opinion in State v. Lawr, 263 N.W.2d 747 (Iowa 1978), and a recent amendment to section 724.1(6)(c), which he asserts makes clear the legislature's intent that an unserviceable gun is not a section 724.26 prohibited firearm. This amendment, effective January 1, 1979, provided that an offensive weapon shall not include any firearm which is unserviceable by reason of being unable to discharge a shot by means of an explosive and is incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition. 1978 Session, 67th G.A., ch. 1174, § 2(c) (codified in § 724.1(6)(c), The Code 1981). It is plain the above amendment merely removed unserviceable firearms from the definition of offensive weapons. Firearms and offensive weapons are not synonymous, a distinction made obvious by the alternate reference in section 724.26 to a firearm or offensive weapon (emphasis supplied). If there were no difference, use of the two words would be redundant. It is not presumed the legislature intended words in a statute to be given a redundant or useless meaning. Hanover Insurance Co. v. Alamo Motel, 264 N.W.2d 774, 778 (Iowa 1978). From its decision specifically to exempt unserviceable firearms from section 724.1, as well as from section 724.15 (annual permit, see § 724.15(2)(b), The Code), and its failure to apply the exemption to section 724.26, we discern a legislative intent that convicted felons are not to possess, receive or transport firearms, whether serviceable or unserviceable. Nor do we find our Lawr opinion controlling. There we were concerned with section 695.1, The Code 1977, which made it a felony for a person with intent to use the same unlawfully against the person of another to go armed with a pistol, revolver, or other firearm. See § 708.8, The Code 1981. An operable firearm, necessary to carry out an intent to harm, should not be a requirement of section 724.26 where intent is not an element of the crime and different conduct is sought to be proscribed. In Lawr we simply held that for the purposes of section 695.1, The Code 1977, a starter's pistol was not a firearm. 263 N.W.2d at 751. The device in question was designed so that it could not be adapted or modified to fire a projectile or bullet. Its construction would not permit a cartridge to move into the firing position. Id. at 749. The gun in the case before us was designed to fire a projectile. We hold that under section 724.26 there is no requirement that the firearm be serviceable, and find this issue raised by defendant to be without merit.