Opinion ID: 1724484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pellet gun a dangerous weapon within the meaning of sec. 943.32 (2), Stats.

Text: The defendant is charged with violation of sec. 943.32 (1) and (2), Stats., which provide as follows: (1) Whoever, with intent to steal, takes property from the person or presence of the owner by either of  the following means may be imprisoned not more than 10 years: (a) By using force against the person of the owner with intent thereby to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance to the taking or carrying away of the property; or (b) By threatening the imminent use of force against the person of the owner or of another who is present with intent thereby to compel the owner to acquiesce in the taking or carrying away of the property. (2) Whoever violates sub. (1) while armed with a dangerous weapon may be imprisoned not more than 30 years. The information charges that he was armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit, a pellet gun. Counsel contends that a pellet gun is not a dangerous weapon in the purview of the statute. Sec. 939.22 (10) defines dangerous weapon as: . . . any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm, or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Sec. 939.22 (14) defines great bodily harm as: . . . bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury. A pellet gun is not a firearm. A firearm is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as a weapon which acts by force of gunpowder. The question, however, is whether a pellet gun is a device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm. It is clear that a pellet gun is a weapon. In W. H. B. Smith, Gas, Air, & Spring Guns of the World, Military Service Publishing Company  (1957), the following definition appears at page 169: A compressed-air gun (or rifle or pistol) is an arm in which the air which furnishes the force to propel the pellet (or ball, bullet, dart, or spear) is compressed in a chamber, which may be housed within the arm or may be attached directly to it. The record does not disclose the exact nature or make of the pellet gun used. The transcript reveals that the gun was pumped up. Smith, supra, page 169, points out that in England pump guns are by law limited in muzzle velocity and those that exceed the limitations are declared to be firearms and are subject to severe restrictions as to use. In discussing American pump pellet guns, Smith states (p. 169): The number of pumping strokes determines the variable power, which can considerably exceed European police regulations. The Benjamin pump pistol will penetrate about one-fourth inch of pine (Smith, supra, p. 176). A pump-gun rifle may penetrate as much an an inch into a pine board ( supra, p. 172). Smith states that the Sheridan Super pump rifle has a muzzle velocity of 770 feet per second, and pests or vermin can be killed as much as 60 yards or 70 yards distance from the muzzle. The Sheridan has been used as a rat exterminator on the Los Angeles dumps, as a hog stunner for slaughtering on farms, and for killing trapped foxes. . . . ( supra, p. 191). Richard Leofric Jackson, Assistant Commissioner, Criminal Investigation Department, New Scotland Yard, London, writes in the text, Criminal Investigation: Although not, strictly speaking, a firearm, it should be remembered that the modern airgun or so-called air rifle will fire a bullet up to .22 with accuracy up to ranges of at least fifty yards, and that serious damage can be done with one of these weapons at considerably  longer ranges. (Gross, Criminal Investigation, 5th ed., by Jackson, p. 217.) It is undoubtedly true that a pellet gun is less lethal than the usual firearm, and the gun used in the robbery was apparently not a rifle; however, the facts set forth above make it clear that the pellet gun is not a toy, but is potentially a weapon of great effectiveness and utility. Our court in Harris v. Cameron (1892), 81 Wis. 239, 51 N. W. 437, held that a Daisy BB gun was not a weapon of such a nature that it was negligence per se for a father to give it to a child. That case is not authority for holding that a pellet gun is not a dangerous weapon, for the question in Harris was that of the father's civil liability. Moreover, Harris made much of the fact that the Daisy was a mere toy or plaything for boys. The information quoted above shows that pellet guns are not mere toys. The record shows that Rafferty and a companion robbed a filling station and used the pellet gun in the commission of the crime. The defendant pulled the pellet gun on the attendant and demanded the money on his person and in the cash register. The attendant was at gunpoint forced to lie on the floor. While he was in that position, the defendant struck him on the head with the pellet gun. The impact discharged the gun, and the pellet embedded itself in the wall. The fact that the pellet was thus embedded is evidence of the striking power of a pellet gun at close range. We conclude that a pellet gun used as a compressed-air weapon is a dangerous weapon calculated or likely to produce great bodily harm. Moreover, the gun, used as a bludgeon, was a dangerous weapon. This court, even prior to the statutory change which included an unloaded firearm in the definition of dangerous weapon (sec. 939.22 (10), Stats.), recognized that a pistol used to strike with is a dangerous  weapon. Schiner v. State (1922), 178 Wis. 83, 189 N. W. 261. The California supreme court has held that a toy cap pistol used as a bludgeon is a dangerous weapon. People v. Ward (1948), 84 Cal. App. (2d) 357, 190 Pac. (2d) 972; People v. Coleman (1942), 53 Cal. App. (2d) 18, 127 Pac. (2d) 309. A recent Maryland case, Jackson v. State (1963), 231 Md. 591, 191 Atl. (2d) 432, held that a starter's pistol, which could not discharge a bullet, was a dangerous weapon because it could be used as a bludgeon and because it had the appearance of a lethal gun. We have no hesitancy in holding that the pellet gun when used as a bludgeon, in this case to strike the filling station attendant, is an instrumentality which, in the manner it is used ... is calculated . . . to produce . . . great bodily harm.