Court Opinion

ID: 9766321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:41:31.225231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:21.392067
License: Public Domain

Murphy, C. J.

dissenting:

The Court holds that a tear gas pistol is not a “handgun” within the meaning of the statute because it is not a “firearm” capable of emitting a missile propelled by gunpowder “or a similar explosive.” I respectfully dissent.
At trial a gun expert testified that the “tear gas” was propelled by an extremely violent explosive and was itself actually a large quantity of very fine particles and not a gas at all. He referred to the particles as projectiles. Relying on this testimony, the Court of Special Appeals held that “the propellant was an explosive charge” and that “what it propelled were projectiles or missiles.” Howell and Kaschenbach v. State, 29 Md. App. 646, 654, 350 A. 2d 145, *397150 (1976). The court added that “the size of the projectile is of no moment,” and concluded:
“[A] weapon, in the form of a pistol which will, or which is designed to, or which may readily be converted to expel, by an explosive force, tear gas in the form of finely divided solids or particles, is a ‘handgun’ within the meaning of art. 27, § § 36B-36F.” 29 Md. App. at 655,350 A. 2d at 151.
The majority of this Court, however, has limited the requisite propellant to gunpowder or a similar explosive and has determined that tear gas “is not a missile within the natural and ordinary signification of the term.” 278 Md. at 396, 364 A. 2d at 801.1 cannot agree and therefore conclude, as did the Court of Special Appeals, that a tear gas gun fits within the statutory definition of a “handgun.”
The majority lists seven definitions of “firearm” and from them concludes that gunpowder “or a similar explosive” must be the propellant if a weapon is to be considered a firearm and, consequently, a handgun. Admittedly, the propellant for a tear gas gun is not gunpowder, but it is undisputed that it is a violent explosive. The majority offers no explanation for its refusal to treat the tear gas charge as an explosive within the contemplation of the statute, and I see no legislative intent to exclude it.
The Court also finds that tear gas is not a missile, as that term is ordinarily understood. As heretofore indicated, the expert at trial testified that tear gas is not gaseous but composed of many fine particles, and his testimony was undisputed. I agree with the Court of Special Appeals that these particles are projectiles or missiles and that “Whether it be as big as an artillery shell or as small as a subatomic particle, it is still a projectile.” §9 Md. App. at 654, 350 A. 2d at 150.
In my opinion, then, a tear gas gun does fit within the statutory definition of handgun, for it is a weapon which discharges a projectile, propelled by an explosive.