Background

• On August 16, 2011, MPD Officer Filio Simic responded to a report of a man with a gun; he encountered appellant D.F., a 13‑year‑old, who fled and told the officer before being spoken to that “it’s just a BB gun” and that it was in his waistband.
• Officer Simic recovered a black 6‑mm P‑Ruger BB gun that resembled a real semi‑automatic pistol; identifying marks “BB” were present but the orange tip had been removed and parts were missing (no BBs, no interior barrel, missing CO2 cartridge and magazine); the officer opined the gun failed to test‑fire.
• D.F. moved for acquittal arguing § 2301.3 should be read to require operability (a device capable of expelling a projectile), and that the recovered item was an inoperable frame rather than a BB gun.
• The Superior Court credited Officer Simic and found D.F. violated 24 DCMR § 2301.3 (possession of a BB gun outside a building), holding operability is not an element of that offense.
• On appeal, D.F. conceded the item was a BB gun but argued the evidence of inoperability made the regulatory conviction legally insufficient; the court reviewed the regulatory text and surrounding scheme de novo.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 470 A.2d 751 (D.C. 1983) (statutory construction begins with plain language)
• Gallagher v. District of Columbia, 734 A.2d 1087 (D.C. 1999) (when plain meaning is unambiguous, inquiry ends)
• Washington v. United States, 498 A.2d 247 (D.C. 1985) (operability required for possession of sawed‑off shotgun under statute lacking definition)
• Lee v. United States, 402 A.2d 840 (D.C. 1979) (pistol defined as firearm; operability required)
• Moore v. United States, 927 A.2d 1040 (D.C. 2007) (operability required for machine gun possession under § 22‑3214)
• Tyson v. United States, 30 A.3d 804 (D.C. 2011) (bench‑trial special findings requirement; relevance to factfinding on components)