State of Minnesota v. Lue Yang, 2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 77

On April 20, 2015 police stopped Lue Yang, searched the vehicle incident to arrest, and recovered a BB gun under the driver's seat. Yang does not contest the stop or search.
The BB gun was powered by compressed carbon dioxide (CO2) in an attached cartridge; it was identified and photographed by officers at the scene.
The State charged Yang under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) for possession of a firearm by an ineligible person (Yang stipulated he was ineligible based on a prior conviction).
At trial the district court denied Yang’s mid-trial motion for judgment of acquittal, ruling a BB gun qualifies as a “firearm” under the statute; a jury convicted Yang and the court sentenced him to 60 months.
On appeal the court considered whether a compressed-air BB gun falls within the statutory term “firearm.” The court applied the plain-meaning approach used by the Minnesota Supreme Court in a contemporaneous decision.
The court concluded a “firearm” means a weapon that propels a projectile by explosive combustion of gunpowder; a compressed-air BB gun does not meet that definition, so the evidence was insufficient and the conviction was reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a BB gun powered by compressed air is a “firearm” under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1	BB gun counts as a firearm under prior appellate precedent (State v. Fleming)	A BB gun is not a firearm; “firearm” plainly means a weapon using explosive force (gunpowder), and compressed-air guns do not qualify	Reversed — compressed-air BB gun is not a “firearm” under § 624.713, so evidence insufficient

State v. Fleming, 724 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (appellate decision holding the term “firearm” in § 624.713 previously included BB guns)
State v. Seifert, 256 N.W.2d 87 (Minn. 1977) (earlier Minnesota Supreme Court decision giving a broad interpretation to “firearm,” relied on in Fleming)