Need to ID k frame pistol for criminal case

[handejector]

Good luck with your case. I hope you beat the rap. I won't be testifying. Let us know how it turns out, please.

 

[steelslaver]

"All input is greatly appreciated"

Well I think we're past that...

As much as anything that far in the past is provable, it was made after 1899. The serial number alone is enough for that. I'm not an attorney, but it seems very easy to prove it was made in the early 1940s. But if the prosecutor doesn't care...what's the issue?

It may be provable, but the point is the prosecutor does NOT know everything you do and probably does not know where to find the info or have the time and ambition to do the research. He may well think he has a slam dunk, until the defense starts asking pointed questions and not getting solid answers backed by references. The OP isn't looking for PROOF that it was made prior to 1900, He is looking for information so he can show that the prosecution does not KNOW for a fact when it was made. The guy armed with the most information can make the guy with less look clueless even if the guy with the least information is actually correct, because the guy with no solid information can't back himself up. Because I say so, doesn't work very well, for anyone in court.

It isn't necessarily what the proof is, its about proving the other side doesn't have it. If the prosecution has any proof they are required to hand it over to the defense, the defense on the other hand has no such obligation. In

 

[tatume]

Are there any known pre-1900 models of S&Ws that share similar characteristics with this pistol?

May I point out the name of this forum (S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961)? To the uninformed, all the hand ejectors look similar.

 

[DWalt]

Ok. Your contention is the gun was made before 1899 and is therefore not a modern gun and because there is no way the prosecution can refute that. Thus, your client can't be convicted of violating a gun law. I looked at the pictures again and I can't see a trademark stamp on the sideplate. If there is no way to ID it as a S&W product, maybe it is a .22 revolver made by another manufacturer before 1899...like US Revolver Company or Colt's Manufacturing. It would have to be a US company because you say the "Made in USA" stamp is present. The prosecution would have to ID the manufacturer and refute it was made before 1899. Tough if they are as ignorant as you say.

One other minor but noteworthy nugget of information. S&W did not start using the MADE IN U.S.A. frame stamp until the early 1920s. Prior to then, there was no frame stamp like that. So far as I know, no other manufacturers used that stamping.

 

[delcrossv]

If all you're trying to prove is that Smith and Wesson made hand ejectors before 1900, then yes, they did. Models of 1896 and 1899.

Do either of those match your clients gun?
Well..... that's for the prosecution to prove up.


I'm really surprised they're still pushing something like this post Heller and Bruen.

 

[steelslaver]

There were also various copies of S&W revolvers made by foreign companies

 

[Alk8944]

BostonGunlawyer,

After reading all of your secondary posts my understanding is you are approaching this from a defense position, not prosecution. Is this correct?

The gun in question is a Smith & Wesson Military and Police revolver, there is absolutely no doubt about this. The minimal description you have provided in your first post leaves no room to question that the gun was made post-1899. With a serial number in the 700,000 range it was manufactured in the late 1930s or early 1940s. If the point of contention is whether it could, possibly, been manufactured prior to 1899, and the prosecution cannot prove that it was made after 1899, then you are on a fools errand!

You well know the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and anyone with a basic knowledge of S&W revolvers and a copy of the "Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson" will be able to easily prove it is well post-1899 "Beyond a reasonable doubt". This book, in several editions, is readily available from any book seller. I have to believe that the "State cannot identify manufacturer or model" is only your conjecture, and not a difficulty the state has expressed.

If you are asking these questions from a prosecution perspective then I whole-heartedly apologize.

 

[BostonGunlawyer]

I want to thank everyone for the information both on the posts and provided in private messages. It has been incredibly helpful and answered mostly everything I needed to know.

I’m not going to comment much more on the defense or why it will work. It’s not just that any burden is on the prosecution, it’s also that not just anyone with S&W knowledge and reliable literature can testify to these topics under our rules of evidence.

Frankly, that was my biggest concern before I posted. If it actually was pre-1899, it was going to be incredibly difficult to admit evidence of that at trial. The fact that it’s not, actually makes the defense easier - given the extensive information you have all provided.

So wanted to thank everyone again, and I’ll post an update of what happens, for those that are curious.

 

[Rick Sanborn]

“There were thousands of revolvers such as this made well before 1899 and well after 1899. My client is no expert in these matters. There was clearly no intent to violate M******* gun laws.” (Or something like that)

 

[bobsguns]

I looked up some of the gun laws in Massachusetts. They make California look easy. All guns need permits, even in the home. Violations are severe. Even something like this, an old, inherited rusty .22 goes unregistered and 18 months in the slammer, mandatory? Wow! And that's where the American Revolution began!

You should read up on the current Bah-ston mayor & her shenanigans.

 

[Nomadmax]

If I ever need a lawyer, I FOR SURE won't use one that puts case details on the internet before the trial. Did they close all the law schools??

 

[DWalt]

Your account of how this case turns out should be very interesting.

 

[merl67]

After reading all this I am once again thankful that I was born in, and live in the free state of Tennessee. Praying this gentleman walks free....

 

[cgt4570]

If something deemed 'illegal' just happens to fall in your lap through no act of your own in a Will, you can't be charged with that. Just like if you're sitting on a park bench, minding your own business, and a bag of crack cocaine falls in your lap from a drone!

 

[CptCurl]

I am a lawyer in MA, where we have the most outrageous gun laws, written by lawyers who have never handled firearms.

I have case where the government cannot Identify the make and model of a pistol. We believe it is a S&W K 200 that had been modified from a .38 to a .22 pre-war to train British troops (has British military stamp on cylinder).

There’s no make/model stamp, serial number is 7xxxxx, one line “Made in USA” stamp, 7 inch barrel.

But we aren’t sure and are looking for other options or some confirmation. All input is greatly appreciated….

View attachment 710746

View attachment 710745

One more comment from a former defense lawyer in hope it might be helpful:

You probably know this, but any stamps or proof marks associated with British use or sale were imprinted after the revolver was manufactured and were not imprinted by the manufacturer. Those marks may indicate use by British forces in WW2, but they say nothing of when the revolver was made. Thus, they are irrelevant.

Another point: In post #29 Handejector quite correctly instructs that the mechanism of this revolver first was produced in 1906. He is referring to the rebound slide. It can be seen from your photo of the left side that the pin for the rebound slide is placed toward the rear, just ahead of the walnut grip panel. Earlier revolvers had a different setup which reveals itself in a pin further forward, just above the rear of the trigger guard. That's the design change he is referring to.

Also, as stated above, the right-side stamp "Made in U.S.A." first appears about 1922.

None of this helps you, but it is good to know ahead of time. Other details noted above all point to post-1898 manufcture.

And of course, if the prosecutor can prove this is a "K" frame, all bets are off, because that frame size came into being in 1899.

Good luck. It sounds like the Mass. gun laws suck big time.

Curly

Be careful of these craters!

 

[BE Mike]

What a waste of taxpayer money to agree to prosecute someone for such a trivial offense.

 

[CptCurl]

Hey Mass. prosecutor:

Pay no attention to the fentanyl dealer on the street corner. The citizens of Mass. will be so much safer if we can put behind bars this elderly gent who mistakenly owned a weapon of mass destruction.

Curly

 

[BostonGunlawyer]

That’s unfortunate you wouldn’t call a lawyer like me who thinks outside the box and finds defenses where there are none. That’s why you’d be spending 18 months in jail mandatory, and my client won’t be.

And just to defend myself I have no details of this case other than details of a pistol no one has been able to identify. If you can figure out which cases out of the billions going in MA right now with information, I’ll retire today.

The 6th amendment is just as important as the 2nd, and its lawyers like me trying to protect the second. It’s certainly not the government or police. So chill out. I’ll come back to take my not guilty victory lap and you can tell me how dumb I am then.

 

[delcrossv]

Don't worry. A lot of crabby old geezers on this forum. Good luck with your case.

 

[Truckman]

A lot of crabby old geezers on this forum.

Who you callin' old, junior?...Crabby?...Geezer?...I'll admit to those......Ben