explaining that ejusdem generis is a rule of construction that "states that when a general phrase follows a list of specifics, the general phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same type as those listed" (quoting State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211, 219 (Fla. 2007))
How later courts described this case
- explaining that ejusdem generis is a rule of construction that "states that when a general phrase follows a list of specifics, the general phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same type as those listed" (quoting State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211, 219 (Fla. 2007))
- "[W]e are without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit, its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications."
- “[S]ection 790.001(1) emphasizes the ignition system as the distinctive feature of an ‘antique firearm,’ and therefore requires that the firearm possess a certain type of ignition system explicitly mentioned by the statute.”
- The noscitur a sociis canon “instructs that ‘a word is known by the company it keeps.’” (quoting Nehme v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 863 So. 2d 201, 205 (Fla. 2003))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LEWIS, J.,
dissenting.
I disagree with the conclusion of the majority of the Court regarding whether the firearm at issue was a replica of an antique firearm. Although the firearm may have relied upon an ignition mechanism used by similar firearms before 1918, it also featured a scope that was not found on weapons that were available in 1918. In my view, such a firearm cannot constitute an antique firearm as defined by Florida law. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
Although the type of firing system is certainly relevant to the determination of whether a given firearm is an antique firearm as defined by sections 790.23 and 790.001(1), Florida Statutes, I do not believe it is dispositive. Rather, I would conclude that the common understanding of the term “replica” governs whether the firearm possessed by Mr. Weeks qualifies as a replica of an antique firearm as defined by Florida law. Contrary to the statement of the First District below, which is cited by the majority opinion, see majority opinion at 7 (citing Weeks v. State, 146 So.3d 81, 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)), Black’s Law Dictionary defines “replica” as “[a] reasonably exact duplicate that, when viewed, causes people to see substantially the same object as the original; a good copy, [especially] of an artifact, building, or work of art.” Replica, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.2014). A nonlegal dictionary defines “replica” as “an exact copy in all details.” Replica, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.1996). 5 Thus, even absent a legislative definition of “replica” in section 790.23, plain language and common sense dictate that a replica should, at the very least, look like the original object. I would conclude that the addition of a modern scope to an otherwise-antique firearm removes this firearm from the exception provided for antique firearms by the Legislature. Therefore, I would quash the decision below and reinstate Weeks’s conviction.
QUINCE, J., concurs.
. Both Black’s Law Dictionary and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary offer alternative definitions of "replica” that specifically pertain to works of art. See Replica, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.2014); Replica, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 992 (10th ed.1996).