Without regard to the value of the property stolen 31.03(e)(4)(C) seems to make the unlawful appropriation of a firearm a state jail felony. But, that statute applies only to items so defined in 46.01 (3), which in turn specifically excludes firearms that are antiques or curios (maunufactured before 1899). If the stolen firearm was manufactured before 1899 and worth less than $1500, would you charge the theft offense solely on the basis of its value under e.g. 31.03(e)(3)? Older firearms could easily be worth more than newer ones (but still less than $1500) and some can be just as dangerous, so why did the legislature choose to incorporate the curio exception in defining theft of a firearm? Or did it?

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer so all of this is just layman speculation. These old cases could be outdated. I might have misunderstood them and I might be quoting out of context.

The antique exception is an affirmative defense:
Jackson v. State 575 S.W.2d 567 Tex.Cr.App., 1979
Hayes v. State 560 S.W.2d 671 Tex.Cr.App. 1978

If this is still good law then it seems like your defendant would have to basically concede to the Class A theft in order to raise this defense and it would be his burden by preponderance.

Also, in Cantu v.State the San Antonio court (1990 pet ref'd) ruled that an antique shotgun did not qualify for this exception because it was crudely sawed off ... obviously not originally manufactured in this condition.

One more:

quote:

---

"The terms of Sec. 46.01 quoted above exclude from the definition of "firearm" those Antique or Curio firearms manufactured before 1899; it does not automatically exclude all firearms made before that date. The jury was instructed on the law and had the weapon before them. Mere failure of the proof to show the date of manufacture does not render the evidence insufficient." - Scott v. State 571 S.W.2d 893 Tex.Cr.App.,1978

---

In regard to your second question, my top two guesses would be:
1) The legislature did not want to create a duplicate definition of "firearm" because if they want to change it in the future they have to remember to change it everywhere it appears or risk confusion.

2) Theft of a firearm is more egregious than theft of other items because it puts a deadly weapon in the hands of a criminal. If there is a witness to this crime then the actor may be motivated to attack this witness. Maybe they imagined an antique or curio firearm to be like an old flintlock: likely stored unloaded in a display cabinet, probably without ammunition, perhaps requiring hand-made bullets, with limited range and accuracy, and requiring much practice to reload fast enough to fire once per minute. I guess what I'm trying to say is they probably were NOT thinking of a Gatlin gun!