User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 3:48:53 AM EDT
[#1]
the latest filing as of 1/20/2012 is a request for status conference, which was granted also on that day.
nothing really interesting, but you can deduce that the USA is not playing fair (shocking, i know) and giving them the discovery they have. In addition, on January 18, 2012, defense counsel participated in a telephone conference and there was serious concern expressed regarding specific discovery requests that had been made in writing repeatedly but that no response had been given by the Government. Thus, the requested items remain outstanding. order granting hearing: ORDER granting 239 Motion for Hearing as to George Dibril Clark III (1). A Status Hearing is set for Monday, February 6, 2012 at 3:30 PM before Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver as to all defendants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 3:55:34 AM EDT
[#2]
You know, I hate to say this but this case and every other firearms prosecution needs to be put on hold until the F&F scandal is resolved. The BATFE and DOJ have lost all moral authority to even consider charging people for any firearms violation after what they did. It's no different than a panel of child molesters charging someone for a sex crime with a minor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 3:58:05 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Don't they have to if it's evidence relevant to the case? (Have to meaning what they should do if the law applied to everyone.)defendants asked the .gov to keep a copy of all their emails going back to 2006 - preserve electronic evidence. they also asked the .gov to preserve John Brown's (president of NFATCA) emails. lol The government opposes any preservation request for private citizens. Mr. John Brown is a private citizen and not an employee of the United States. Therefore, his electronic mail is not in the custody or possession of the United States and cannot be preserved by the United States. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 4:03:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't they have to if it's evidence relevant to the case? (Have to meaning what they should do if the law applied to everyone.)
defendants asked the .gov to keep a copy of all their emails going back to 2006 - preserve electronic evidence. they also asked the .gov to preserve John Brown's (president of NFATCA) emails. lol The government opposes any preservation request for private citizens. Mr. John Brown is a private citizen and not an employee of the United States. Therefore, his electronic mail is not in the custody or possession of the United States and cannot be preserved by the United States. assuming that they have custody and control of his emails? i would think they do. and by that, i mean those emails sent back and forth from brown to his atf handler or whatever. i'm not saying his personal email account or emails not sent back and forth to the atf handlers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 4:19:55 AM EDT
[#5]
Could Brown, as president of the NFATCA, been acting as a alleged government confidential informant in order to protect the status quo re: the NFA (as amended) and NFATCA in order to protect the interests (investments?) of certain persons within NFATCA's membership?
And how does his relationship with BATFE as an alleged government confidential informant in this case tie to the recent regulatory changes NFATCA has taken credit for (which may be good and may be bad, depending on their final form)? The seeming total incompetency of the BATFE has helped some people materially and hurt others materially. The mish-mash of seemingly capricious tech branch letters and regulatory interpretations that are apparently made up on the spot, combined with what appear to be pre-determined, unscientific testing practices and incomplete records hidden behind a veil of secrecy appears so unprofessional and incompetent that a suspicious person would almost imagine it is done deliberately. This is not the first case where the BATFE has appeared to flaunt the rules of criminal procedure. Usually the judge appears more disposed to hold the Government to what can only be described as a lower standard of professional and legal ethics while apparently dismissing defense's protests out of hand - raising the specter of judicial and prosecutorial collusion, if not misconduct (which can't be the case and must only be my lay misinterpretation of the facts). When this apparently doesn't happen, the results seem to be cases like US v. Rock Island (773 F.Supp. 117 (C.D.Ill. 1991) ) - which the Government seems to deliberately not appeal and therefore remain precedent only in that District. I would not be surprised if the AUSA isn't drawing this out to bankrupt the defendants in order to force them to accept a plea deal or to stymie any appeal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 4:26:36 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: wgjhsafT: "They switched serial numbers between guns a little bit at a time, step by step to avoid notice. Then it got noticed." I have to ask; How is it you came to this conclusion? Somebody told you? You saw documents that prove this? You were there? What if it happened all at once and ATF questioned any of them at the time and "approved" them under the authority of the United States (see 922(o) for "under the authority of the United States" language). If in any instance that a SN was "switched", that is...could be that everything but the SN could have been modified? "Apparently those who were breaking the law were far more coordinated than those who were supposed to enforce it." What wisdom or information do you base your opinion that they were "breaking the law"? What part of the US codes states you cant modify your machinegun? ...only one my friend, you can't alter the serial number. That's it, nothing more. What part of the ATF written regulations say you can't modify your machinegun?...see above. What ATF ruling says you can't?....there is none. So I guess my question to you is what statute or regulation was violated in such a way that you "know" the defendants were "breaking the law"? Len, I think you misquoted my quote...so to speak. Oh, and my only line I actually wrote which you have in red above... "Apparently those who were breaking the law were far more coordinated than those who were supposed to enforce it." Is simply based off of what was read from the documents according to the ATF. Do I believe they were "breaking the law" as it is written or have broken the law? No, however my point is that someone figured out a way to do something and in a more coordinated fashion than the ATF was able to cope with...initially. Please edit your post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 10:00:36 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
A Status Hearing is set for Monday, February 6, 2012 at 3:30 PM before Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver as to all defendants. Nolo, is this the Judge that has been hearing this case all along? The one that has been refrenced in your previous transcript posts? Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 10:03:05 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
I would not be surprised if the AUSA isn't drawing this out to bankrupt the defendants in order to force them to accept a plea deal or to stymie any appeal. We've seen this tactic used against board members before.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 11:06:33 AM EDT
[#9]
http://www.nfatca.org/012512.htm
From NFATCA, which apparently took the link down after it was posted. The direct link is still available, and I have copied an excerpt from it. *************************************************************************** The report from SHOT and a Response to the Voices of Discontent... This is a cut and paste from an email I sent to Mike Meador. I hope you find it instructive. First things first... The allegation that John Brown (or Dan Shea) is a confidential informant. Just because Savage or Vandy or even a lawyer claims it to be so doesn't necessarily make it a fact. Being a CI is a tremendously complicated process and is not something that is undertaken casually. Have a look at the guide: http://www.justice.gov/ag/readingroom/ciguidelines.htm So Bob Sanders states in a motion that he believes through his own discovery that John is a CI... That's just an opinion. And it is done to cloud the issues surrounding the pending issues against his client. It's a sound tactic, whether it is true or not. Unfortunately, it isn't true. And what's worse, Bob Sanders represented John and the NFATCA, so there may even be some doubt as to whether ethics and propriety were violated by such a disclosure, true or not. It's called conflict of interest. I wonder what will be flipped on who when Bob gets his next client? As for ATF, it is now a holy charlie foxtrot. Sure, life would be easier if the ATF did not exist. Crappy legislation was given to a bunch of folks for interpretation and enforcement and then those folks have had to wing it on their own without leadership and with political agendas. It's not a good mix. But ATF isn't really going away any time soon so we chose to figure out how to push the ball forward instead of just banging the drum for their demise. It was a pragmatic and practical approach. We needed to get things done. And we met with initial rebuff, but eventually became an effective agency for change. It was an era of cooperation. At least with us. *********************** more at link |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 11:50:17 AM EDT
[#10]
vanderboegh linked to the full text and his response on sipsey street. can't link it but it's a good read
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 3:26:27 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't they have to if it's evidence relevant to the case? (Have to meaning what they should do if the law applied to everyone.)
defendants asked the .gov to keep a copy of all their emails going back to 2006 - preserve electronic evidence. they also asked the .gov to preserve John Brown's (president of NFATCA) emails. lol The government opposes any preservation request for private citizens. Mr. John Brown is a private citizen and not an employee of the United States. Therefore, his electronic mail is not in the custody or possession of the United States and cannot be preserved by the United States. I know the hoops that WE (Municipal Agency) have to jump through to honor Discovery requests in a timely manner......amazing how the feds can just ignore a judge. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 3:31:05 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
http://www.nfatca.org/012512.htm From NFATCA, which apparently took the link down after it was posted. The direct link is still available, and I have copied an excerpt from it. *************************************************************************** The report from SHOT and a Response to the Voices of Discontent... This is a cut and paste from an email I sent to Mike Meador. I hope you find it instructive. First things first... The allegation that John Brown (or Dan Shea) is a confidential informant. Just because Savage or Vandy or even a lawyer claims it to be so doesn't necessarily make it a fact. Being a CI is a tremendously complicated process and is not something that is undertaken casually. Have a look at the guide: http://www.justice.gov/ag/readingroom/ciguidelines.htm So Bob Sanders states in a motion that he believes through his own discovery that John is a CI... That's just an opinion. And it is done to cloud the issues surrounding the pending issues against his client. It's a sound tactic, whether it is true or not. Unfortunately, it isn't true. And what's worse, Bob Sanders represented John and the NFATCA, so there may even be some doubt as to whether ethics and propriety were violated by such a disclosure, true or not. It's called conflict of interest. I wonder what will be flipped on who when Bob gets his next client? As for ATF, it is now a holy charlie foxtrot. Sure, life would be easier if the ATF did not exist. Crappy legislation was given to a bunch of folks for interpretation and enforcement and then those folks have had to wing it on their own without leadership and with political agendas. It's not a good mix. But ATF isn't really going away any time soon so we chose to figure out how to push the ball forward instead of just banging the drum for their demise. It was a pragmatic and practical approach. We needed to get things done. And we met with initial rebuff, but eventually became an effective agency for change. It was an era of cooperation. At least with us. *********************** more at link Maybe i'm just a Cynical bastard Nolo....but these are the same guys that stand to lose a metric fuckton of money if 9229o) ever goes away, anyone want to bet that there is money changing hands to KEEP the registration moratorium in place??? I'm NOT talking about anyone here, as most of our NFA-owning memebrs are on record that they would take the loss in value to reopen the registry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 3:45:19 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
http://www.nfatca.org/012512.htm From NFATCA, which apparently took the link down after it was posted. The direct link is still available, and I have copied an excerpt from it. *************************************************************************** The report from SHOT and a Response to the Voices of Discontent... This is a cut and paste from an email I sent to Mike Meador. I hope you find it instructive. First things first... The allegation that John Brown (or Dan Shea) is a confidential informant. Just because Savage or Vandy or even a lawyer claims it to be so doesn't necessarily make it a fact. Being a CI is a tremendously complicated process and is not something that is undertaken casually. Have a look at the guide: http://www.justice.gov/ag/readingroom/ciguidelines.htm So Bob Sanders states in a motion that he believes through his own discovery that John is a CI... That's just an opinion. And it is done to cloud the issues surrounding the pending issues against his client. It's a sound tactic, whether it is true or not. Unfortunately, it isn't true. And what's worse, Bob Sanders represented John and the NFATCA, so there may even be some doubt as to whether ethics and propriety were violated by such a disclosure, true or not. It's called conflict of interest. I wonder what will be flipped on who when Bob gets his next client? As for ATF, it is now a holy charlie foxtrot. Sure, life would be easier if the ATF did not exist. Crappy legislation was given to a bunch of folks for interpretation and enforcement and then those folks have had to wing it on their own without leadership and with political agendas. It's not a good mix. But ATF isn't really going away any time soon so we chose to figure out how to push the ball forward instead of just banging the drum for their demise. It was a pragmatic and practical approach. We needed to get things done. And we met with initial rebuff, but eventually became an effective agency for change. It was an era of cooperation. At least with us. *********************** more at link Very, very interesting indeed. Give me a shout bro at your leisure. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 4:34:00 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
http://www.nfatca.org/012512.htm From NFATCA, which apparently took the link down after it was posted. The direct link is still available, and I have copied an excerpt from it. *************************************************************************** The report from SHOT and a Response to the Voices of Discontent... This is a cut and paste from an email I sent to Mike Meador. I hope you find it instructive. First things first... The allegation that John Brown (or Dan Shea) is a confidential informant. Just because Savage or Vandy or even a lawyer claims it to be so doesn't necessarily make it a fact. Being a CI is a tremendously complicated process and is not something that is undertaken casually. Have a look at the guide: http://www.justice.gov/ag/readingroom/ciguidelines.htm So Bob Sanders states in a motion that he believes through his own discovery that John is a CI... That's just an opinion. And it is done to cloud the issues surrounding the pending issues against his client. It's a sound tactic, whether it is true or not. Unfortunately, it isn't true. And what's worse, Bob Sanders represented John and the NFATCA, so there may even be some doubt as to whether ethics and propriety were violated by such a disclosure, true or not. It's called conflict of interest. I wonder what will be flipped on who when Bob gets his next client? As for ATF, it is now a holy charlie foxtrot. Sure, life would be easier if the ATF did not exist. Crappy legislation was given to a bunch of folks for interpretation and enforcement and then those folks have had to wing it on their own without leadership and with political agendas. It's not a good mix. But ATF isn't really going away any time soon so we chose to figure out how to push the ball forward instead of just banging the drum for their demise. It was a pragmatic and practical approach. We needed to get things done. And we met with initial rebuff, but eventually became an effective agency for change. It was an era of cooperation. At least with us. *********************** more at link how would they know if he is a CI? his opinion has not been proved wrong in court yet or he admitted to not being one, just NFATCA saying that he's not I think they don't like the bad press, the more i hear about them the more i think they are an elite bunch of owners who want to keep the 86 ban intact to keep prices high |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 4:38:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
..... the more i hear about them the more i think they are an elite bunch of owners who want to keep the 86 ban intact to keep prices high There are many like that among us... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2012 5:11:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
..... the more i hear about them the more i think they are an elite bunch of owners who want to keep the 86 ban intact to keep prices high There are many like that among us... "We" are our own worst enemies sometimes. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2012 10:20:28 AM EDT
[#17]
January 27, 2012
Ms. Kathy Lemke Office of the US Attorney We have been provided in discovery an undated memorandum from the Associate Chief Counsel, FEA to the Chief, Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) which is located at Bates number ROS 0008426 in the discovery. The memorandum indicates that it was generated as a result of a request from the FTB. I am writing to request you provide me with a copy of that request. I am also requesting that you advise me the date the memorandum was prepared. I make this request for two reasons: First, I need the request to put the memorandum in context. The memorandum addresses several different firearms and several different methods of assembling them in different model configurations and in different calibers and ammunition feeding systems. Until I know the exact request to the counsel's office I cannot fully understand the opinion(s) expressed in the letter. Second I believe the request from the FTB falls under the general ambit of Brady v. Maryland. As the memorandum indicates it was prepared "in anticipation of litigation." The timing of the request appears to place it within the timeframe that the instant prosecution began. Obviously if the FTB was seeking clarification as to the viability of any prosecution of Mr. Clark et at. then that fact can be used for impeachment of any government expert witness. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response. Until then I remain, Sincerely, /s/ (lawyer) (copied from letter to AUSA Lemke from one of the defendants attorneys) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2012 1:27:37 PM EDT
[#18]
I am trying to format the response from the usa re:grand jury testimony. The pdf I got from pacer is not cooperating
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2012 1:33:07 PM EDT
[#19]
hehe, I can tell you from experience that folks hate having to read back their own bullshit in open court, especially if it is a grandjury transcript.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2012 1:34:44 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
hehe, I can tell you from experience that folks hate having to read back their own bullshit in open court, especially if it is a grandjury transcript. The us atty is basically claiming that 1)they didn't misstate the law and 2)even if they did its not grounds for dismissing the indictment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2012 4:04:47 PM EDT
[#21]
Kathy Lemke, Esquire Assistant U.S. Attorney
February 3, 2012 ] RE: Request for Discovery/Brady Material 10th Discovery Letter Dear Ms. Lemke; Attached is a copy of an ATF Form letter which was obtained recently. The copy is undated and has no addressee in the spaces provided. As you will see, the letter is a notice to multiple purchasers of Stemple M60 machineguns. Space is provided for the insertion of the serial numbers and the date registered (the date of ATF approval of the Forms 4 Applications). The date of the letter can be ascertained as a time during the tenure of the signator, Wayne Miller, as Chief, NFA Branch, but I have no way of learning that. The content of this letter is pure Brady material which was never disclosed. The letter is evidence of the existence of a policy within ATF that is inimical to the prosecution of this case. This letter relates to Stemple M60 machineguns that were manufactured after May 19, 1986 and thus prohibited to transfer and register on a Form 4. It can be inferred that a form letter was necessary to give notice to more than a few persons possessing Stemple M60s. The purpose of the letter is to give notice of ATF’s decision to allow the machinegun to remain registered and allow the registered owner to lawfully continue to possess it. The letter indicates ATF’s reasoning for approving the transfers; “...the actual date of manufacture did not come to our attention until after we approved its transfer to you.” It also adds the condition that any attempt to transfer the machinegun in the future will be denied. In other words, § 922(o)’s criminal provisions will not be applied to all possessors of the Stemple M60s referenced in these letters nor will the forfeiture provisions of 26 U.S.C. 5872 be applied. Obviously, the purpose of this form letter is to implement a policy created by ATF and implemented by ATF institutional policy developed within ATF. I request to be provided with a copy of all documents, memos, correspondence, notes and papers by whatever name relates to the  Page 2 of 2 Kathy Lemke, Esquire Assistant United States Attorney Phoenix, AZ February 3, 2010 ATF formulation of the policy bearing on the creation, review and approval of the Stemple M60 Form letter. In prior discovery/Brady requests over the past year, I have informed you that the primary repository of letters involving prior determinations of the issues involved in this case are the Firearms Technology Branch, National Firearms Branch, and the Office of Chief Counsel. It is highly probable that the Stemple M60 form letter originated in the Office of the Director and files may be there as well. I also request a true copy of the Forms 3 and 4 from John Stemple as the transferor of an M60 to all transferees and a screen shot of the NFRTR for all such machineguns. The Stemple M60 form letter is not the product of an isolated case. Please cause a diligent search for Brady material within the records maintained in the ATF offices listed above and copies as same as soon as possible. /s/ signature |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2012 4:15:38 PM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2012 4:30:25 PM EDT
[#23]
I knew that would come back to bite them in the ass someday. On the one hand I was happy the owners got to keep their guns even if they couldn't sell them(except as post samples or destroying the receiver and selling them as parts kits). On the other hand there are people who have gone to jail for building and being in possession of post sample MG's and to me the situation is basically the same. The possession of post ban MG's, the only difference is one group was given the ok to be in violation of the law and the other group was not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2012 4:31:30 PM EDT
[#24]
Did they just say that they were wrong, but its OK to keep the machine gun? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2012 4:33:01 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Did they just say that they were wrong, but its OK to keep the machine gun? Yes. "Oops our mistake your gain" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2012 4:38:50 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Did they just say that they were wrong, but its OK to keep the machine gun? yep.... amazing huh. b/c atf transferred it "by mistake" they are letting them keep the guns. but prosecuting clark et al for their transfers. and dont forget lemke's testimony about machineguns aftter 1986 as always prohibited. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2012 4:43:00 PM EDT
[#27]
there is a big hearing on the 6th.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2012 4:53:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Well now. This could set quite a precedent for conflicting approval letters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2012 5:14:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Well now. This could set quite a precedent for conflicting approval letters. Which is why all of the private letter rulings should be abolished. They should have a public repository and they should apply to everyone equally |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2012 5:27:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Doesn't this firmly set the ground for equal protection challenges to the 922(o) at large?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2012 5:00:19 PM EDT
[#31]
I'm kind of surprised this thread isn't more active. Either way, bump for Monday's hearing!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2012 5:50:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did they just say that they were wrong, but its OK to keep the machine gun? yep.... amazing huh. b/c atf transferred it "by mistake" they are letting them keep the guns. but prosecuting clark et al for their transfers. and dont forget lemke's testimony about machineguns aftter 1986 as always prohibited. Aren't post 86 machineguns illegal except for manufacturer's and the military? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2012 6:10:47 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did they just say that they were wrong, but its OK to keep the machine gun? yep.... amazing huh. b/c atf transferred it "by mistake" they are letting them keep the guns. but prosecuting clark et al for their transfers. and dont forget lemke's testimony about machineguns aftter 1986 as always prohibited. Aren't post 86 machineguns illegal except for manufacturer's and the military? Except for the exception listed above. I wonder if there are more 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2012 9:10:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did they just say that they were wrong, but its OK to keep the machine gun? yep.... amazing huh. b/c atf transferred it "by mistake" they are letting them keep the guns. but prosecuting clark et al for their transfers. and dont forget lemke's testimony about machineguns aftter 1986 as always prohibited. Aren't post 86 machineguns illegal except for manufacturer's and the military? Except for the exception listed above. I wonder if there are more There are unproven rumors that I have heard over the years that some high ranking politicians have gotten guns added. If someone could find evidence of that it would mean interesting things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2012 9:17:31 PM EDT
[#35]
Bump
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2012 9:54:52 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
I'm kind of surprised this thread isn't more active. Either way, bump for Monday's hearing!!! Anything NFA amnesty or abolishment related is a depressing subject. People may be so accustomed to knowing that it will never happen in their lifetime, that they don't care to talk about this particular case and where it could go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2012 2:54:18 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Find a single NFA owner that has publically stated that is his position. The shooters want it gone, even if it means lose of value.
Maybe i'm just a Cynical bastard Nolo....but these are the same guys that stand to lose a metric fuckton of money if 9229o) ever goes away, anyone want to bet that there is money changing hands to KEEP the registration moratorium in place??? I'm NOT talking about anyone here, as most of our NFA-owning memebrs are on record that they would take the loss in value to reopen the registry. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2012 3:27:49 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: I'm kind of surprised this thread isn't more active. Either way, bump for Monday's hearing!!! I never heard of it until this morning. Tagscribed! Somehow it doesn't surprise me much at all
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2012 3:47:43 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
There are unproven rumors that I have heard over the years that some high ranking politicians have gotten guns added. If someone could find evidence of that it would mean interesting things. Didn't our own (former) member Styer Aug examine a certain HK firearm that was manufactured well after MAY 1986, transferred to someone on a form 4? I recall the guy asked his boss for permission to buy one, his boss said wait a bit, presented him with a brand new one on a form 4, he paid the agency the price for the weapon and was GTG. Ring any bells? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2012 3:54:09 AM EDT
[#41]
This case has my hopes up but in cases like these the judge almost always rules in spite of overwhelming evidence. Behind closed doors someone tells him the world would end if he/she ruled the case on it's merits and all of a sudden he/she pulls a 180 and justifies it with an asinine argument.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2012 4:09:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did they just say that they were wrong, but its OK to keep the machine gun? yep.... amazing huh. b/c atf transferred it "by mistake" they are letting them keep the guns. but prosecuting clark et al for their transfers. and dont forget lemke's testimony about machineguns aftter 1986 as always prohibited. Aren't post 86 machineguns illegal except for manufacturer's and the military? Except for the exception listed above. I wonder if there are more There are unproven rumors that I have heard over the years that some high ranking politicians have gotten guns added. If someone could find evidence of that it would mean interesting things. that is a no brainer. i'd really like an audit of the nfrtr. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2012 4:34:52 AM EDT
[#45]
why not the local tea party
 , the brady campaign is "supposed" to be a political party I wonder if they have any Posties too
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2012 4:52:43 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
More importantly what the hell is a political subdivision thereof? County, city, town, township, etc., etc., Only government entities need apply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2012 6:58:13 AM EDT
[#47]
Question:
Is a registered voter and a citizen of the US the most basic form of a political subdivision of the US government
As in a government by the people
As in Jury duty??? Is not Jury Duty a government function [judicial branch] that a registered voter/citizen is mandated and compelled to participate in
I don't claim to know the answer...just a question
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2012 7:14:38 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
I'm kind of surprised this thread isn't more active. Either way, bump for Monday's hearing!!! I think a lot of people got discouraged over the..."Loss" isnt the proper word I guess, after all of the Dissapointment when the Push to get the Procedural screwups with the Hughes Amendment addition noticed, or get any traction. I follow it because frankly I find the whole case fascinating. While i'm always glad to see atf with egg on their faces, otoh, i Do plan to one day get out of here and to someplace where NFA isnt just something i have to surf arfcom for..and I'd LIKE to be able to still lay hands on a Mac, or other "Cheap" (relatively speaking) MG...and the potentials of this case are somewhat worrisome in that regard. Of course now we get down to the "WHAT Exactly Is the Machinegun??" Is it the receiver, which has normally (Except of course in the case of certain parts like RDIAS,LL, and Such) been considered "The Machinegun", or is it merely that Portion of the Receiver that Holds the Serial Number? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2012 7:18:46 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Find a single NFA owner that has publically stated that is his position. The shooters want it gone, even if it means lose of value.
Maybe i'm just a Cynical bastard Nolo....but these are the same guys that stand to lose a metric fuckton of money if 9229o) ever goes away, anyone want to bet that there is money changing hands to KEEP the registration moratorium in place??? I'm NOT talking about anyone here, as most of our NFA-owning memebrs are on record that they would take the loss in value to reopen the registry. Kharn I'm disappointed to say this, but in the Hughes Amendment thread a year or so ago, when the Footage of the House Vote was finally obtained, we had someone who at least CLAIMED to be an MG owner say exactly that. Again.. I Believe MOST MG owners fall into the "922(o) Sucks and it should be disbanded" camp..however i ALSO believe as others do that there are folks out there with hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in their collections who believe the opposite, and note I said "Collections"..problem is the guys with enough money to HAVE that kind of cash sunk into a collection like that also has the money for more political clout as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2012 7:21:56 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are unproven rumors that I have heard over the years that some high ranking politicians have gotten guns added. If someone could find evidence of that it would mean interesting things. Didn't our own (former) member Styer Aug examine a certain HK firearm that was manufactured well after MAY 1986, transferred to someone on a form 4? I recall the guy asked his boss for permission to buy one, his boss said wait a bit, presented him with a brand new one on a form 4, he paid the agency the price for the weapon and was GTG. Ring any bells? I know of some guys that got them transferred along with agency purchases (Illinois State Police IIRC??) ..and they got charged for it, in the end it was decided that the wording on the law was vague, and they were not convicted, although i DO believe the weapons had to be transferred to the Department, and were not the property of the individual troopers. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
