Update on Berlin BATFE Raid - Page 3

General » Legal Section

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Update on Berlin BATFE Raid (Page 3 of 46)

Posted: 11/29/2006 8:42:13 AM EDT

[#1]

Bladerunner,

I recommend you read DownTime - A Guide to Federal Incarceration©

We suggest it to all of our clients after sentencing.

www.dnovakconsulting.com/downtime.html

Posted: 11/29/2006 8:56:02 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Do not argue over jurisdictional issues as a basis for your defense!

Expend your resources arguing the facts, not legal theories. Either the rifle in question was full auto or it wasn't. You can create all sorts of hassles (contempt of court, sanctions, etc) for the BATFE for not sharing evidence or obeying the court's orders.

If the judge is going to get mad let it be at your opponents and let it be for tampering with evidence, refusing to share evidence, and disobeying court orders (re: your motions).

People who argue legal theory do so because they don't have a REAL defense and are trying to shift the focus away from themselves. Don't do that. It's the argument of fools and liars, and the judges generally won't take the bait.

Not to mention that hanging shit up over a jurisdictional question that's unlikely to do you much good will likely only serve to buy BATFE more time.

Remember, if you're going to have a trial, you want it to be speedy.

Posted: 11/29/2006 9:09:26 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Do not argue over jurisdictional issues as a basis for your defense!

It is just the start of making sure every avenue is pursued. Why would I want to volunteer it if it doesn’t exist?

Expend your resources arguing the facts, not legal theories. Either the rifle in question was full auto or it wasn't. You can create all sorts of hassles (contempt of court, sanctions, etc) for the BATFE for not sharing evidence or obeying the court's orders.

If the judge is going to get mad let it be at your opponents and let it be for tampering with evidence, refusing to share evidence, and disobeying court orders (re: your motions).

As soon as the first question is answered and the feds paperwork is strait then we go strain into what you would consider a normal court room setting of motions and such. I am not limiting, nor will I have my defences to this bogus charge limited.

People who argue legal theory do so because they don't have a REAL defense and are trying to shift the focus away from themselves. Don't do that. It's the argument of fools and liars, and the judges generally won't take the bait.

Both sides have there theories. A real defense starts with step one, not jumping to step 3. Jurisdiction is the first and most basic pleading. After that is answered then we move on to the next step. It is not a matter of shifting blame or focus; it is a matter of finding standing. If Mc Donald’s had an internal policy (private law) that there was a $100.00 fine to the corporation for anyone who didn’t ware their uniform. And If Mc Donald’s said you had to pay a $100.00 fine for not wearing one of there uniforms would they be right or wrong?

It would come down to jurisdiction. Do they have a contract with you to hold you to their internal policies? If not then they have no standing for any complaint. If so then you go into by-laws of there policy to find affirmative defenses and/or argue guilt or innocents.

See where I’m coming from?

Posted: 11/29/2006 9:18:12 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted: So they claim. As I have never had a class 3 anything I find it hard to believe. If both are true then there are a lot of additional facts missing neither of us know about.

Look, this isn't that complicated. There are enough people who witnessed the gun fire in full auto. They have the gun. They tested it and found it does in fact fire full auto. There is nothing more to argue on that clear point. It all boils down to the fact it's your gun. If you didn't convert it, and the ATF seems convinced the kid you loaned it to didn't, then your going to have to come up with the individual who did or your going to go down for this. Your wasting way to much time playing lawyer with all this jurisdiction crap. Bill T.

Actually it is.

Do the witnesses know what a full auto is? Or did they simply see someone shooting rapidly?
Are the agents technicians? Or are they only trained to identify possible violations?
Do they have guidelines for testing?
Were they followed?
Was it video taped?
Can the defense reproduce the results?
If I didn’t do it, and the kid didn’t do it, who did?
Were there any 3rd parties involved on the other end? 5 months or so is a long time for someone to putts.
Where the photos and evidence the gun are is full auto?
Was there a mechanical failure of some sort?
It is on its 3rd trigger group due to failures of such after the original wore down. Did this happen again?
Dose mechanical failure equate to law breaking?

Tones more I can ask that I don't have the answers to.

Posted: 11/29/2006 9:19:31 AM EDT

[#5]

At this rate I think I see where your going. And it's a drab and dreary place. Good luck.

Posted: 11/29/2006 9:19:45 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Bladerunner,

I recommend you read DownTime - A Guide to Federal Incarceration©

We suggest it to all of our clients after sentencing.

www.dnovakconsulting.com/downtime.html

May just do that. Thanks.

Posted: 11/29/2006 9:21:30 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Do not argue over jurisdictional issues as a basis for your defense!

Expend your resources arguing the facts, not legal theories. Either the rifle in question was full auto or it wasn't. You can create all sorts of hassles (contempt of court, sanctions, etc) for the BATFE for not sharing evidence or obeying the court's orders.

If the judge is going to get mad let it be at your opponents and let it be for tampering with evidence, refusing to share evidence, and disobeying court orders (re: your motions).

People who argue legal theory do so because they don't have a REAL defense and are trying to shift the focus away from themselves. Don't do that. It's the argument of fools and liars, and the judges generally won't take the bait.

Not to mention that hanging shit up over a jurisdictional question that's unlikely to do you much good will likely only serve to buy BATFE more time.

Remember, if you're going to have a trial, you want it to be speedy.

Yes, it is a possible complication we would have to solve. I don't want them having any more time than needed to keep fabricating stuff.

Posted: 11/29/2006 9:23:18 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
At this rate I think I see where your going. And it's a drab and dreary place. Good luck.

I'm not picky, I'll take all the good luck I can get.

Posted: 11/29/2006 9:29:44 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted: Do the witnesses know what a full auto is? Or did they simply see someone shooting rapidly?
Are the agents technicians? Or are they only trained to identify possible violations?
Do they have guidelines for testing?
Were they followed?
Was it video taped?
Can the defense reproduce the results?
If I didn’t do it, and the kid didn’t do it, who did?
Were there any 3rd parties involved on the other end? 5 months or so is a long time for someone to putts.
Where the photos and evidence the gun are is full auto? Was there a mechanical failure of some sort? It is on its 3rd trigger group due to failures of such after the original wore down. Did this happen again? Dose mechanical failure equate to law breaking?

Tones more I can ask that I don't have the answers to.

If thats the best you can do, you better start stocking up on Vasaline. It isn't a Moon shot for them to PROVE it's your gun, and it can, and will fire in full auto because it was converted to do so. The ATF may be a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them. This "third trigger group" it's on is going to be your undoing simply because it has 3 positions, one for full auto. If you didn't convert it, and can't come up with who did, get ready to meet your new wife Bubba. It's just that simple. Bill T.

Posted: 11/29/2006 10:13:15 AM EDT

[#10]

TAG

Posted: 11/29/2006 10:24:46 AM EDT

[#11]

Thank you for posting this all in the open. Don't let them wear you down.

Good luck.

Posted: 11/29/2006 10:27:40 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

If thats the best you can do, you better start stocking up on Vasaline. It isn't a Moon shot for them to PROVE it's your gun, and it can, and will fire in full auto because it was converted to do so. The ATF may be a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them. This "third trigger group" it's on is going to be your undoing simply because it has 3 positions, one for full auto. If you didn't convert it, and can't come up with who did, get ready to meet your new wife Bubba. It's just that simple. Bill T.

While I don’t deny being the owner of the property, the weapon in question was, and has never been converted to an auto. The 3rd trigger group was a AR-15 group from DPMS in 94. Far as I know that is the same one in there. And it only has 2 positions. And it would not be my job to come up with who ever converted it while it was outside my custody, if any one did.

Posted: 11/29/2006 10:30:47 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Thank you for posting this all in the open. Don't let them wear you down.

Good luck.

It's what my attorney calls a bad move with lots of risk. I agree, but think everyone should see the process and fraud in action. This is the only way I know of to help facilitate it. Hopefully it doesn’t bite me too bad later on.

Posted: 11/29/2006 10:56:50 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted: While I don’t deny being the owner of the property, the weapon in question was, and has never been converted to an auto.

But is has, and the ATF can prove it. If you march into court and your explanation of this whole thing is, "Yes, it's my gun but I have no idea how or who converted it to full auto." YOUR DONE. No jury in it's right mind is going to buy that. Your total defense in this matter is going to hinge on you proving that someone else converted it. The only dog you got in the fight is the kid you loaned it to for 5 months, and the ATF isn't buying that he converted it or they would have arrested him. You've got all the tools to do so. This guy was going to have you build his gun. That is because he doesn't know how. That gun is the only evidence they need. You can bet it will be in the courtroom with you at all times. It will be impossible to overlook what was done to it. They will be pointing the finger at YOU every step of the way. You better have a better rabbit in your hat than, "It wasn't me, honest!" Bill T.

Posted: 11/29/2006 11:25:39 AM EDT

[#15]

Bladerunner, you are in way over your head.

The BATFE has jurisdiction and is a federal agency. You are not going to convince a U.S. distict judge otherwise.

As for how it was converted or who did it, that sounds like an affirmative defense. The burden would shift to you to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you were not the one who converted it. Even if it's not an affirmative defense, you expect a jury to buy the "I own many guns and do repairs and upgrades on them, but this one was not a machine gun when I loaned it out and this KID I loaned it to must have converted it" defense?

You are facing felony charges in federal court. This is not the kind of shit to play around with. If you cannot afford an attorney, get one from the federal public defender's office.

Posted: 11/29/2006 11:59:12 AM EDT

[#16]

It's what my attorney calls a bad move with lots of risk. I agree, but think everyone should see the process and fraud in action. This is the only way I know of to help facilitate it. Hopefully it doesn’t bite me too bad later on.

Look what JPFO did with the Glover incident for example.

C.H.

Posted: 11/29/2006 12:03:55 PM EDT

[#17]

It bothers me that you seem hell-bent on letting the ATF further erode our rights as citizens, by way of GIVING them a victory in court that they may not deserve through your own bullheadedness.

You're fucked if you try to defend yourself.

You're fucked if you are using some halfass disbarred attorney as a resource.

You're fucked if you try and use played out semantics games in court regarding the ATF's jurisdiction.

You're going to get fucked a lot more when you go to prison.

Seriously dude. Nut up, and find a professional to defend you. You can't even spell "semi" correcty, what makes you think you can win a battle of wits with trained lawyers in THEIR court room? Just because you are (as you tell us) innocent, does not mean that justice will prevail. Do you really want to make it that easy to be victimized? Do you enjoy owning guns? Do you want to continue to enjoy that right? You won't be able to if they string you up on federal firearms charges, whether they are trumped up, or not.

Posted: 11/29/2006 12:10:49 PM EDT

[#18]

The simple thing to do would have been to say that you sold it to the kid and that he has had it for several months.

Posted: 11/29/2006 12:46:08 PM EDT

[#19]

Remember, the law reads that if you are in possession of an AR-15 that has even ONE M-16 part in it, you are considered to be in possession of a machine gun. Get a good attorney for God's sake and quit screwing around with this disbarred dickhead. Your ass is in the wringer and the ATF has it's hand on the crank! Bill T.

Posted: 11/29/2006 12:50:24 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Remember, the law reads that if you are in possession of an AR-15 that has even ONE M-16 part in it, you are considered to be in possession of a machine gun. Bill T.

Bill T, you are ignorant of hte law. Move on to the next thread and don't pollute this one with your ignorance.

Posted: 11/29/2006 1:07:34 PM EDT

[#21]

I think everyone needs to read the two articles.

One says that the KID fired it in 3 round bursts.

The second says the officer fired it in full auto.

Something isn't right. Before everyone goes on assuming this is a MG shouldn't be jumping to that conclusion.

No matter how fishy Bladerunners story may be, the fact that 2 court documents contradict themselves is a little bit odd and makes me wonder what exactly is going on here. The only thing I can think of is if the gun were to slam fire due to a worn disconnecter spring. I recall that coming up before on this forum a long time ago.

Posted: 11/29/2006 1:12:11 PM EDT

[#22]

Was also going to ask (in case I missed it earlier)...... which District/Circuit is this going to be in, if it passes "Go" and collects $200?

Posted: 11/29/2006 1:20:09 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Bladerunner, you are in way over your head.

The BATFE has jurisdiction and is a federal agency. You are not going to convince a U.S. distict judge otherwise.

As for how it was converted or who did it, that sounds like an affirmative defense. The burden would shift to you to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you were not the one who converted it. Even if it's not an affirmative defense, you expect a jury to buy the "I own many guns and do repairs and upgrades on them, but this one was not a machine gun when I loaned it out and this KID I loaned it to must have converted it" defense?

You are facing felony charges in federal court. This is not the kind of shit to play around with. If you cannot afford an attorney, get one from the federal public defender's office.

I would have more faith in that route if I had not had a seasoned Asst Fed Public Defender admit to their ignorance of firearms...... and this person *routinely* handles firearms cases.

Some time back, I offered to hook this person up with some folks with some real "expert witness" knowhow and what have I seen/heard back? Tumbleweeds 'n' wind.

Posted: 11/29/2006 1:21:14 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted: Bill T, you are ignorant of hte law. Move on to the next thread and don't pollute this one with your ignorance.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#i5

"Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun."

Do yourself a favor and scroll down to "M" and read. It will repair some of your ignorance. Page 25 in the Bushmaster catalog says the same thing. I suppose they are "ignorant" as well. Bill T.

Posted: 11/29/2006 1:32:01 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
It bothers me that you seem hell-bent on letting the ATF further erode our rights as citizens, by way of GIVING them a victory in court that they may not deserve through your own bullheadedness.

You're fucked if you try to defend yourself.

You're fucked if you are using some halfass disbarred attorney as a resource.

You're fucked if you try and use played out semantics games in court regarding the ATF's jurisdiction.

You're going to get fucked a lot more when you go to prison.

Seriously dude. Nut up, and find a professional to defend you. You can't even spell "semi" correcty, what makes you think you can win a battle of wits with trained lawyers in THEIR court room? Just because you are (as you tell us) innocent, does not mean that justice will prevail. Do you really want to make it that easy to be victimized? Do you enjoy owning guns? Do you want to continue to enjoy that right? You won't be able to if they string you up on federal firearms charges, whether they are trumped up, or not.

+1

Don't be foolish. Get good counsel & soon. The courts aren't about justice. The best argument wins, justice-be-damned. You're in a precarious position if the gun has a FA pack in its current state. If you didn't do it, & yet you are the owner, then the burden will be on you to disprove tampering & illegal modd'ing.

You need to lawyer up & follow the advice of someone who knows how the courts really work from the inside.

BTW - Why in the world would you ever "loan" one of your own guns to anyone? My guns are my responsibility & my property. I don't "loan" them to anyone.

Posted: 11/29/2006 1:36:49 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted: Bill T, you are ignorant of hte law. Move on to the next thread and don't pollute this one with your ignorance.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#i5

"Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun."

Do yourself a favor and scroll down to "M" and read. It will repair some of your ignorance. Page 25 in the Bushmaster catalog says the same thing. I suppose they are "ignorant" as well. Bill T.

Considering an M16 hammer can be used in an AR15 without turning the AR into a machinegun, I would say that does not fit the definition.

The same with an M16 Carrier.

People use both parts for a variety of reasons without turning their guns into a machinegun on purpose, or by accident.

Therefore I fail to see how any ONE part can make it a machinegun under the letter of the law. However, I wouldn't want to bankroll the court case to prove it.

Posted: 11/29/2006 1:50:13 PM EDT

[#27]

I *think* that has already been established in at least some of the Circuit/District courts. I don't think SCOTUS has ever granted cert on the issue, though. First time for everything, though.......

That said, my understanding was always "If [even] one part [from an M-16 or anything, really] caused it to fire more than one round with one pull of the trigger, then it was verboten."

The corollary of that would [probably] be: "You can have as many 'evil' parts as you want* and as long as it doesn't fire more than one round with one pull of the trigger, you should be golden."

* Import and possibly other restrictions aside.

Posted: 11/29/2006 1:51:05 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted: Therefore I fail to see how any ONE part can make it a machinegun under the letter of the law. However, I wouldn't want to bankroll the court case to prove it.

One part doesn't, "Make it a machine gun". It is the ATF's position that if it contains even one M-16 part, they consider it to be one. They are taking a posture of not being flexable on this. And I wouldn't want to be the one to test them on it. Bill T.

Posted: 11/29/2006 2:07:04 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

One part doesn't, "Make it a machine gun". It is the ATF's position that if it contains even one M-16 part, they consider it to be one.

Considering that the ATF are the ones who define what is, and what isn't a machine gun in the eyes of the law, your statement contradicts itself.

Regardless, that has no bearing on this thread and is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you wish to debate what constitutes a machine gun and what doesn't, then its easy enough to start a fresh topic.

Posted: 11/29/2006 2:35:04 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Bladerunner, you are in way over your head.

The BATFE has jurisdiction and is a federal agency. You are not going to convince a U.S. distict judge otherwise.

As for how it was converted or who did it, that sounds like an affirmative defense. The burden would shift to you to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you were not the one who converted it. Even if it's not an affirmative defense, you expect a jury to buy the "I own many guns and do repairs and upgrades on them, but this one was not a machine gun when I loaned it out and this KID I loaned it to must have converted it" defense?

You are facing felony charges in federal court. This is not the kind of shit to play around with. If you cannot afford an attorney, get one from the federal public defender's office.

I would have more faith in that route if I had not had a seasoned Asst Fed Public Defender admit to their ignorance of firearms...... and this person *routinely* handles firearms cases.

Some time back, I offered to hook this person up with some folks with some real "expert witness" knowhow and what have I seen/heard back? Tumbleweeds 'n' wind.

I don't disagree - although the federal public defender's office in my district (NDNY) is pretty decent.

For Bladerunner, it would probably be a damn sight better than trying to convince the judge that the BATFE is not a federal agency and that the court has no jurisdiction over him.

Posted: 11/29/2006 2:36:11 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted: Considering that the ATF are the ones who define what is, and what isn't a machine gun in the eyes of the law, your statement contradicts itself.

It's not my statement. This is word for word from the Bushmaster catalog:

A Bushmaster Statement Regarding Machine Gun Parts (page 25):

BATF's position is that if your AR-15 type rifle contains even one M-16 component, it is a machine gun. If you own an AR-15 from any manufacturer, check to make sure there are no M-16 components in it's assemblies. If there are, remove them immediately. Machine them to AR configuration, or replace them and destroy the M-16 components. Refer to the illistrations below to determine if you have M-16 components in your assemblies. If you have any questions about your parts, give us a call and we'll be glad to supply you with the legally acceptable parts. Sales of M-16 components by Bushmaster will only be made to the following categories of customers: Class 3 (NFA) Dealers. Individual who has a registered NFA weapon. Federal Firearms Licensee with a customer who has a registered NFA weapon.

This is from a company with $65 million dollars a year in sales of AR-15 / M-16 firearms and components. If anyone doubts them and thinks they know more or better, take it up with them. Bill T.

Posted: 11/29/2006 3:07:36 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted: Considering that the ATF are the ones who define what is, and what isn't a machine gun in the eyes of the law, your statement contradicts itself.

It's not my statement. This is word for word from the Bushmaster catalog:

A Bushmaster Statement Regarding Machine Gun Parts (page 25):

BATF's position is that if your AR-15 type rifle contains even one M-16 component, it is a machine gun. If you own an AR-15 from any manufacturer, check to make sure there are no M-16 components in it's assemblies. If there are, remove them immediately. Machine them to AR configuration, or replace them and destroy the M-16 components. Refer to the illistrations below to determine if you have M-16 components in your assemblies. If you have any questions about your parts, give us a call and we'll be glad to supply you with the legally acceptable parts. Sales of M-16 components by Bushmaster will only be made to the following categories of customers: Class 3 (NFA) Dealers. Individual who has a registered NFA weapon. Federal Firearms Licensee with a customer who has a registered NFA weapon.

This is from a company with $65 million dollars a year in sales of AR-15 / M-16 firearms and components. If anyone doubts them and thinks they know more or better, take it up with them. Bill T.

img148.imageshack.us/img148/9166/bushmasterar15searoh4.th.jpg

Has it occurred to you, that as a purveyor of such parts and pieces, Bushmaster has the most to lose when some dipshit breaks the law with goods purchased from them? And that their lawyers probably demand statements like this, in the strongest language possible in order to minimize their liability?

Bushmaster is not the final authority on US Federal Law. The United States Code is. If you want to debate United States Code with me, then cite from the USC, not from a retail catalog that most of us read while we're sitting on the crapper.

That being said, I am done with your tangent here. It has no bearing to the topic being discussed. You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm sure you will come back in order to get the last word. You may have it.

But you'll still be full of it.

Posted: 11/29/2006 3:12:03 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Hopefully it doesn’t bite me too bad later on.

... Yeah, but are you willing to risk your reputation, money or freedom just because you know you are right?

... Let's say God knows you truly are innocent of any and all related charges - Does that stop the BATFE pursuit if they believe their "evidence" is stronger than yours? I doubt it.

... Why risk everything? Go get proper legal counsel and take some of these inquires posted here for him to review and answer. Good luck dude.

Posted: 11/29/2006 3:20:05 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:That being said, I am done with your tangent here.

You never started. If you've got something to post to the contrary, then post it. Otherwise STFU. Who gives a flying fuck who you think is full of what. Your worthless drivel is as meaningless as you are. Bill T.

Posted: 11/29/2006 3:38:30 PM EDT

[#35]

New to this thread, but I have a couple of comments:

1) The jurisdiction argument is a sure loser, and a sure way to piss off the judge for wasting his time.

2) They need to prove that you knowingly transferred a machine gun.

This is what you wrote:

height=8

Join the crowd. That gun, as I bought it, and had it, is a SIMI auto. The feds haven't gotten a tech report so no one knows what the gun looks like now. I have been denied repeated requests to get anything more than the word of an agent. And I don't trust them as all they have done is repeatedly lie. So at this point I have no proof that it has been altered in any way. Until I see it or get a professional gunsmith to look at it I can't say what it is now, only what it was when I had it.

(emphasis supplied)

Assuming for the sake of argument that the AR does fire in burst, and that may or may not be the case that it actually did or that it will be capable of doing so when you get around to seeing it, if this gun supposedly had a secret third position, and you weren't the first person to assemble it, is it possible you didn't even know about it? I mean, I've never tried to move the selector on my AR past the fire position.

Furthermore, why in the hell would anyone loan out a burst fire AR, especially someone who they paint in the affidavit as some sort of gun know-it-all.

Ultimately, if I had to make a prediction though, this is all going to come down to what the kid testifies to. The affidavit makes it seem as though you had a conversation with the kid about the AR, and how he wanted you to assemble his to fire burst, just like the one that you let him borrow. Maybe what the cops ought to be doing is investigating this kid a little harder and seeing if he might have gotten himself involved in converting the gun. Five months is a long time to have a rifle.

3) Where are you keeping the other 180 plus guns you own, and where did you stash your .50 caliber sniper rifle that you were bragging about? I didn't see it on the evidence sheet.

Posted: 11/29/2006 6:02:29 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
I'm sure you will come back in order to get the last word. You may have it.

But you'll still be full of it.

oh how true.......

Quoted:

Quoted:That being said, I am done with your tangent here.

You never started. If you've got something to post to the contrary, then post it. Otherwise STFU. Who gives a flying fuck who you think is full of what. Your worthless drivel is as meaningless as you are. Bill T.

Horsehung, don't you know that btill is the consummate AUTHORITAY when it comes to what constitutes a machinegun?

Posted: 11/29/2006 7:02:41 PM EDT

[#37]

Good luck to you. I don't know what to say other than that. The ATF is like the Romans. I think you have the very unapealing role of Spartacus. Either way you are gonna probably spend some big bucks defending yourself. Thats one problem with fighting the government, they use your money against you. Even if you win, you loose. The agents don't spend a dime taking you down and they even get to punch the clock so your tax money gets used to prosecute you, bear witness against you, and convict/acquit you. All I can say is good luck and God speed. Please keep us informed.

Posted: 11/29/2006 8:15:45 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

You never started. If you've got something to post to the contrary, then post it. Otherwise STFU. Who gives a flying fuck who you think is full of what. Your worthless drivel is as meaningless as you are. Bill T.

Bwahahahahahahah.

Mature too, aren't you?

Despite saying that I would let you have the last word, I do have "something to post to the contrary":

26 U.S.C. § 5845

This is the section of the United States Code belonging to the Internal Revenue Service which defines "machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms."

The text of the USC reads:

(b) Machinegun
The term ''machinegun'' means any weapon which shoots, is
designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,
automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a
single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the
frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed
and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and
any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled
if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a
person.

Therefore any single part that does not cause, or is not intended to cause the weapon to fire more than a single shot per trigger pull does NOT make it a machine gun.

You are wrong. You would do well not to use mail order catalogs as a a legal resource.

I will accept your apologies for the name calling and insults either publicly in this forum, or via IM.

Posted: 11/29/2006 8:37:41 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
And it would not be my job to come up with who ever converted it while it was outside my custody, if any one did.

Not unless you want to be found guilty.

My advice.......have a mod delete this thread ASAP. Anything in here can be used against you. Nothing good can come out of you posting your defense without legal counsel on the internet.

Posted: 11/29/2006 10:23:02 PM EDT

[#40]

Sounds like a big pile of crap, and you've stepped right in it. Good luck with everything. Please do find sound counsel, I'd hate to see them fry you over some stupid legal jargon.

Posted: 11/30/2006 2:40:21 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted: The term shall also include the
frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed
and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.

Before you start off on your aspiring legal career Perry Mason, I suggest you read this.

http://secure.hop.com/index.cfm?AFID=10&redirCampID=27

That way you'll be able to decipher your own posts. See the sentence that says, "any part designed and intended". That means one, as in single. We already have a guy on this thread who can't spell and wants to act as his own lawyer, we don't need another who can't read. Who knows, perhaps the both of you will cross paths and be able to share the same jar of Vasaline. Stranger things have happened. Bill T.

Posted: 11/30/2006 3:30:02 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted: And it would not be my job to come up with who ever converted it while it was outside my custody, if any one did.

"It's not my job officer, to come up with the guy who sold me the Cocain."

Bill T.

Posted: 11/30/2006 5:49:45 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted: The term shall also include the
frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed
and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.

Before you start off on your aspiring legal career Perry Mason, I suggest you read this.

http://secure.hop.com/index.cfm?AFID=10&redirCampID=27

That way you'll be able to decipher your own posts. See the sentence that says, "any part designed and intended". That means one, as in single. We already have a guy on this thread who can't spell and wants to act as his own lawyer, we don't need another who can't read. Who knows, perhaps the both of you will cross paths and be able to share the same jar of Vasaline. Stranger things have happened. Bill T.

Wrong again.

Try reading the whole thing, not just part of it.

any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun

In order to meet the definition of a machine gun, that "one, single" part that you are so fond of, would have to be capable of making the weapon fire more than one shot per trigger pull. As a lightning link would.

If it doesn't meet that definition, it does not make a machine gun.

Posted: 11/30/2006 5:56:13 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted: The term shall also include the
frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed
and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.

Before you start off on your aspiring legal career Perry Mason, I suggest you read this.

http://secure.hop.com/index.cfm?AFID=10&redirCampID=27

That way you'll be able to decipher your own posts. See the sentence that says, "any part designed and intended". That means one, as in single. We already have a guy on this thread who can't spell and wants to act as his own lawyer, we don't need another who can't read. Who knows, perhaps the both of you will cross paths and be able to share the same jar of Vasaline. Stranger things have happened. Bill T.

How many discrete parts are contained in one M-16 "package"? If you add just one of them, and it doesn't allow your weapon to fire more than once with one pull of the trigger, it didnt' just turn your weapon into an MG. However, if you were to add just one "M-16" part, and it *did* cause your weapon to fire more than once with one pull of the trigger, you *would* have just converted it into an MG.

So you see, the answer is really "it depends". Thus, there is no "one part rule".

Posted: 11/30/2006 6:14:40 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted: If you add just one of them, and it doesn't allow your weapon to fire more than once with one pull of the trigger, it didnt' just turn your weapon into an MG. However, if you were to add just one "M-16" part, and it *did* cause your weapon to fire more than once with one pull of the trigger, you *would* have just converted it into an MG.

It doesen't matter if it does, or doesn't, "turn your weapon into a machine gun", or how many parts it does or doesn't require. This isn't that difficult to interpret. It says:

"The term shall also include" Term meaning "Maching Gun". Include meaning same as said term.

"Any part designed, or intended" Meaning part or parts used in the conversion, be it one, or in a group.

They are telling you if your in possession of a single part it's classified as being in possession of a machine gun. as far as they are concerned. They term any single, one part used in the conversion to be classified by the term "Machine Gun". Bill T.

Posted: 11/30/2006 6:29:00 AM EDT

[#46]

Btill,

You truly are illiterate as well as ignorant of the law.

Since your 1st grade teacher didn't give you the basic skills to read, I'm not going to start at the beginning.

BUT, I will give you some hints . . . read the fucking law. Yes, surprising as it may seem, Congress has kindly provided you with THE LAW. There is a STATUTE that is in the US CODE and you should start there. After all, that is where the BATF has to start. MY GOD, imagine that BTill, a place where your ignorance can be shattered and its on the internet and at your local law library!

Read the definition of machinegun, but since your posts here have proven that you have a problem understanding the written word, have someone read it to you.

Then apply what it says.

I'll paraphrase the gist of this mighty written words: If it doesn't fire more than one round with one pull of hte trigger (two in Texas), then it isn't a Machinegun.

Is that simple enough for you BTill?

If one M16 part a machinegun make, then COLT is selling machineguns when it puts a full auto bolt carrier in the rifles it sells and YES, Colt hs been selling AR's with F/A bolt carriers recently.

So, how does the installation of one M16 part make the semi AR an MG? Please, enlighten us with your brilliace? The simple answer is that it doesn't. If the one part did make it fire more than one roud with a pull of hte trigger, then it would be an MG. That is simeple.

Your statement that the installation of one M16 part in a semi lower makes it an MG is simple and pure unadiulterated nonsense and shows your ignornace of the entire subject.

Now, go back to your Elmer Fudd buddies, whith your Elmer Fudd attitudes and your Elmer Fudd guns until you educate yourself on this subject and stop pulluting this thread with your ignorance.

Link to legal section- Discussion of FUll auto Bolt carrier in Semi

This blatant ignorance of the law and its application annoys the hell out of me.

Posted: 11/30/2006 6:29:17 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted: If you add just one of them, and it doesn't allow your weapon to fire more than once with one pull of the trigger, it didnt' just turn your weapon into an MG. However, if you were to add just one "M-16" part, and it *did* cause your weapon to fire more than once with one pull of the trigger, you *would* have just converted it into an MG.

It doesen't matter if it does, or doesn't, "turn your weapon into a machine gun", or how many parts it does or doesn't require. This isn't that difficult to interpret. It says:

"The term shall also include" Term meaning "Maching Gun". Include meaning same as said term.

"Any part designed, or intended" Meaning part or parts used in the conversion, be it one, or in a group.

They are telling you if your in possession of a single part it's classified as being in possession of a machine gun. as far as they are concerned. They term any single, one part used in the conversion to be classified by the term "Machine Gun". Bill T.

Again, you fail to quote the entire statement.

"The term shall also include the
frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed
and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun"

If that part "solely and exclusively" is incapable of causing the firearm to fire more than once per trigger pull, it is not, nor has it made, a machine gun.

Posted: 11/30/2006 6:30:40 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:That being said, I am done with your tangent here.

You never started. If you've got something to post to the contrary, then post it. Otherwise STFU. Who gives a flying fuck who you think is full of what. Your worthless drivel is as meaningless as you are. Bill T.

Look you ignrant tool, you brought hte "law" up, now cite the relevant code or STFU about it!

Posted: 11/30/2006 6:35:05 AM EDT

[#49]

Back to the topic at hand:

On burden of proof:

Bladerunner, hate to burst your bubble here, but it shifts backa nd forth like the tide on the beach.

They have the intitial burden to present a prima Facie case.

You have the burden to rebut it.

In this case, they have a kid who converted your AR while he had possession of it.

You must provide proof that it has been out of your possession for however many months and that the kid made the conversion.

What makes sense here?

You converting a firarm into an MG

Or the kid screwing around with it, getting caught and then making up a lie about what he did to it while it was in his possession.

Posted: 11/30/2006 6:35:06 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted: Look you ignrant tool

http://secure.hop.com/index.cfm?AFID=10&redirCampID=27

Looks like you could use a copy as well. Perhaps if you would slow down a bit you could spell better?????? Bill T.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Update on Berlin BATFE Raid (Page 3 of 46)

General » Legal Section

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us