Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 8/30/2009 6:15:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2009 6:36:41 PM EST by RenegadeX]
Link Posted: 8/30/2009 6:30:05 PM EST
What are this guys chances? And was he selling a pitol that converted to SBR or an illegal SBR?
Link Posted: 8/30/2009 6:31:31 PM EST
Wow. I really feel bad for him, he will probably beat the rap, but it will cost him so much I doubt he will feel victorious.
Link Posted: 8/30/2009 6:32:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By smithc6:
What are this guys chances? And was he selling a pitol that converted to SBR or an illegal SBR?

He was selling a pistol and happened to also have a stock in his possession. So he claims. Maybe it was attached, picture showed it not attached though.

Check out the comments:

"First he died for our sins now he is selling illegal weapons over the internet."

"
That's Jesus Jr. Big family disappointment."

Link Posted: 8/30/2009 6:34:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2009 6:36:29 PM EST by Draco223]
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By smithc6:
What are this guys chances? And was he selling a pitol that converted to SBR or an illegal SBR?

He was selling a pistol and happened to also have a stock in his possession. So he claims. Maybe it was attached, picture showed it not attached though.

Check out the comments:

"First he died for our sins now he is selling illegal weapons over the internet."

"
That's Jesus Jr. Big family disappointment."



Per the links provided...it seems THIS is what he was trying to sell...


ETA: Again, per the link provided by the OP....I guess this is the "felons" story:

Well folks my name is Jesus Amador, you out there might just know me as Digitalage03, i recently met up with a prospected buyer for my sp89 clone pistol, well turns out the guy was a undercover cop and the reason he wanted to meet up with me is because he saw that i was selling the pistol with a stock as one of the accessories, which by the way it was never on the gun and it is legal to own, you just cant install it without a tax stamp, well anyways once i met up with him not only did i get slammed to the ground and had about 7 armed cops (one of which) had a loaded 12ga to the back of my head while on the ground handcuffed they also illegally searched my car and even had the balls to drive off in my car from private property to a public place so they can tear thru it before the towtruck came and got , Well anyone here that know thier laws about this know they are in serious trouble, considering that the basis of all this is a misinformed sherriff called Mike Scott, well i can say is Mr.Scott is when i am done with you itll be a miracle if you so much have a security position at the mall. Anyone out there that would like to help in this matter not because of me, but because if you are SICK and tired off all these power hungry cops screwing with your right feel free to contact me at (239)961-4208 if you want to read the liberal BS version on how it happend google Jesus Amador Lee County. Also just for the record i at all times stated it was a pistol, never had the stock or grip on the pistol, notified the person it was illegal to put on without a stamp and even was going to assist in LEGALLY getting a sbr stamp thru a FFL , and of course i asked about if they where a florida resident as well as if they can legally own a gun. So in short i will have thier ass, any suggestions out there?
Link Posted: 8/30/2009 7:15:48 PM EST
If that is the way he sold it, then nothing wrong. I have a few lugers, two of which are Artillery models complete with board stock. It is not considered a SBR. But your theory of constructive possession would mean that I could get busted for having a stock in conjunction with 4" barreled lugers. Unless he had it on the pistol it was nothing more than a pistol and he will beat the charges.
Link Posted: 8/30/2009 7:53:38 PM EST
See, thats why you don't sell your weapons.
Link Posted: 8/30/2009 8:03:18 PM EST
+1 on the 'likely to get off' w/proper representation.

But the government wins when you spend a fortune on defending yourself...even if you win.

Not worth it. Just Form 1 SBR everything in the safe!
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 12:49:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2009 12:51:07 AM EST by Manlaan]
Originally Posted By kaos:
See, thats why you don't sell your weapons.


Exactly. Never sell a firearm. Best case is you'll only regret it and want it back. Worst case is you get screwed like this guy.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 1:35:04 AM EST
Originally Posted By P08:
If that is the way he sold it, then nothing wrong. I have a few lugers, two of which are Artillery models complete with board stock. It is not considered a SBR. But your theory of constructive possession would mean that I could get busted for having a stock in conjunction with 4" barreled lugers. Unless he had it on the pistol it was nothing more than a pistol and he will beat the charges.


you sure about this? there's a lot of speculation regarding the Glock pistols and the buttstock device which locks into the grip...as in, don't possess the buttstock device unless you SBR your Glock pistol first.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 2:05:16 AM EST
Guess they thought he's a terrorist.

Fertilizer and diesel = bomb
Pistol and stocks/foregrip = unregistered sbr

Of course, any of the above is legal to possess if not combined together.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 4:10:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lapp_Dance:
Originally Posted By P08:
If that is the way he sold it, then nothing wrong. I have a few lugers, two of which are Artillery models complete with board stock. It is not considered a SBR. But your theory of constructive possession would mean that I could get busted for having a stock in conjunction with 4" barreled lugers. Unless he had it on the pistol it was nothing more than a pistol and he will beat the charges.


you sure about this? there's a lot of speculation regarding the Glock pistols and the buttstock device which locks into the grip...as in, don't possess the buttstock device unless you SBR your Glock pistol first.
Along the same lines as the OP stated what if you owned a AR rifle with a vertical fore grip and an AR pistol with a rail. You have them both at the range and the police arrest you saying that you "could" put the fore grip on the pistol. And since you can you "could" make an unregistered AOW. Does this sound right?

Link Posted: 8/31/2009 4:21:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2009 4:22:44 AM EST by Eagle3]
It was said before and I'll add +1

"Life is tough, it is even tough when you are stupid." I don't feel a bit sorry for him.

When one does not check things out and ASSUME they get into trouble.

He was wrong to have in his possession items to convert this to SBR status. No and, if's or butts about it.

People are going to find out they don't know as much as they think they do.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 4:24:02 AM EST
I thought having the parts in the same location/house as the firearm shows intent?

That was why while I was SBRing my GSG5, I kept the K-Grip and Folding Stock at a buddies house 30mins away.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 4:36:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By Geezah:
I thought having the parts in the same location/house as the firearm shows intent?


Does having beer in your trunk show intent to DUI? Does having reproductive parts show intent to prostitute? Does having a hacksaw show intent to produce SBS's?

It's a silly interpretation, and I wish they would get it corrected, like they did with the DC Gun cases. Maybe this guy will be a good candidate to get standing, but it doesn't look likely.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 4:45:03 AM EST
Am I reading this correctly that it was the local Sheriff and not the ATF making the arrest? Would they even have jurisdiction in enforcing what is essentially federal tax law?
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 5:08:46 AM EST
Sucks to be him.

He should get off but you never know.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 5:33:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By Geezah:
I thought having the parts in the same location/house as the firearm shows intent?

That was why while I was SBRing my GSG5, I kept the K-Grip and Folding Stock at a buddies house 30mins away.


woman+pussy=prostitute



Link Posted: 8/31/2009 6:12:40 AM EST
I'm very curious to see the outcome of this. I agree that it's incredibly stupid to sell that pistol with the accessories in the same package, and it doesn't help his case that he has a cutout in the foam for the K-grip. (AOW violation)
Not that it proves that he ever put the folder or K grip on the gun, but it looks really bad...
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 6:13:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By P08:
If that is the way he sold it, then nothing wrong. I have a few lugers, two of which are Artillery models complete with board stock. It is not considered a SBR. But your theory of constructive possession would mean that I could get busted for having a stock in conjunction with 4" barreled lugers. Unless he had it on the pistol it was nothing more than a pistol and he will beat the charges.


I believe the Luger artillery (along with certain other C&R guns) are specifically exempt.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 8:46:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Originally Posted By Geezah:
I thought having the parts in the same location/house as the firearm shows intent?


Does having beer in your trunk show intent to DUI? Does having reproductive parts show intent to prostitute? Does having a hacksaw show intent to produce SBS's?

It's a silly interpretation, and I wish they would get it corrected, like they did with the DC Gun cases. Maybe this guy will be a good candidate to get standing, but it doesn't look likely.


+1 This intent stuff is BS, whether or not it will hold up (just expressing that I'm tired of them twisting laws into making law-breakers out of law-abiders).
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 9:24:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By tctlrld:
Originally Posted By P08:
If that is the way he sold it, then nothing wrong. I have a few lugers, two of which are Artillery models complete with board stock. It is not considered a SBR. But your theory of constructive possession would mean that I could get busted for having a stock in conjunction with 4" barreled lugers. Unless he had it on the pistol it was nothing more than a pistol and he will beat the charges.


I believe the Luger artillery (along with certain other C&R guns) are specifically exempt.

Only the Artillery, Navy and carbines are exempt. If you put a board stock on a 4" gun or for that matter any Luger that did not originally start out as one of the aforementioned variations are not exempted and would make the gun a SBR.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 9:47:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2009 9:50:09 AM EST by markm]
Originally Posted By qcka:
Am I reading this correctly that it was the local Sheriff and not the ATF making the arrest? Would they even have jurisdiction in enforcing what is essentially federal tax law?


That's the way I'm reading this. A totally bunk arrest by a non Federal agency.

The guy was a fucking moron for selling parts together that could be assembled into an illegal config for sure. Sounds like the seller had a little case of the "Mr. Helper" fucktard syndrome that so many online gunboard masturbators seem to be infected with. Mr. Helper syndrome is what got that moron in Wisconsin popped for having that AR with a Burst LPK installed....

I'm not saying that the Wisconsin idiot didn't have it coming, but the Mr. Helper syndrome NFA disaster flirtation seem to go together.


Link Posted: 8/31/2009 9:56:25 AM EST
It would be interesting to see the actual text of his Craigslist ad.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 9:58:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2009 10:00:23 AM EST by markm]
Originally Posted By rxdawg:
It would be interesting to see the actual text of his Craigslist ad.


Indeed. The idiot obviously included the stock which is what got him under the mircroscope in the first place.

Not smart, but not illegal. He shouldn't have even pictured the two together.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 10:28:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2009 10:29:33 AM EST by Kharn]
Both the stock and the K grip should have been excluded by the seller.
And if you look at the case, the foam is already cut for the K grip to be on the pistol.

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 10:36:40 AM EST
Good point.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 12:45:19 PM EST
I believe that "constructive possession" only occurs if there is NO LEGAL use for the (NFA relevant) parts in question. In other words, possessing a Luger board stock, an Artillery Luger, AND a standard Luger is okay, since the stock can be used on the Artillery model. Conversely, owning the stock and only a standard Luger would be constructive possession, since there would be no legal use for the stock.

Unfortunately, I think this guy might be in for The Ride...
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 1:07:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By markm:
Originally Posted By rxdawg:
It would be interesting to see the actual text of his Craigslist ad.


Indeed. The idiot obviously included the stock which is what got him under the mircroscope in the first place.

Not smart, but not illegal. He shouldn't have even pictured the two together.


I would be more interested to see if he insinuated it was legal. Not the first time I have seen something like that, and would make intent a lot easier to prove.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 2:47:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By Kharn:
And if you look at the case, the foam is already cut for the K grip to be on the pistol.


Ah, but also note that the K-grip is in it's own separate cutout as well.

Doesn't mean it was ever mounted, as he could've easily placed the K-grip over the gun to trace out the cutout.

Yes, it wasn't terribly smart of him to offer the gun for sale with the SBR accessories, but it also doesn't make him guilty. The case will hinge on that, and now the guy has to depend on a jury of his peers to see through the nonsense.

Especially since the police seized the gun in the non-SBR/AOW state. Had the undercover asked him to "show me exactly how you put the stock and that sweet grip on" the case would be very solid.

Hopefully the guy doesn't have any friends who either witnessed the gun in a SBR state, or whom he boasted to having put the gun in a SBR state to mess around with.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 2:52:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2009 2:54:14 PM EST by markm]
Originally Posted By Stahlgewehr762:
I believe that "constructive possession" only occurs if there is NO LEGAL use for the (NFA relevant) parts in question.

In other words, possessing a Luger board stock, an Artillery Luger, AND a standard Luger is okay, since the stock can be used on the Artillery model. Conversely, owning the stock and only a standard Luger would be constructive possession, since there would be no legal use for the stock.


Investment could be a legal reason for owning any of the components.

Unfortunately, I think this guy might be in for The Ride...


I could care less about this moron. He really played this scenario out without a lot of brain cell activity, and he reeks of "Mr. Helper" syndrome with his comments about wanting to help the buyer get an FFL so he could get a stamp.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 4:10:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2009 4:18:10 PM EST by tony_k]
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 4:16:04 PM EST


And if you look at the case, the foam is already cut for the K grip to be on the pistol.



He says that is for a 50 round box of ammo.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 4:52:19 PM EST
Better pic:

Link Posted: 8/31/2009 5:27:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2009 5:27:20 PM EST by stfram]
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


And if you look at the case, the foam is already cut for the K grip to be on the pistol.



He says that is for a 50 round box of ammo.


That's a hell of a stretch there, and I'm defending the guy!

Apparently he's posting on some forum(s) proclaiming his innocence and posting case details. This is all fine and well, but the guy that was using the M-16 parts in the home-built AR did the same thing...and he's doing time in Club Fed now.

Link Posted: 8/31/2009 5:36:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By P08:

Originally Posted By tctlrld:
Originally Posted By P08:
If that is the way he sold it, then nothing wrong. I have a few lugers, two of which are Artillery models complete with board stock. It is not considered a SBR. But your theory of constructive possession would mean that I could get busted for having a stock in conjunction with 4" barreled lugers. Unless he had it on the pistol it was nothing more than a pistol and he will beat the charges.


I believe the Luger artillery (along with certain other C&R guns) are specifically exempt.

Only the Artillery, Navy and carbines are exempt. If you put a board stock on a 4" gun or for that matter any Luger that did not originally start out as one of the aforementioned variations are not exempted and would make the gun a SBR.


I was saying the same thing, not claiming all Lugers or all C&R guns in general. Just that your specific example was exempt, along with some C96 Broomhandles and some Inglis HPs as I recall.
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 6:36:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2009 6:38:26 PM EST by tony_k]
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 6:56:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By FunBobby:
Better pic:

http://floridaguntrader.com/user_images/3945891.jpg


guy purchased the sp89 and bought add ons for it. you know the guy had that stuff on the gun at one time or another. its illegal without the stamp and he knew it. he is an idiot for selling it that way none the less. he should have not included the stock and foregrip and sold that stuff after the gun..
Link Posted: 8/31/2009 7:11:30 PM EST
The world will be a safer place now..........................
Link Posted: 9/1/2009 3:00:37 AM EST
Tony_K - Couldn't agree with you more. You hit the nail on the head.

"markm, if you feel so strongly that the law and the legal precedent are on his side, why don't you follow suit –– buy the same components, advertise it for sale, and challenge the law? I'll kick in $5 for your defense fund. Maybe even $10.

Sitting back at your computer and flatly saying LE is wrong and acting illegally, without taking a stand ... well, that's what you find on the internet. All posturing, no action. "

The bottom line is it doesn't matter what we all think, it matters what the judge says !


Link Posted: 9/1/2009 3:12:49 AM EST
I, for one, am thrilled that we've moved beyond pre-crime (evil gun ownership) to pre-pre-crime (evil gun pre-ownership).
Link Posted: 9/1/2009 3:58:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2009 3:58:52 AM EST by joshuap]
Just to be clear, there is nothing preventing the Feds from bringing charges against him also. Since Florida and the Fed Government are separate sovereigns, they can both charge him and convict him. Usually, either the state or Fed will prosecute but in the past, both have prosecuted and convicted. Talk about getting bent over....
Link Posted: 9/1/2009 4:19:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By tony_k:
markm, if you feel so strongly that the law and the legal precedent are on his side, why don't you follow suit –– buy the same components, advertise it for sale, and challenge the law? I'll kick in $5 for your defense fund. Maybe even $10.


I openly and strongly contend that what this idiot did was STUPID. I won't do something stupid just because it's legal or pushes the legal envelope. I don't even care if they convict this guy. I can't stand "Mr. Helpers".


Link Posted: 9/1/2009 4:22:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By Eagle3:

The bottom line is it doesn't matter what we all think, it matters what the judge says !


I agree. This loser is now at the mercy of the court system and possibly a jury comprised of people who can't work a voting punch card correctly.

This is not a case I can come close to getting behind and saying the guy was "done wrong".
Link Posted: 9/1/2009 4:30:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By stfram:
Apparently he's posting on some forum(s) proclaiming his innocence and posting case details. This is all fine and well, but the guy that was using the M-16 parts in the home-built AR did the same thing...and he's doing time in Club Fed now.



Yep.... he's a classic Mr. Helper syndrome sufferer. If you remember the Burst kid tard, he used that gun for a loaner to new shooters although he was neither a dealer or an instructor. Just a self appointed representative to the shooting world.

Believe me... I'd love to find a firearms case where I could get behind someone who is getting the shaft from the man. But EVERY time the facts come out in these cases, the dumb ass always did it to himself.
Link Posted: 9/1/2009 5:24:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By forrest0872:
The world will be a safer place now..........................

Yep. Somehow a few inches of steel justifies a federal prison sentence.

Link Posted: 9/1/2009 5:31:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By peekay:

Originally Posted By forrest0872:
The world will be a safer place now..........................

Yep. Somehow a few inches of steel justifies a federal prison sentence.


I agree that it's a complete waste of man power and resources. I'm equally angry with the dumb ass that put himself in this position.
Link Posted: 9/1/2009 5:39:55 AM EST
Originally Posted By markm:
Originally Posted By peekay:

Originally Posted By forrest0872:
The world will be a safer place now..........................

Yep. Somehow a few inches of steel justifies a federal prison sentence.


I agree that it's a complete waste of man power and resources. I'm equally angry with the dumb ass that put himself in this position.


Yep and yep. Pistols that aren't SBR'ed and not C&R's, should be kept separate from the stocks. Damn shame he couldn't find a real buyer first.
Link Posted: 9/1/2009 5:41:16 AM EST
The NFA and ATF and now his local SO can suck a fat one. Hope he beats this one and doesn't lose everything in the process.
Link Posted: 9/1/2009 5:42:25 AM EST



Link Posted: 9/1/2009 6:16:45 AM EST
did you see the price he wanted 1 milion dollars!

he should be fine as long as the police didnt attach anything to it, the way it was pictured was a pistol, everything else was legal to own. a good judge should see that. I dont think stupid is a crime
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top