User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 1:36:02 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just now noticed this thread. I was the guys best friend. I was with him the day before the incident at the range shooting. He is a veteran. He is or was an Arkansas CHCL holder which requires a background check. I was in the stand at the trial supporting him. I am very intimate with all the details of this trial. Trust me I say he was screwed. Again with the accusation of brandishing a firearm, I was not there, but on the facts of the road rage incident we have nothing but a he said, he said case. None of this has ever been discussed in court up until the sentencing hearing to which the defendants attorney became very agitated. The other guy cut him off and began the road rage incident. Justin did just drive away after the other guy stopped in the middle of the road to confront. Justin normally is carrying a 3 inch 1911 but had it in the back of his vehicle because he was pulling his PWC, had his swim pants on and heading out to the river to ride. If he would have had his gun on him this might have ended differently for the complainant. After the road rage incident and when LE finally made contact he was handcuffed while inside a place eating and not in control of his vehicle. The police got his car keys and began searching his vehicle even after Justin said they did not have permission to search his vehicle. No guns were in view and were covered very well in the back of is vehicle. Even at the evidenciary hearing they said they were not searching but inventorying the vehicle. Yet the vehicle was never impounded. At that point in time there was no reason for them to inventory the vehicle vs searching it. There was no reason for him to be handcuffed. Lawyers and a judge friend who were present at his evidenciary hearing last summer all agree a 1st year law student could have had the search thrown out. His first attorney was a real piece of work. Which is why he dumped her. The 2nd attorney got them to drop the machine gun charges. The ATF really screwed up that one. It was pointed out he did not call 911. The witness statement says the suspect never pointed the gun but tapped it on his chest. However in some articles it says the police were looking for a guy who "pointed" a gun at someone. Can you see how LE was wired here for a false report? LE all carry cameras yet not one single video or audio of the incident even from the vehicle cams was submitted even though there were subpoenaed. The cops testified they found the SBR assembled in the back. The defendant swears it was apart in a backpack. The butt stock will not fit on the extension tube while in the backpack. If and I say "IF" the cops assembled the gun at the stop they would be guilty of tampering. So in the trial they had no choice but to suggest they found it that way. Again I say "if". My opinion is the jury should have been handheld better about all the nuances of the AR at the trial. I was even attacked by the prosecutor at the trial about the gun. Damn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 1:38:00 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can someone explain the initial MG charge? The ATF lied and freedom died. Some members read an article about it and know more about it than members who attended the trial and sentencing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 1:42:48 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just now noticed this thread. I was the guys best friend. I was with him the day before the incident at the range shooting. He is a veteran. He is or was an Arkansas CHCL holder which requires a background check. I was in the stand at the trial supporting him. I am very intimate with all the details of this trial. Trust me I say he was screwed. Again with the accusation of brandishing a firearm, I was not there, but on the facts of the road rage incident we have nothing but a he said, he said case. None of this has ever been discussed in court up until the sentencing hearing to which the defendants attorney became very agitated. The other guy cut him off and began the road rage incident. Justin did just drive away after the other guy stopped in the middle of the road to confront. Justin normally is carrying a 3 inch 1911 but had it in the back of his vehicle because he was pulling his PWC, had his swim pants on and heading out to the river to ride. If he would have had his gun on him this might have ended differently for the complainant. After the road rage incident and when LE finally made contact he was handcuffed while inside a place eating and not in control of his vehicle. The police got his car keys and began searching his vehicle even after Justin said they did not have permission to search his vehicle. No guns were in view and were covered very well in the back of is vehicle. Even at the evidenciary hearing they said they were not searching but inventorying the vehicle. Yet the vehicle was never impounded. At that point in time there was no reason for them to inventory the vehicle vs searching it. There was no reason for him to be handcuffed. Lawyers and a judge friend who were present at his evidenciary hearing last summer all agree a 1st year law student could have had the search thrown out. His first attorney was a real piece of work. Which is why he dumped her. The 2nd attorney got them to drop the machine gun charges. The ATF really screwed up that one. It was pointed out he did not call 911. The witness statement says the suspect never pointed the gun but tapped it on his chest. However in some articles it says the police were looking for a guy who "pointed" a gun at someone. Can you see how LE was wired here for a false report? LE all carry cameras yet not one single video or audio of the incident even from the vehicle cams was submitted even though there were subpoenaed. The cops testified they found the SBR assembled in the back. The defendant swears it was apart in a backpack. The butt stock will not fit on the extension tube while in the backpack. If and I say "IF" the cops assembled the gun at the stop they would be guilty of tampering. So in the trial they had no choice but to suggest they found it that way. Again I say "if". My opinion is the jury should have been handheld better about all the nuances of the AR at the trial. I was even attacked by the prosecutor at the trial about the gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 1:45:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just now noticed this thread. I was the guys best friend. I was with him the day before the incident at the range shooting. He is a veteran. He is or was an Arkansas CHCL holder which requires a background check. I was in the stand at the trial supporting him. I am very intimate with all the details of this trial. Trust me I say he was screwed. Again with the accusation of brandishing a firearm, I was not there, but on the facts of the road rage incident we have nothing but a he said, he said case. None of this has ever been discussed in court up until the sentencing hearing to which the defendants attorney became very agitated. The other guy cut him off and began the road rage incident. Justin did just drive away after the other guy stopped in the middle of the road to confront. Justin normally is carrying a 3 inch 1911 but had it in the back of his vehicle because he was pulling his PWC, had his swim pants on and heading out to the river to ride. If he would have had his gun on him this might have ended differently for the complainant. After the road rage incident and when LE finally made contact he was handcuffed while inside a place eating and not in control of his vehicle. The police got his car keys and began searching his vehicle even after Justin said they did not have permission to search his vehicle. No guns were in view and were covered very well in the back of is vehicle. Even at the evidenciary hearing they said they were not searching but inventorying the vehicle. Yet the vehicle was never impounded. At that point in time there was no reason for them to inventory the vehicle vs searching it. There was no reason for him to be handcuffed. Lawyers and a judge friend who were present at his evidenciary hearing last summer all agree a 1st year law student could have had the search thrown out. His first attorney was a real piece of work. Which is why he dumped her. The 2nd attorney got them to drop the machine gun charges. The ATF really screwed up that one. It was pointed out he did not call 911. The witness statement says the suspect never pointed the gun but tapped it on his chest. However in some articles it says the police were looking for a guy who "pointed" a gun at someone. Can you see how LE was wired here for a false report? LE all carry cameras yet not one single video or audio of the incident even from the vehicle cams was submitted even though there were subpoenaed. The cops testified they found the SBR assembled in the back. The defendant swears it was apart in a backpack. The butt stock will not fit on the extension tube while in the backpack. If and I say "IF" the cops assembled the gun at the stop they would be guilty of tampering. So in the trial they had no choice but to suggest they found it that way. Again I say "if". My opinion is the jury should have been handheld better about all the nuances of the AR at the trial. I was even attacked by the prosecutor at the trial about the gun. So is he serving time for the road rage incident or an unregistered SBR? How long have people known about constructive intent and that the ATF will fuck you with it? Yet he still had a pistol AR with a carbine extension tube and a stock in the same bag? Come on man, he's your friend, we get it, but you know he was skirting the law and playing stupid games with it. Whether or not the law itself is dumb is irrelevant. If he isn't serving time now for the supposed road rage incident, it's strictly for the unregistered SBR. Be honest with yourself and be honest with him - appealing such a thing is going to be difficult. Again, if the facts are that he had a "pistol" AR with a carbine extension and a stock in the same bag.. it is what it is sadly. The court doesn't care about your or his interpretation of the law - they care about THEIRS which is the most restrictive interpretation of it. Let this honestly be a note to everyone: Stop playing this SBR / Not an SBR game. You will lose. Pay the $200 and aggressively support fighting the NFA through the courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 1:49:25 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FPNI Aggravated assault is the only actual crime he committed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fucking bullshit. FPNI Aggravated assault is the only actual crime he committed. Funny but there is no evidence to support that claim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 1:54:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:00:10 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. Does he have any chance of filing an appeal before he starts serving his sentence? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I just now noticed this thread. I was the guys best friend. I was with him the day before the incident at the range shooting. He is a veteran. He is or was an Arkansas CHCL holder which requires a background check. I was in the stand at the trial supporting him. I am very intimate with all the details of this trial. Trust me I say he was screwed. Again with the accusation of brandishing a firearm, I was not there, but on the facts of the road rage incident we have nothing but a he said, he said case. None of this has ever been discussed in court up until the sentencing hearing to which the defendants attorney became very agitated. The other guy cut him off and began the road rage incident. Justin did just drive away after the other guy stopped in the middle of the road to confront. Justin normally is carrying a 3 inch 1911 but had it in the back of his vehicle because he was pulling his PWC, had his swim pants on and heading out to the river to ride. If he would have had his gun on him this might have ended differently for the complainant. After the road rage incident and when LE finally made contact he was handcuffed while inside a place eating and not in control of his vehicle. The police got his car keys and began searching his vehicle even after Justin said they did not have permission to search his vehicle. No guns were in view and were covered very well in the back of is vehicle. Even at the evidenciary hearing they said they were not searching but inventorying the vehicle. Yet the vehicle was never impounded. At that point in time there was no reason for them to inventory the vehicle vs searching it. There was no reason for him to be handcuffed. Lawyers and a judge friend who were present at his evidenciary hearing last summer all agree a 1st year law student could have had the search thrown out. His first attorney was a real piece of work. Which is why he dumped her. The 2nd attorney got them to drop the machine gun charges. The ATF really screwed up that one. It was pointed out he did not call 911. The witness statement says the suspect never pointed the gun but tapped it on his chest. However in some articles it says the police were looking for a guy who "pointed" a gun at someone. Can you see how LE was wired here for a false report? LE all carry cameras yet not one single video or audio of the incident even from the vehicle cams was submitted even though there were subpoenaed. The cops testified they found the SBR assembled in the back. The defendant swears it was apart in a backpack. The butt stock will not fit on the extension tube while in the backpack. If and I say "IF" the cops assembled the gun at the stop they would be guilty of tampering. So in the trial they had no choice but to suggest they found it that way. Again I say "if". My opinion is the jury should have been handheld better about all the nuances of the AR at the trial. I was even attacked by the prosecutor at the trial about the gun. No unfortunately. He has 45 days before he reports though. Appeal should be filed with 45 days however he will sit in prison while the appeal process takes it's time. Maybe sometime late 2017 is estimated. The Appeals court also has choices IF they rule in his favor on the search. They can simply overturn the lower court which means his sentence will be vacated or they can simply toss the search and send it back to the lower court and wait for them to rule again. He could end up spending his whole time in prison before this all possibly gets dropped. Then he has no recourse against the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:09:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So is he serving time for the road rage incident or an unregistered SBR? Nothing was ever done about the road rage incident. That was just the catalyst to begin with. Never adjudicated in court. He was convicted of being in possession of an uregistered sbr. Nothing else The road rage incident however added to the time. How long have people known about constructive intent and that the ATF will fuck you with it? Yet he still had a pistol AR with a carbine extension tube and a stock in the same bag? I will say after this court case and what the ATF tech branch experts(they flew in two from West Virginia for the trial) testified to in court "constructive intent" is fiction. Parts don't matter. It's how they are totally assembled that counts. That is also in documentation for the Tech branch. Come on man, he's your friend, we get it, but you know he was skirting the law and playing stupid games with it. Whether or not the law itself is dumb is irrelevant. If he isn't serving time now for the supposed road rage incident, it's strictly for the unregistered SBR. Be honest with yourself and be honest with him - appealing such a thing is going to be difficult. Again, if the facts are that he had a "pistol" AR with a carbine extension and a stock in the same bag.. it is what it is sadly. The court doesn't care about your or his interpretation of the law - they care about THEIRS which is the most restrictive interpretation of it. He will not be appealing the sbr but the way the evidence was obtained. No evidence no trial. Let this honestly be a note to everyone: Stop playing this SBR / Not an SBR game. You will lose. Pay the $200 and aggressively support fighting the NFA through the courts. Most would agree with you here. Me too Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I just now noticed this thread. I was the guys best friend. I was with him the day before the incident at the range shooting. He is a veteran. He is or was an Arkansas CHCL holder which requires a background check. I was in the stand at the trial supporting him. I am very intimate with all the details of this trial. Trust me I say he was screwed. Again with the accusation of brandishing a firearm, I was not there, but on the facts of the road rage incident we have nothing but a he said, he said case. None of this has ever been discussed in court up until the sentencing hearing to which the defendants attorney became very agitated. The other guy cut him off and began the road rage incident. Justin did just drive away after the other guy stopped in the middle of the road to confront. Justin normally is carrying a 3 inch 1911 but had it in the back of his vehicle because he was pulling his PWC, had his swim pants on and heading out to the river to ride. If he would have had his gun on him this might have ended differently for the complainant. After the road rage incident and when LE finally made contact he was handcuffed while inside a place eating and not in control of his vehicle. The police got his car keys and began searching his vehicle even after Justin said they did not have permission to search his vehicle. No guns were in view and were covered very well in the back of is vehicle. Even at the evidenciary hearing they said they were not searching but inventorying the vehicle. Yet the vehicle was never impounded. At that point in time there was no reason for them to inventory the vehicle vs searching it. There was no reason for him to be handcuffed. Lawyers and a judge friend who were present at his evidenciary hearing last summer all agree a 1st year law student could have had the search thrown out. His first attorney was a real piece of work. Which is why he dumped her. The 2nd attorney got them to drop the machine gun charges. The ATF really screwed up that one. It was pointed out he did not call 911. The witness statement says the suspect never pointed the gun but tapped it on his chest. However in some articles it says the police were looking for a guy who "pointed" a gun at someone. Can you see how LE was wired here for a false report? LE all carry cameras yet not one single video or audio of the incident even from the vehicle cams was submitted even though there were subpoenaed. The cops testified they found the SBR assembled in the back. The defendant swears it was apart in a backpack. The butt stock will not fit on the extension tube while in the backpack. If and I say "IF" the cops assembled the gun at the stop they would be guilty of tampering. So in the trial they had no choice but to suggest they found it that way. Again I say "if". My opinion is the jury should have been handheld better about all the nuances of the AR at the trial. I was even attacked by the prosecutor at the trial about the gun. So is he serving time for the road rage incident or an unregistered SBR? Nothing was ever done about the road rage incident. That was just the catalyst to begin with. Never adjudicated in court. He was convicted of being in possession of an uregistered sbr. Nothing else The road rage incident however added to the time. How long have people known about constructive intent and that the ATF will fuck you with it? Yet he still had a pistol AR with a carbine extension tube and a stock in the same bag? I will say after this court case and what the ATF tech branch experts(they flew in two from West Virginia for the trial) testified to in court "constructive intent" is fiction. Parts don't matter. It's how they are totally assembled that counts. That is also in documentation for the Tech branch. Come on man, he's your friend, we get it, but you know he was skirting the law and playing stupid games with it. Whether or not the law itself is dumb is irrelevant. If he isn't serving time now for the supposed road rage incident, it's strictly for the unregistered SBR. Be honest with yourself and be honest with him - appealing such a thing is going to be difficult. Again, if the facts are that he had a "pistol" AR with a carbine extension and a stock in the same bag.. it is what it is sadly. The court doesn't care about your or his interpretation of the law - they care about THEIRS which is the most restrictive interpretation of it. He will not be appealing the sbr but the way the evidence was obtained. No evidence no trial. Let this honestly be a note to everyone: Stop playing this SBR / Not an SBR game. You will lose. Pay the $200 and aggressively support fighting the NFA through the courts. Most would agree with you here. Me too |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:15:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I just now noticed this thread. I was the guys best friend. I was with him the day before the incident at the range shooting. He is a veteran. He is or was an Arkansas CHCL holder which requires a background check. I was in the stand at the trial supporting him. I am very intimate with all the details of this trial. Trust me I say he was screwed. Again with the accusation of brandishing a firearm, I was not there, but on the facts of the road rage incident we have nothing but a he said, he said case. None of this has ever been discussed in court up until the sentencing hearing to which the defendants attorney became very agitated. The other guy cut him off and began the road rage incident. Justin did just drive away after the other guy stopped in the middle of the road to confront. Justin normally is carrying a 3 inch 1911 but had it in the back of his vehicle because he was pulling his PWC, had his swim pants on and heading out to the river to ride. If he would have had his gun on him this might have ended differently for the complainant. After the road rage incident and when LE finally made contact he was handcuffed while inside a place eating and not in control of his vehicle. The police got his car keys and began searching his vehicle even after Justin said they did not have permission to search his vehicle. No guns were in view and were covered very well in the back of is vehicle. Even at the evidenciary hearing they said they were not searching but inventorying the vehicle. Yet the vehicle was never impounded. At that point in time there was no reason for them to inventory the vehicle vs searching it. There was no reason for him to be handcuffed. Lawyers and a judge friend who were present at his evidenciary hearing last summer all agree a 1st year law student could have had the search thrown out. His first attorney was a real piece of work. Which is why he dumped her. The 2nd attorney got them to drop the machine gun charges. The ATF really screwed up that one. It was pointed out he did not call 911. The witness statement says the suspect never pointed the gun but tapped it on his chest. However in some articles it says the police were looking for a guy who "pointed" a gun at someone. Can you see how LE was wired here for a false report? LE all carry cameras yet not one single video or audio of the incident even from the vehicle cams was submitted even though there were subpoenaed. The cops testified they found the SBR assembled in the back. The defendant swears it was apart in a backpack. The butt stock will not fit on the extension tube while in the backpack. If and I say "IF" the cops assembled the gun at the stop they would be guilty of tampering. So in the trial they had no choice but to suggest they found it that way. Again I say "if". My opinion is the jury should have been handheld better about all the nuances of the AR at the trial. I was even attacked by the prosecutor at the trial about the gun. So is he serving time for the road rage incident or an unregistered SBR? Nothing was ever done about the road rage incident. That was just the catalyst to begin with. Never adjudicated in court. He was convicted of being in possession of an uregistered sbr. Nothing else The road rage incident however added to the time. How long have people known about constructive intent and that the ATF will fuck you with it? Yet he still had a pistol AR with a carbine extension tube and a stock in the same bag? I will say after this court case and what the ATF tech branch experts(they flew in two from West Virginia for the trial) testified to in court "constructive intent" is fiction. Parts don't matter. It's how they are totally assembled that counts. That is also in documentation for the Tech branch. Come on man, he's your friend, we get it, but you know he was skirting the law and playing stupid games with it. Whether or not the law itself is dumb is irrelevant. If he isn't serving time now for the supposed road rage incident, it's strictly for the unregistered SBR. Be honest with yourself and be honest with him - appealing such a thing is going to be difficult. Again, if the facts are that he had a "pistol" AR with a carbine extension and a stock in the same bag.. it is what it is sadly. The court doesn't care about your or his interpretation of the law - they care about THEIRS which is the most restrictive interpretation of it. He will not be appealing the sbr but the way the evidence was obtained. No evidence no trial. Let this honestly be a note to everyone: Stop playing this SBR / Not an SBR game. You will lose. Pay the $200 and aggressively support fighting the NFA through the courts. Most would agree with you hear. Me too Makes more sense. Sadly that appeal will take more than his time  . I'm guessing it also makes him a prohibited person now too which he will have to fight as well.Hopefully he gets a minimum security prison and gets out early with good behavior. Sad how our justice system works - that's why you do everything you can to avoid being in their sights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:18:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopefully he gets a minimum security prison and gets out early with good behavior. Sad how our justice system works - that's why you do everything you can to avoid being in their sights. Best case scenario, just under 27 months. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:20:09 PM EDT
[#11]
Another interesting point, if he's such a dangerous road rager, then the prosecution is rather irresponsible for offering no objection to him having 45 days to report.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:20:21 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
selector rotated 180 degrees. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? And fired fast or he just fucked up the detent installation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:21:59 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best case scenario, just under 27 months. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hopefully he gets a minimum security prison and gets out early with good behavior. Sad how our justice system works - that's why you do everything you can to avoid being in their sights. Best case scenario, just under 27 months. Is he eligible for 6 months half way house and 6 months home detention when he's got a year left? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:25:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is he eligible for 6 months half way house and 6 months home detention when he's got a year left? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hopefully he gets a minimum security prison and gets out early with good behavior. Sad how our justice system works - that's why you do everything you can to avoid being in their sights. Best case scenario, just under 27 months. Is he eligible for 6 months half way house and 6 months home detention when he's got a year left? I don't know. .the sentence was 30 months plus 3 years supervised probation. I'm sure the bop has some leeway in how out does things, but I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:27:50 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Another interesting point, if he's such a dangerous road rager, then the prosecution is rather irresponsible for offering no objection to him having 45 days to report. It's just another notch in the prosecutor's belt. I know I'll get flak for saying this, but if I were in those shoes I'd be torn between just doing the time and moving on (if even possible, just over 2 years is a long time), or making myself scarce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:29:12 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know. .the sentence was 30 months plus 3 years supervised probation. I'm sure the bop has some leeway in how out does things, but I don't know. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hopefully he gets a minimum security prison and gets out early with good behavior. Sad how our justice system works - that's why you do everything you can to avoid being in their sights. Best case scenario, just under 27 months. Is he eligible for 6 months half way house and 6 months home detention when he's got a year left? I don't know. .the sentence was 30 months plus 3 years supervised probation. I'm sure the bop has some leeway in how out does things, but I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:29:42 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:33:21 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. Your friend is a textbook example of what not to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:34:32 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No unfortunately. He has 45 days before he reports though. Appeal should be filed with 45 days however he will sit in prison while the appeal process takes it's time. Maybe sometime late 2017 is estimated. The Appeals court also has choices IF they rule in his favor on the search. They can simply overturn the lower court which means his sentence will be vacated or they can simply toss the search and send it back to the lower court and wait for them to rule again. He could end up spending his whole time in prison before this all possibly gets dropped. Then he has no recourse against the government. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wow. Does he have any chance of filing an appeal before he starts serving his sentence? No unfortunately. He has 45 days before he reports though. Appeal should be filed with 45 days however he will sit in prison while the appeal process takes it's time. Maybe sometime late 2017 is estimated. The Appeals court also has choices IF they rule in his favor on the search. They can simply overturn the lower court which means his sentence will be vacated or they can simply toss the search and send it back to the lower court and wait for them to rule again. He could end up spending his whole time in prison before this all possibly gets dropped. Then he has no recourse against the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:35:19 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Can someone explain the initial MG charge? Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. Damn at least he lucked out with that. IIRC people have been convicted of MG possession for doing that same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:35:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well like the friend said above - this isn't about road rage it's about an unregistered SBR. It's just another notch in the prosecutor's belt. I know I'll get flak for saying this, but if I were in those shoes I'd be torn between just doing the time and moving on (if even possible, just over 2 years is a long time), or making myself scarce. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Another interesting point, if he's such a dangerous road rager, then the prosecution is rather irresponsible for offering no objection to him having 45 days to report. It's just another notch in the prosecutor's belt. I know I'll get flak for saying this, but if I were in those shoes I'd be torn between just doing the time and moving on (if even possible, just over 2 years is a long time), or making myself scarce. I've thought the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:36:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Makes more sense. Sadly that appeal will take more than his time . I'm guessing it also makes him a prohibited person now too which he will have to fight as well.Hopefully he gets a minimum security prison and gets out early with good behavior. Sad how our justice system works - that's why you do everything you can to avoid being in their sights.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:39:07 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[No early out on federal beefs. He'll do every day of his sentence.
He can get 45 or 54 days off for each good year. Nothing like state where you do about 54 days for each year |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 2:40:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope he finds competent council this go around. That's just fucked up. Fucking gubermit do-gooders.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Wow. Does he have any chance of filing an appeal before he starts serving his sentence?
No unfortunately. He has 45 days before he reports though. Appeal should be filed with 45 days however he will sit in prison while the appeal process takes it's time. Maybe sometime late 2017 is estimated. The Appeals court also has choices IF they rule in his favor on the search. They can simply overturn the lower court which means his sentence will be vacated or they can simply toss the search and send it back to the lower court and wait for them to rule again. He could end up spending his whole time in prison before this all possibly gets dropped. Then he has no recourse against the government.
His attorney is a gun guy. He wasn't an AR guy until this case. Even shoots a 50 bmg. He has won several cases in the 8th Circuit. He also was good enough to get a sitting Arkansas Appeals Court Judge to pay him. Time will tell. Either way he will be spending a lot of time in prison even if his attorney gets the evidence tossed. Hopefully in the end the PD and town will pay a huge settlement for initiating this to begin with. Sucks for him though in the interim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 3:04:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps he had a full length upper and shot it as a rifle at the range last. Until suspect put on the upper "with" the stock already attached the short barrel he was fine. It matters not how many rifle lowers were present as long as one pistol lower was present with the short barrels. The blade tube and blade would have been a better option. I really couldn't come down on either side without access to the prior court materials investigative materials and lawyer conflabs with the Judges. I really don't trust journalists to be either complete or competent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lot of folks running their cockholsters in here without bothering themselves to find out the facts of this situation. Hope you folks never find yourself in a situation like the guy that was found guilty. The point is, he didn't just get pulled over at random and his trunk searched and an unregistered SBR and/or pistol found. He did something first to initiate the incident. Now if the cops actually did install the stock, that sucks but it still begs the question: why did he have a pistol with a regular extension (nothing wrong with that in and of itself*) and a stock lying around? Unless the cops took the stock off of one of his other ARs and put it on the pistol. * Perhaps not smart, though. A pistol extension could have prevented all this. Perhaps he had a full length upper and shot it as a rifle at the range last. Until suspect put on the upper "with" the stock already attached the short barrel he was fine. It matters not how many rifle lowers were present as long as one pistol lower was present with the short barrels. The blade tube and blade would have been a better option. I really couldn't come down on either side without access to the prior court materials investigative materials and lawyer conflabs with the Judges. I really don't trust journalists to be either complete or competent. Maybe, but did it matter in the long run? No. My mother used to say to me "avoid even the appearance of evil" (paraphrased from the bible). The SBR/brandisher failed to do this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 3:16:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe, but did it matter in the long run? No. My mother used to say to me "avoid even the appearance of evil" (paraphrased from the bible). The SBR/brandisher failed to do this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lot of folks running their cockholsters in here without bothering themselves to find out the facts of this situation. Hope you folks never find yourself in a situation like the guy that was found guilty. The point is, he didn't just get pulled over at random and his trunk searched and an unregistered SBR and/or pistol found. He did something first to initiate the incident. Now if the cops actually did install the stock, that sucks but it still begs the question: why did he have a pistol with a regular extension (nothing wrong with that in and of itself*) and a stock lying around? Unless the cops took the stock off of one of his other ARs and put it on the pistol. * Perhaps not smart, though. A pistol extension could have prevented all this. Perhaps he had a full length upper and shot it as a rifle at the range last. Until suspect put on the upper "with" the stock already attached the short barrel he was fine. It matters not how many rifle lowers were present as long as one pistol lower was present with the short barrels. The blade tube and blade would have been a better option. I really couldn't come down on either side without access to the prior court materials investigative materials and lawyer conflabs with the Judges. I really don't trust journalists to be either complete or competent. Maybe, but did it matter in the long run? No. My mother used to say to me "avoid even the appearance of evil" (paraphrased from the bible). The SBR/brandisher failed to do this. Yea, guess it's easier to just step on out and go hand to hand. At least that won't be considered brandishing and lead to an illegal search and reveal a fuck up on your part with the atf. Hell with a clean record, doubt you'll do any time on an assault charge for a road rage incident. Based on what has been posted here, I hope the party that started the incident and also radio'd his buddys , gets his someday. Karma is a bitch and I hope it owns his ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 3:20:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your friend is a textbook example of what not to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. Your friend is a textbook example of what not to do. Yeah I hate to see him do prison time. But he made a lot of bad decisions to end up where he is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 3:25:18 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Add me to your list. Can't trust a single person on this site. No one here has your back, and when it comes to your gun rights you're on your own. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hate this fucking place. A guy that owns guns, and probably has a gun sticker on his vehicle was accused of road rage and of brandishing a glock. Both accusation have no supporting evidence. No glock was found after a search that the guy did not consent to. Cops put together an SBR out of the guys trunk. County drops all charges because they are bullshit. ATF charges him with an illegal SBR even though it was a pistol that was found ( or it was just a lower with a carbine buffer tube don't know which) when the cops searched his vehicle and the cops put the stock on it. Also found was the 16 inch upper he had on the lower that he shot at the range giving supporting evidence to his testimony. He gets railroaded to prison for having an illegal SBR, after all other charges are dropped, because he had parts in his vehicle that the cops used to construct an illegal SBR out of his AR pistol. He even had a pistol buffer tube in his trunk. His only crime was not taking the carbine buffer tube off the lower to drive home after making his pistol a rifle to test a rifle upper. Let me put this in english. He did not have a put together SBR. He had parts for a rifle and parts for a pistol for a platform that snaps together. Anybody here WITHOUT an SBR and a rifle and pistol could have been caught up in this, including being accused of brandishing a gun he didn't own. And 90% of the people hear throw him under the bus This is why we will NEVER win this fight for gun rights. Never. We will not even stand together to call this bullshit, which it obviously is. I am disgusted. We are of a same mind. Add me to your list. Can't trust a single person on this site. No one here has your back, and when it comes to your gun rights you're on your own. Lol, does anyone here really "have his back?" Has anyone donated to his defense fund, written letters, organized a protest, or done anything else constructive? Arguing and ranting on the internet does about as much good for his case as sharing FB posts does for cancer patients. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 3:37:49 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, does anyone here really "have his back?" Has anyone donated to his defense fund, written letters, organized a protest, or done anything else constructive? Arguing and ranting on the internet does about as much good for his case as sharing FB posts does for cancer patients. I run the gofundme page for his appeal, I wish it were a cleaner case so it could be used for a bigger attack on gun laws |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 3:53:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. When be built it the first time, did he build it as a rifle first and then convert it to "pistol" later? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 4:09:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When be built it the first time, did he build it as a rifle first and then convert it to "pistol" later? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. When be built it the first time, did he build it as a rifle first and then convert it to "pistol" later? It started life as a pistol. Stripped lower --> pistol. It stayed mostly as a pistol too. He had another rifle. He was using that lower the day before troubleshooting a new BCG for his carbine. That's why he had the carbine tube installed. I got drilled on that by the prosecutor why he had two butt stocks and one rifle. As I said in an earlier post the jury should have been hand held better on all the nuances of the AR and all it's configurations. I wanted the attorney to hit the ATF on their recent Sig Brace ruling and really confuse the jury. lol The 2AF was notified of this case but no response. At the trial however this was really about how LE found the weapon in the vehicle. Not a parts configuration issue. Either it was assembled fully as an sbr or the cops assembled it. That is what the jury had to answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 4:16:51 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It started life as a pistol. Stripped lower --> pistol. It stayed mostly as a pistol too. He had another rifle. He was using that lower the day before troubleshooting a new BCG for his carbine. That's why he had the carbine tube installed. I got drilled on that by the prosecutor why he had two butt stocks and one rifle. As I said in an earlier post the jury should have been hand held better on all the nuances of the AR and all it's configurations. I wanted the attorney to hit the ATF on their recent Sig Brace ruling and really confuse the jury. lol The 2AF was notified of this case but no response. At the trial however this was really about how LE found the weapon in the vehicle. Not a parts configuration issue. Either it was assembled fully as an sbr or the cops assembled it. That is what the jury had to answer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. When be built it the first time, did he build it as a rifle first and then convert it to "pistol" later? It started life as a pistol. Stripped lower --> pistol. It stayed mostly as a pistol too. He had another rifle. He was using that lower the day before troubleshooting a new BCG for his carbine. That's why he had the carbine tube installed. I got drilled on that by the prosecutor why he had two butt stocks and one rifle. As I said in an earlier post the jury should have been hand held better on all the nuances of the AR and all it's configurations. I wanted the attorney to hit the ATF on their recent Sig Brace ruling and really confuse the jury. lol The 2AF was notified of this case but no response. At the trial however this was really about how LE found the weapon in the vehicle. Not a parts configuration issue. Either it was assembled fully as an sbr or the cops assembled it. That is what the jury had to answer. Gotcha, thanks. Are the transcripts of the trial available? Would be an interesting read for sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 4:20:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? I believe on the lower the safety was able to be put in the "fun" position though there were no MG components in the lower. Not sure how that is possible, FA safety switch possibly? Yet another thing that can make you take the ride. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 4:28:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe on the lower the safety was able to be put in the "fun" position though there were no MG components in the lower. Not sure how that is possible, FA safety switch possibly? Yet another thing that can make you take the ride. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? I believe on the lower the safety was able to be put in the "fun" position though there were no MG components in the lower. Not sure how that is possible, FA safety switch possibly? Yet another thing that can make you take the ride. It was an M16 FCG he had installed. He had all the parts just no third hole for a sear. That is why they initially charged him with the machine gun. That is why the selector rotated to fun position. As far as I know it only doubled on him once trying it. He actually didn't shoot it all that much. He had a problem with the upper we kept working on. It kept shearing the gas tube roll pin. We went through several before finally changing out the original gas block which fixed that issue. That was like a 3 year long problem. I've seen it shear the roll pin firing a single round. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 4:29:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gotcha, thanks. Are the transcripts of the trial available? Would be an interesting read for sure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. When be built it the first time, did he build it as a rifle first and then convert it to "pistol" later? It started life as a pistol. Stripped lower --> pistol. It stayed mostly as a pistol too. He had another rifle. He was using that lower the day before troubleshooting a new BCG for his carbine. That's why he had the carbine tube installed. I got drilled on that by the prosecutor why he had two butt stocks and one rifle. As I said in an earlier post the jury should have been hand held better on all the nuances of the AR and all it's configurations. I wanted the attorney to hit the ATF on their recent Sig Brace ruling and really confuse the jury. lol The 2AF was notified of this case but no response. At the trial however this was really about how LE found the weapon in the vehicle. Not a parts configuration issue. Either it was assembled fully as an sbr or the cops assembled it. That is what the jury had to answer. Gotcha, thanks. Are the transcripts of the trial available? Would be an interesting read for sure. Maybe but he was informed that you have to pay the Steno personally for copies and it's very expensive. Kinda like side money for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 4:32:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just now noticed this thread. I was the guys best friend. I was with him the day before the incident at the range shooting. He is a veteran. He is or was an Arkansas CHCL holder which requires a background check. I was in the stand at the trial supporting him. I am very intimate with all the details of this trial. Trust me I say he was screwed. Again with the accusation of brandishing a firearm, I was not there, but on the facts of the road rage incident we have nothing but a he said, he said case. None of this has ever been discussed in court up until the sentencing hearing to which the defendants attorney became very agitated. The other guy cut him off and began the road rage incident. Justin did just drive away after the other guy stopped in the middle of the road to confront. Justin normally is carrying a 3 inch 1911 but had it in the back of his vehicle because he was pulling his PWC, had his swim pants on and heading out to the river to ride. If he would have had his gun on him this might have ended differently for the complainant. After the road rage incident and when LE finally made contact he was handcuffed while inside a place eating and not in control of his vehicle. The police got his car keys and began searching his vehicle even after Justin said they did not have permission to search his vehicle. No guns were in view and were covered very well in the back of is vehicle. Even at the evidenciary hearing they said they were not searching but inventorying the vehicle. Yet the vehicle was never impounded. At that point in time there was no reason for them to inventory the vehicle vs searching it. There was no reason for him to be handcuffed. Lawyers and a judge friend who were present at his evidenciary hearing last summer all agree a 1st year law student could have had the search thrown out. His first attorney was a real piece of work. Which is why he dumped her. The 2nd attorney got them to drop the machine gun charges. The ATF really screwed up that one. It was pointed out he did not call 911. The witness statement says the suspect never pointed the gun but tapped it on his chest. However in some articles it says the police were looking for a guy who "pointed" a gun at someone. Can you see how LE was wired here for a false report? LE all carry cameras yet not one single video or audio of the incident even from the vehicle cams was submitted even though there were subpoenaed. The cops testified they found the SBR assembled in the back. The defendant swears it was apart in a backpack. The butt stock will not fit on the extension tube while in the backpack. If and I say "IF" the cops assembled the gun at the stop they would be guilty of tampering. So in the trial they had no choice but to suggest they found it that way. Again I say "if". My opinion is the jury should have been handheld better about all the nuances of the AR at the trial. I was even attacked by the prosecutor at the trial about the gun. So is he serving time for the road rage incident or an unregistered SBR? Nothing was ever done about the road rage incident. That was just the catalyst to begin with. Never adjudicated in court. He was convicted of being in possession of an uregistered sbr. Nothing else The road rage incident however added to the time. How long have people known about constructive intent and that the ATF will fuck you with it? Yet he still had a pistol AR with a carbine extension tube and a stock in the same bag? I will say after this court case and what the ATF tech branch experts(they flew in two from West Virginia for the trial) testified to in court "constructive intent" is fiction. Parts don't matter. It's how they are totally assembled that counts. That is also in documentation for the Tech branch. Come on man, he's your friend, we get it, but you know he was skirting the law and playing stupid games with it. Whether or not the law itself is dumb is irrelevant. If he isn't serving time now for the supposed road rage incident, it's strictly for the unregistered SBR. Be honest with yourself and be honest with him - appealing such a thing is going to be difficult. Again, if the facts are that he had a "pistol" AR with a carbine extension and a stock in the same bag.. it is what it is sadly. The court doesn't care about your or his interpretation of the law - they care about THEIRS which is the most restrictive interpretation of it. He will not be appealing the sbr but the way the evidence was obtained. No evidence no trial. Let this honestly be a note to everyone: Stop playing this SBR / Not an SBR game. You will lose. Pay the $200 and aggressively support fighting the NFA through the courts. Most would agree with you here. Me too Hold on, the ATF said on the stand that constructive intent is fiction? If that is true it means that he was convicted solely on the fact that the SBR was assembled, right? If the cops did assemble the SBR at the scene that is completely fucked up and they definitely hosed him. I could see the ATF changing their opinion on "constructive intent" in the future if need be to screw people, not too sure I would throw caution to the wind on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 4:42:00 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was an M16 FCG he had installed. He had all the parts just no third hole for a sear. That is why they initially charged him with the machine gun. That is why the selector rotated to fun position. As far as I know it only doubled on him once trying it. He actually didn't shoot it all that much. He had a problem with the upper we kept working on. It kept shearing the gas tube roll pin. We went through several before finally changing out the original gas block which fixed that issue. That was like a 3 year long problem. I've seen it shear the roll pin firing a single round. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? I believe on the lower the safety was able to be put in the "fun" position though there were no MG components in the lower. Not sure how that is possible, FA safety switch possibly? Yet another thing that can make you take the ride. It was an M16 FCG he had installed. He had all the parts just no third hole for a sear. That is why they initially charged him with the machine gun. That is why the selector rotated to fun position. As far as I know it only doubled on him once trying it. He actually didn't shoot it all that much. He had a problem with the upper we kept working on. It kept shearing the gas tube roll pin. We went through several before finally changing out the original gas block which fixed that issue. That was like a 3 year long problem. I've seen it shear the roll pin firing a single round. I caught up and saw that someone said that. Man he did a lot of things incorrect when it comes to NFA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 4:45:31 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hold on, the ATF said on the stand that constructive intent is fiction? If that is true it means that he was convicted solely on the fact that the SBR was assembled, right? If the cops did assemble the SBR at the scene that is completely fucked up and they definitely hosed him. I could see the ATF changing there opinion on "constructive intent" in the future if need be to screw people, not too sure I would throw caution to the wind on that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just now noticed this thread. I was the guys best friend. I was with him the day before the incident at the range shooting. He is a veteran. He is or was an Arkansas CHCL holder which requires a background check. I was in the stand at the trial supporting him. I am very intimate with all the details of this trial. Trust me I say he was screwed. Again with the accusation of brandishing a firearm, I was not there, but on the facts of the road rage incident we have nothing but a he said, he said case. None of this has ever been discussed in court up until the sentencing hearing to which the defendants attorney became very agitated. The other guy cut him off and began the road rage incident. Justin did just drive away after the other guy stopped in the middle of the road to confront. Justin normally is carrying a 3 inch 1911 but had it in the back of his vehicle because he was pulling his PWC, had his swim pants on and heading out to the river to ride. If he would have had his gun on him this might have ended differently for the complainant. After the road rage incident and when LE finally made contact he was handcuffed while inside a place eating and not in control of his vehicle. The police got his car keys and began searching his vehicle even after Justin said they did not have permission to search his vehicle. No guns were in view and were covered very well in the back of is vehicle. Even at the evidenciary hearing they said they were not searching but inventorying the vehicle. Yet the vehicle was never impounded. At that point in time there was no reason for them to inventory the vehicle vs searching it. There was no reason for him to be handcuffed. Lawyers and a judge friend who were present at his evidenciary hearing last summer all agree a 1st year law student could have had the search thrown out. His first attorney was a real piece of work. Which is why he dumped her. The 2nd attorney got them to drop the machine gun charges. The ATF really screwed up that one. It was pointed out he did not call 911. The witness statement says the suspect never pointed the gun but tapped it on his chest. However in some articles it says the police were looking for a guy who "pointed" a gun at someone. Can you see how LE was wired here for a false report? LE all carry cameras yet not one single video or audio of the incident even from the vehicle cams was submitted even though there were subpoenaed. The cops testified they found the SBR assembled in the back. The defendant swears it was apart in a backpack. The butt stock will not fit on the extension tube while in the backpack. If and I say "IF" the cops assembled the gun at the stop they would be guilty of tampering. So in the trial they had no choice but to suggest they found it that way. Again I say "if". My opinion is the jury should have been handheld better about all the nuances of the AR at the trial. I was even attacked by the prosecutor at the trial about the gun. So is he serving time for the road rage incident or an unregistered SBR? Nothing was ever done about the road rage incident. That was just the catalyst to begin with. Never adjudicated in court. He was convicted of being in possession of an uregistered sbr. Nothing else The road rage incident however added to the time. How long have people known about constructive intent and that the ATF will fuck you with it? Yet he still had a pistol AR with a carbine extension tube and a stock in the same bag? I will say after this court case and what the ATF tech branch experts(they flew in two from West Virginia for the trial) testified to in court "constructive intent" is fiction. Parts don't matter. It's how they are totally assembled that counts. That is also in documentation for the Tech branch. Come on man, he's your friend, we get it, but you know he was skirting the law and playing stupid games with it. Whether or not the law itself is dumb is irrelevant. If he isn't serving time now for the supposed road rage incident, it's strictly for the unregistered SBR. Be honest with yourself and be honest with him - appealing such a thing is going to be difficult. Again, if the facts are that he had a "pistol" AR with a carbine extension and a stock in the same bag.. it is what it is sadly. The court doesn't care about your or his interpretation of the law - they care about THEIRS which is the most restrictive interpretation of it. He will not be appealing the sbr but the way the evidence was obtained. No evidence no trial. Let this honestly be a note to everyone: Stop playing this SBR / Not an SBR game. You will lose. Pay the $200 and aggressively support fighting the NFA through the courts. Most would agree with you here. Me too Hold on, the ATF said on the stand that constructive intent is fiction? If that is true it means that he was convicted solely on the fact that the SBR was assembled, right? If the cops did assemble the SBR at the scene that is completely fucked up and they definitely hosed him. I could see the ATF changing there opinion on "constructive intent" in the future if need be to screw people, not too sure I would throw caution to the wind on that. Oh yes. On cross examination at the trial back in Feb the defense attorney pulled a gotcha on the examiner on the stand. Got her to testify one thing and then brought up a policy letter from the ATF Branch Chief, her boss at the time, which was directly against what she just testified too. She changed her opinion right there. And yes I think we were surprised they were going to say they found the gun assembled when the whole time Justin kept telling us it was in the backpack disassembled. Which as I have mentioned earlier if "IF" the cops assembled the weapon that was in a backpack disassembled then they committed a felony by assembling it. By the time the trial rolled around if they admitted to assembling the gun they would be in trouble. So they really only had one choice at trial. But again I was not there so cannot be sure either way. There was a third party friend that showed up a little late to the arrest. He was our other friend who had been with us the day before shooting as well. Guess what...he is Arkansas State Police. He was there to witness some of what was going on but got there too late to see it all. He did not help out as much as we would have liked at the arrest. From other sources we have found out that whole arrest was bad juju in the department. A lot of bad blood between other LE in that department on the way things were handled. Guess it is a touchy subject for them. I am preparing to get the pics used in the trial to show how the gun may have been thrown together for pics. His attorney says he has a VERY good case to get the search/evidence tossed. But this will be months away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 4:48:39 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yea, he lost me too,wtf, you still drinking ? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hate this fucking place. A guy that owns guns, and probably has a gun sticker on his vehicle was accused of road rage and of brandishing a glock. Both accusation have no supporting evidence. No glock was found after a search that the guy did not consent to. Cops put together an SBR out of the guys trunk. County drops all charges because they are bullshit. ATF charges him with an illegal SBR even though it was a pistol that was found ( or it was just a lower with a carbine buffer tube don't know which) when the cops searched his vehicle and the cops put the stock on it. Also found was the 16 inch upper he had on the lower that he shot at the range giving supporting evidence to his testimony. He gets railroaded to prison for having an illegal SBR, after all other charges are dropped, because he had parts in his vehicle that the cops used to construct an illegal SBR out of his AR pistol. He even had a pistol buffer tube in his trunk. His only crime was not taking the carbine buffer tube off the lower to drive home after making his pistol a rifle to test a rifle upper. Let me put this in english. He did not have a put together SBR. He had parts for a rifle and parts for a pistol for a platform that snaps together. Anybody here WITHOUT an SBR and a rifle and pistol could have been caught up in this, including being accused of brandishing a gun he didn't own. And 90% of the people hear throw him under the bus This is why we will NEVER win this fight for gun rights. Never. We will not even stand together to call this bullshit, which it obviously is. I am disgusted. Obviously you aren't a Conservative, but a liberal=libertarian. Hillary appreciates your support. What the fuck are you talking about. Yea, he lost me too,wtf, you still drinking ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 4:48:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I caught up and saw that someone said that. Man he did a lot of things incorrect when it comes to NFA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the initial MG charge? I believe on the lower the safety was able to be put in the "fun" position though there were no MG components in the lower. Not sure how that is possible, FA safety switch possibly? Yet another thing that can make you take the ride. It was an M16 FCG he had installed. He had all the parts just no third hole for a sear. That is why they initially charged him with the machine gun. That is why the selector rotated to fun position. As far as I know it only doubled on him once trying it. He actually didn't shoot it all that much. He had a problem with the upper we kept working on. It kept shearing the gas tube roll pin. We went through several before finally changing out the original gas block which fixed that issue. That was like a 3 year long problem. I've seen it shear the roll pin firing a single round. I caught up and saw that someone said that. Man he did a lot of things incorrect when it comes to NFA. I mainly blame us gun people for not doing anything here. But you're partially correct!  I will say in the ATF tests they got it to fire auto with hammer follow with 3 rounds and 5 rounds. Soft primers of course. They were challenged. They folded.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 4:52:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Can someone explain the initial MG charge? Justin built this lower a few years ago. His first one. When he ordered the LPK they mistakenly sent him an M16 FCG. Yeah he installed it. He was warned. Fast forward that lower is what he used for his short barrel upper. He had a pistol tube to install when needed. Matter of fact the pistol tube was in the backpack he usually kept the pistol in. He got that back after the initial arrest. Anyway what the police first questioned is to why the selector went to the rear. The SBR was not an issue initially. During their testing they were able to get the lower to fire multiple rounds with hammer follow. The new attorney questioned the ATF on some procedural issues with their testing and they caved. Does soft primers ring a bell? Also the local ATF agents, who were not actually ATF, but were local PD assigned to the ATF, took the gun to the range themselves and tested(documented) it which is supposedly a violation of their policies. This was before it was sent to WV for testing by the ATF testing branch. This is a good moral for the "oh they never go after sbr/whatever" except as an add on charge |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 6:49:58 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's a nutty rabid cop hater and trolls now saying the opposite of what he means Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate this fucking place. A guy that owns guns, and probably has a gun sticker on his vehicle was accused of road rage and of brandishing a glock. Both accusation have no supporting evidence. No glock was found after a search that the guy did not consent to. Cops put together an SBR out of the guys trunk. County drops all charges because they are bullshit. ATF charges him with an illegal SBR even though it was a pistol that was found ( or it was just a lower with a carbine buffer tube don't know which) when the cops searched his vehicle and the cops put the stock on it. Also found was the 16 inch upper he had on the lower that he shot at the range giving supporting evidence to his testimony. He gets railroaded to prison for having an illegal SBR, after all other charges are dropped, because he had parts in his vehicle that the cops used to construct an illegal SBR out of his AR pistol. He even had a pistol buffer tube in his trunk. His only crime was not taking the carbine buffer tube off the lower to drive home after making his pistol a rifle to test a rifle upper. Let me put this in english. He did not have a put together SBR. He had parts for a rifle and parts for a pistol for a platform that snaps together. Anybody here WITHOUT an SBR and a rifle and pistol could have been caught up in this, including being accused of brandishing a gun he didn't own. And 90% of the people hear throw him under the bus This is why we will NEVER win this fight for gun rights. Never. We will not even stand together to call this bullshit, which it obviously is. I am disgusted. Obviously you aren't a Conservative, but a liberal=libertarian. Hillary appreciates your support. What the fuck are you talking about. Yea, he lost me too,wtf, you still drinking ? Not at all. I assume the others cheering on the arrest and conviction claim to be Conservatives also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 7:04:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Road rage is stupid. I'm middle-aged, and have never felt compelled to brandish a weapon because of driving. ...hell, come to think about it, I've never brandished a weapon out of fear, for any reason. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 8:24:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Road rage is stupid. I'm middle-aged, and have never felt compelled to brandish a weapon because of driving. ...hell, come to think about it, I've never brandished a weapon out of fear, for any reason.
Yes and the burden of proof was on him to prove otherwise. Since you seem in the know on it, how many years did he get for the brandishing conviction that a person of your standing will never have to worry about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 8:31:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Dumbass wouldn't have been caught if it wasn't for him being a dumbass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 8:41:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes and the burden of proof was on him to prove otherwise. Since you seem in the know on it, how many years did he get for the brandishing conviction that a person of your standing will never have to worry about? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Road rage is stupid. I'm middle-aged, and have never felt compelled to brandish a weapon because of driving. ...hell, come to think about it, I've never brandished a weapon out of fear, for any reason. Yes and the burden of proof was on him to prove otherwise. Since you seem in the know on it, how many years did he get for the brandishing conviction that a person of your standing will never have to worry about? He invited the man into his life. If he hadn't got into an altercation and produced a weapon, there is no reason at all for the police to investigate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 8:49:44 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He invited the man into his life. If he hadn't got into an altercation and produced a weapon, there is no reason at all for the police to investigate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Road rage is stupid. I'm middle-aged, and have never felt compelled to brandish a weapon because of driving. ...hell, come to think about it, I've never brandished a weapon out of fear, for any reason.
Yes and the burden of proof was on him to prove otherwise. Since you seem in the know on it, how many years did he get for the brandishing conviction that a person of your standing will never have to worry about? He invited the man into his life. If he hadn't got into an altercation and produced a weapon, there is no reason at all for the police to investigate. How are you posting under 2 different user names? And still, how long did he get for the brandishing conviction? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 9:16:09 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This isn't the first time an innocent person is getting jacked up because somebody said something to somebody else. It happened in virginia recently. Huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 9:22:40 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're going to make a fucking mountain out of a ant hill over that little tiny technicality? The guy flashed or pointed a gun, the person called the cops because the person felt threatened by the dude brandishing a fucking weapon during a road rage incident. You just sound like you're excusing away him pulling out a pistol because it supposedly wasn't his SBR. Like it's fucking okay and dandy to pull out a pistol during a dispute but when you finally draw a long gun, then it all of a sudden becomes bad. 
The charges were dropped for brandishing. The caller claimed it was a Glock. There was not a Glock in the convict's vehicle. Goddamn, people are trying to help you read but you gotta try some yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2016 9:24:12 PM EDT
[#50]
I found the page of one of the AUSAs that prosecuted this case. It's on clintonfoundation.org's site
 Her bio SCREAMS "liberal!"
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/authors/erin-oleary Erin O’Leary
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, State of Arkansas; Clinton School of Public Service Alum Erin O’Leary is from Ferndale, Michigan. O’Leary graduated from the University of Michigan School of Law after earning a degree in political science from Miami University. She has worked as a legal intern with both the Sierra Club in San Francisco and the Labor Arbitration Council in Cambodia. Her service experience includes a stint with AmeriCorps in Charleston, S.C., and working as a crew leader for Youth Corps of Southern Arizona. At the Clinton School, she assisted the Arkansas Department of Human Services with the expansion of AmeriCorps Arkansas programs under the Serve America Act. O’Leary worked with Indicorps, an Indian service organization modeled after AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, to create written guides for the program and its fellows to assist in conducting successful service projects and initiatives with the communities in which they serve. She partnered with the City of Little to help implement a $200,000 grant for creating a comprehensive service plan to address community challenges through volunteerism. She went on to practice law, first as a legal aid attorney for the Center for Arkansas Legal Services, during which time her work in landlord/tenant law was featured by the Arkansas Times and Human Rights Watch. She now serves as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Arkansas. |
|
|
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.
