Authorities stand trial in gun case

Assistant U.S. attorney alleges ex-prosecutors, police chief fraudulently obtained weapons.

Paul Egan / The Detroit News

Two county prosecutors and a small-town police chief abused their offices so they could possess machine guns and silencers they would not otherwise be allowed to buy, an assistant U.S. attorney told a jury Tuesday.

"What this case is about is simply a case of public corruption," Janet Parker told jurors as a federal trial began for former Ogemaw County Prosecutor Frederick MacKinnon, his former chief assistant Gary Theunick, and former Rose City police chief Maxwell Garnett.

The three are charged in a 56-count indictment with conspiracy, false statements and unlawfully receiving firearms.

Ogemaw County is north of Bay City in the Lower Peninsula.

Parker said the evidence will show the defendants used official letterhead but their own money to buy for personal use weapons that can normally only be purchased by law enforcement agencies. They also evaded paying required taxes on the purchases, she said.

In all, the men bought seven machine guns and nine silencers by causing false statements to be sent to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which regulates such purchases under the National Firearms Act, Parker told the jury of eight women and six men.

But William Van Dusen Jr., a lawyer for Theunick, said in his opening statement the men were very careful to follow the law and no false statements were made.

As an employee of law enforcement, "the firearms in question were not required to be registered to Gary Theunick for him to possess them," Van Dusen told jurors.

The trial before U.S. District Judge Robert H. Cleland could last two weeks.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/METRO/708150367

This will be an interesting test case.

OST

stupid unconstitutional laws but if you break them...

Interesting that they are even prosecuting instead of just a slap on the wrist and confiscation of said weapons..

didn't these guys initially get off?

if i remember correctly, people here had a heart attack (and rightly so) because they were found innocent because the law was "...unconstitutionally vague in regards to their rights as law enforcement..." or something to that effect.

Don't like the law?  Then vote to change it.  If you can't do the crime, then don't do the time.


Very little doubt that being more equal will keep some ass from being pounded.

As much as like ragging on bad cops, I dont find what they did wrong. By law yes but the law is stupid.

Quoted: didn't these guys initially get off? if i remember correctly, people here had a heart attack (and rightly so) because they were found innocent because the law was "...unconstitutionally vague in regards to their rights as law enforcement..." or something to that effect.

I think those were guys in IL.

yak

Quoted: didn't these guys initially get off? if i remember correctly, people here had a heart attack (and rightly so) because they were found innocent because the law was "...unconstitutionally vague in regards to their rights as law enforcement..." or something to that effect.

I think that was the case where the cop had a M16 for training classes?

Quoted: Parker said the evidence will show the defendants used official letterhead but their own money to buy for personal use weapons that can normally only be purchased by law enforcement agencies. They also evaded paying required taxes on the purchases, she said.

Some agencies will let officers purchase weapons for duty use. The agencies will own them, but the officer funded the weapon. There is usually an agreement that, if the weapon is sold, the officer will get his money back.

I would be curious to see what they bought. The silencer purchases would only be avoiding a $200 tax and that is just plain stupid.

I am sure there is more to this case for the feds to take it.....

Quoted: Quoted: didn't these guys initially get off? if i remember correctly, people here had a heart attack (and rightly so) because they were found innocent because the law was "...unconstitutionally vague in regards to their rights as law enforcement..." or something to that effect. I think that was the case where the cop had a M16 for training classes?

i'm pretty sure he had an M16, and got off a charge that would have gotten anyone else thrown in the clink by saying it was "for training".

anyhow, interesting this is a different case. it would seem the feds are starting to crack down on other LE.