Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 2/9/2006 9:52:47 AM EDT
Can we get 10 people here to sign a few letters so this guy can go free?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.chillicothegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060209/NEWS01/60209001
Man faces weapons charges
Domestic violence call yields multiple guns

By LISA ROBERSON
Gazette Staff Writer

MASSIEVILLE — A local man may face federal charges after authorities found automatic and semi-automatic weapons when answering a domestic violence call.

Daniel A. Tatman, 42, of 401 Tabernacle Road, said he did not have the weapons for a malicious reason and was only interested in them as a hobby. However, Ross County Sheriff Ron Nichols said this kind of hobby is illegal and could land Tatman in big trouble.

“He said he loves guns and was manufacturing the automatic parts himself, but if they happened to fall into the wrong hands, it could be deadly,” Nichols added.

Having these weapons is dangerous because, compared to semi-automatic weapons in which the trigger must be pulled each time to release ammunition, automatic weapons can empty completely by pulling and holding the trigger once. Many times this happens within seconds.

Tatman had several AK-47s, a machine gun, two AR-15s and more than two dozen other weapons, including silencers, according to a list attached to Tatman’s arrest report of the weapons officers seized. All were taken into evidence and several were turned over to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for testing.

If they are found to be in violation of federal law, charges will be filed.

Possessing, manufacturing or transferring an automatic weapon is a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Link Posted: 2/9/2006 10:01:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tactical_Jew:

“He said he loves guns and was manufacturing the automatic parts himself, but if they happened to fall into the wrong hands, it could be deadly,” Nichols added.





well, officer, shouldn't we disarm you so that your gun won't "fall into the wrong hands"?
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:18:53 PM EDT
Saw this on TV. Guy looks like jesus and was making stens.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:20:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By david_g17:

Originally Posted By Tactical_Jew:

“He said he loves guns and was manufacturing the automatic parts himself, but if they happened to fall into the wrong hands, it could be deadly,” Nichols added.





well, officer, shouldn't we disarm you so that your gun won't "fall into the wrong hands"?



Give him a 'smart gun'
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:21:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By clutchsmoke:
Saw this on TV. Guy looks like jesus and was making stens.



How exactly does one make a Sten?
Theoretically speaking of course........
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:21:58 PM EDT
Will the police dept in his area feel that the penalty is too harsh?
Oh wait...he's not a cop.
Off with his head then.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:23:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

Originally Posted By clutchsmoke:
Saw this on TV. Guy looks like jesus and was making stens.



How exactly does one make a Sten?
Theoretically speaking of course........



Sten gun parts kit.
Blueprints for a tube reciever.
Proper gauge sheet metal for the receiver, rolled into a tube and heat treated.
You could assemlbe one in any machine shop - that is how the brits made them.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:24:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

Originally Posted By clutchsmoke:
Saw this on TV. Guy looks like jesus and was making stens.



How exactly does one make a Sten?
Theoretically speaking of course........



Sten gun parts kit.
Blueprints for a tube reciever.
Proper gauge sheet metal for the receiver, rolled into a tube and heat treated.
You could assemlbe one in any machine shop - that is how the brits made them.



The Australians made a similiar firearm for WW 2
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:24:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Will the police dept in his area feel that the penalty is too harsh?
Oh wait...he's not a cop.
Off with his head then.





If he WERE a cop would the Arcom tinfoil brigade defend him?
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:26:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:27:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tactical_Jew:
Can we get 10 people here to sign a few letters so this guy can go free?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.chillicothegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060209/NEWS01/60209001
Man faces weapons charges
Domestic violence call yields multiple guns

By LISA ROBERSON
Gazette Staff Writer

MASSIEVILLE — A local man may face federal charges after authorities found automatic and semi-automatic weapons when answering a domestic violence call.

Daniel A. Tatman, 42, of 401 Tabernacle Road, said he did not have the weapons for a malicious reason and was only interested in them as a hobby. However, Ross County Sheriff Ron Nichols said this kind of hobby is illegal and could land Tatman in big trouble.

“He said he loves guns and was manufacturing the automatic parts himself, but if they happened to fall into the wrong hands, it could be deadly,” Nichols added.

Having these weapons is dangerous because, compared to semi-automatic weapons in which the trigger must be pulled each time to release ammunition, automatic weapons can empty completely by pulling and holding the trigger once. Many times this happens within seconds.

Tatman had several AK-47s, a machine gun, two AR-15s and more than two dozen other weapons, including silencers, according to a list attached to Tatman’s arrest report of the weapons officers seized. All were taken into evidence and several were turned over to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for testing.

If they are found to be in violation of federal law, charges will be filed.

Possessing, manufacturing or transferring an automatic weapon is a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.




This guy needs to see if some sheriffs and mayors will write letters on his behalf...
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:28:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Remember boys and girls--if you have illegal machine guns, don't beat your wife.



Are you saying that as long as you don't have illegal machine guns it is ok to beat your wife?

P.S. I bet your wife can kick your butt...machine guns or no.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:29:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Will the police dept in his area feel that the penalty is too harsh?
Oh wait...he's not a cop.
Off with his head then.





If he WERE a cop would the Arcom tinfoil brigade defend him?



Hey now - I'm just pointing out the irony.
Cops get nailed with illegal MGs - the PD thinks the penalty is too harsh.
Jo Shmoe gets nailed - hey who cares?
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:31:42 PM EDT
taggage
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:41:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 4:00:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By dvr9:
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

P.S. I bet your wife can kick your butt...machine guns or no.



Yeah, but she can kick yours too so I don't feel so bad about it. Heh



No doubt about it...I could never hit a women...especially on who can out shoot me.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 4:06:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Will the police dept in his area feel that the penalty is too harsh?
Oh wait...he's not a cop.
Off with his head then.





If he WERE a cop would the Arcom tinfoil brigade defend him?



Yes. Even if it was you, asshole.

Uhm, you aren't coming to Tennessee anytime soon are you?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 5:15:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 5:17:12 AM EDT by gonzo_beyondo]
Help me out here...

Did this guy get in trouble for spousal abuse first?
What event caused the "cache" discovery?

If said person was law-abiding other than his gun hobby...
Then perhaps we should get behind this guy, using him as a comparison to the three cops and the doctor. No ten letters or pleas for his release Perfect case to prove double standards... but this guy needs to be CLEAN!

ETA: I know it says "domestic violence" call, but she coulda been whoopin' on him!
Coulda been a neighbor overhearing the TV.
A "DV call" means nothing without the full context my friends.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 5:20:06 AM EDT
A domestic violence call doesn't always = spousal abuse.

Link Posted: 2/10/2006 5:22:27 AM EDT
Sucks to be him.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 5:26:46 AM EDT
Hey, this could be the case to test the commerce clause if he was manufacturing these himself. With machine gun Sammy and Roberts up top the time is right.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 5:58:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Will the police dept in his area feel that the penalty is too harsh?
Oh wait...he's not a cop.
Off with his head then.





If he WERE a cop would the Arcom tinfoil brigade defend him?



Hey now - I'm just pointing out the irony.
Cops get nailed with illegal MGs - the PD thinks the penalty is too harsh.
Jo Shmoe gets nailed - hey who cares?



Good Point.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:03:40 AM EDT
In Alaska (and other states) it is legal to manufacture a MG. I know federal law trumps state law but, I don't know where this law even came from so....

I don't know the details because I never looked into it and I sure don't want to be some alphabets 'example'. However, I believe that you had to manufacture it on your own - Not sure if that means you need to have blacksmith skills and make your own steel or if you can buy items from the hardware store.

I know very little about this as I'm sure you can tell.
Anyone know what the rules/regs are? ...Details?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:12:17 AM EDT
He should be administratively punished by his employer. I figure two weeks w/ no pay should suffice.

Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:24:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 6:25:15 AM EDT by 1911lover]

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Remember boys and girls--if you have illegal machine guns, count on the second amendment.



I felt compelled to change/add something
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:28:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Sucks to be him.




Same thing I was thinking
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 6:34:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tactical_Jew:

Tatman had several AK-47s, a machine gun, two AR-15s and more than two dozen other weapons...




Is it just me or does this sentence make almost no sense...

AK-47s I understand. AR-15s, yes. I understand that. What kind of gun is "machine gun"?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:08:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 7:14:37 AM EDT by monkeyman]
Hmmm, I wonder if he knew making machine guns was illegal? Because, you know, making them just for yourself because you are simply interested in them is really sort of ok. Anyway, whether he knew or not, we should excuse him because he really didn't mean to use them illegally so that makes it ok.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 7:24:03 AM EDT
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
ROCK ISLAND ARMORY, INC., and David R. Reese, Defendants.
No. 90-40025. United States District Court,
C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division.

June 7, 1991.

Here's the money quote:

In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts l(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED.

This decision struck down the 1934, 1968, and 1986 gun control acts, and the loss was not appealed by FedGov.

Here's the whole thing: U.S. v. RIA.

And then there is U.S. v. Dalton as well. It is quite similar.

Here's the money quote there:

The government is correct that a statute is repealed by implication only when that statute and a later statute are irreconcilable. See, e.g., Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 533, 549-51 (1974). In our view, however, that is exactly the situation here. Sections 5861(d) and (e) punish the failure to register a machinegun at the same time that the government refuses to accept this required registration due to the ban imposed by section 922(o). As a result of section 922(o), compliance with section 5861 is impossible.

Accordingly, we vacate Dalton's conviction and reverse with instructions to dismiss the indictment. In so doing, we recognize that the illegal possession of a machinegun is a most serious matter. However, it is precisely because this conduct raises such grave concerns that the government must exercise its prosecuting responsibility with care. The decision to proceed under an inapplicable statute has resulted in a constitutionally infirm conviction.

We've talked about all these cases before. What we need is a clean case that can put this issue to rest once and for all. "Shall not be infringed" shouldn't be this convoluted.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 8:51:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
ROCK ISLAND ARMORY, INC., and David R. Reese, Defendants.
No. 90-40025. United States District Court,
C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division.

June 7, 1991.

Here's the money quote:

In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts l(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED.

This decision struck down the 1934, 1968, and 1986 gun control acts, and the loss was not appealed by FedGov.

Here's the whole thing: U.S. v. RIA.

And then there is U.S. v. Dalton as well. It is quite similar.



Hmm...
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:03:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gonzo_beyondo:
Help me out here...

Did this guy get in trouble for spousal abuse first?
What event caused the "cache" discovery?

If said person was law-abiding other than his gun hobby...
Then perhaps we should get behind this guy, using him as a comparison to the three cops and the doctor. No ten letters or pleas for his release Perfect case to prove double standards... but this guy needs to be CLEAN!

ETA: I know it says "domestic violence" call, but she coulda been whoopin' on him!
Coulda been a neighbor overhearing the TV.
A "DV call" means nothing without the full context my friends.





The guy I used to work with got arrested for "DV" and his lawyer talked him into taking a plea bargain. All he did was yell at his girlfriend AFTER she kicked him in the chest!! so she called the cops because she was "scared" and they hauled his ass off to jail.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:20:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 9:31:25 AM EDT by ImplementOfWar]
Domestic Violence laws are a joke.

Assault is assault, there does'nt need to be any special treatment just because it is someone you live with unless maybe it is against the opposite sex.

And this is bullshit, this guy had every constitutional right to manufacture machine guns if he wanted to do so. The article said in violation of federal law? HOW CAN IT BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW WHEN IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE. HE WAS MAKING THEM IN HIS HOUSE, NOT SELLING THEM ACROSS STATE LINES.

DISHONORABLE PIGS AND CORRUPT GOVERNMENT.

Top Top