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: 2/26/2002 8:19:13 PM EDT
It is business as usual at the ATF even with the "pro-gun" administration at the helm. Just remember that the JBTs can get you on the same charges, if you reload and especially after the nice people in their "technical division" get done making your AR15 double. [url]www.sierratimes.com/02/02/26/arky022602.htm[/url] Second Amendment Activist Arrested During Media Interview A Sierra Times Report : 02.26.02 LEXINGTON - Second Amendment activist Charlie Puckett has been arrested by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, following a federal grand jury indictment, in the midst of a media interview Tuesday. According to an indictment, Puckett faces federal firearms and explosives charges. The indictment says the BATF found machine guns, explosives and other items used to make pipe bombs. Items were seized from Puckett's home in November on suspicion Puckett was a felon in possession of firearms. [b]Puckett's attorney, Gatewood Galbraith, has maintained Puckett should have been legally able to possess firearms because the 1966 conviction pre-dates a federal law passed in 1968 on firearms and felons. In a Sierra Times November 28 report, the items reported seized by the BATF were 5 weapons: two bolt-action (single-shot) rifles, two sidearms and 1 SK-A semi-automatic rifle. There was never word any of these weapons were automatic when found -- or even if they could be made to be so.[/b] Puckett was leaving a Hilton Hotel in Lexington, Kentucky this morning, following an interview with a reporter who claimed to be an employee of The Learning Channel, according to Puckett's associate, Michael Stacner. The interview took place in the Governor's Suite at the Lexington Green Hilton on Nicholasville Rd. and New Circle Rd. "The charge is emanating from the raid on his home," said Puckett's attorney, Gatewood Galbraith of Lexington. "The grand jury has indicted him. He's had an initial hearing in front of the court. A detention hearing is scheduled for Friday in federal court at 10:30 am in Lexington." Galbraith is urging that everyone remain calm. "We have an opportunity to do a tremendous amount of education," he said. "I believe we can educate people on just how levelheaded we are. There's going to be an opportunity to explain our situation many times." People are not encouraged to show up for the hearing right now. "I trust we can get him bond," Galbraith said. "They waited all this time to pick him up so they must not have felt he was too dangerous. I see no reason to upset that perspective."
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 8:20:02 PM EDT
(continued) Galbraith feels this action may have in part been precipitated by a news story that began airing on a Lexington TV station, Channel 27, last night. It was intended to be a three-part series. The second part airs tonight. When today's action took place, the 30 or 40 BATF agents would not show a warrant and would not say why, according to Stracner. "They just said 'we've got a warrant for your arrest.' " "I asked them 'what has Charlie done.' They said 'We'll talk about it later.' I thought I'd be enjoying their company for a while too," Stracner said. "Charlie never said a word." Witnesses at the scene stated that federal agents were very weary of media attention and sought to make the arrest quick for that reason. Puckett was taken into custody without incident. Stracner was put up against a column and searched. One of the agents started to handcuff him, but only made him stand still behind the column for about 10 minutes while they loaded Puckett into a vehicle out of Stracner's sight. All kinds of vehicles were used: Blazers, jeeps, cars, "I was standing behind a pole. I did see some Ohio tags on some of them," Stracner said. Their interview had been scheduled at Galbraith's office but was changed the day before. At the end of the interview, the "reporter" mentioned that a BATF agent was coming up. "As we were leaving he told us there was a BATF agent coming up for an interview. He was trying to usher us out so we "wouldn't cross paths," Stracner said the reporter told him. "As soon as we walked down the front door all these vehicles pulled up," Stracner said. He thought maybe there was some kind of problem at the hotel because he had begun to feel more at ease toward the end of an interview that he felt had possibly "been a setup." Most of the questions asked by the "reporter" had been about Steve Anderson who is now the target of a manhunt since his involvement with a Middlesboro, Kentucky policeman last fall. "I think the biggest thing this boils down to is they think he knows where Anderson is." The reporter wanted to know if Puckett thought Anderson was the type of person that would go out and blow up a federal building, according to Stracner. "Charlie did bring out that Steve is bi-polar." The reporter told the witnesses that he was an employee of TLC and that the cameramen were independent contractors. Puckett's Second Amendment organization had tried to get the Kentucky Legislature to act on the BATF presence and activity in Kentucky, but were told they had adopted a "Let's sit back and see attitude," Stracner said. Stacner says his organization has lost faith in the media. "I'm done doing interviews with the news media," Stracner said. "I say to heck with it, no more cooperation. You see what Charlie got for it. He tried to do what he felt was the right thing and now he's paying a penalty for it. My advice to all like-minded individuals nationwide is don't cooperate with them anymore. No more news media, no nothing."
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 8:22:20 PM EDT
For a minute I thought they finally got you...
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 8:29:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 8:42:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: I wouldn't see why a felony conviction two years before the '68 law wouldn't effect him. We have cops and solidiers that lost their ability to touch firearms for convictions 30 and 40 years ago for domestic violence.
View Quote
U.S. Constitution Article 1, Sec. 9 [b]No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.[/b] A government is no longer legitimate when it ignores the very legal document that created it.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 8:47:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2002 8:52:47 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
Posted by Paul...
I wouldn't see why a felony conviction two years before the '68 law wouldn't effect him.
View Quote
U.S Constitution, Article I, Sec. 9....
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
View Quote
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256...
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.
View Quote
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 8:54:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: LEXINGTON - Second Amendment activist Charlie Puckett
View Quote
Puckett is the former(?) commander of the Kentucky State Militia. I dont consider him the be much of a "second amendment activist". With the recent attempts by his friends to blow up college campuses, assassinate rival militia leaders, and kill cops, I would say its about time!
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 9:05:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: U.S. Constitution Article 1, Sec. 9 [b]No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.[/b]
View Quote
Of course you know that quoting the Constitution is one of the hallmarks of a domestic terrorist.[;)] [url=http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg][b]Phoenix FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Flyer - Back[/b][/url] [url=http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg][b]Phoenix FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Flyer - Front[/b][/url]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 9:14:01 PM EDT
Posted by AR15fan...
Puckett is the former(?) commander of the Kentucky State Militia. I don’t consider him the be much of a "second amendment activist". With the recent attempts by his friends to blow up college campuses, assassinate rival militia leaders, and kill cops, I would say its about time!
View Quote
I agree with you, but even whack-jobs are entitled to the legal protections granted them by the supreme law of the land. Don't fall into a mode of thought that excuses abuses of power just because you think that the person being abused deserves it.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 11:16:27 PM EDT
See, it's like I told all of you--if the ATF wants to get you, they'll get you no matter what. This guy stuck his neck out for the cause and now he's going to have his life destroyed for it. The ATF's new tactic is always to arrest people on guns and EXPLOSIVES charges because it sounds much scarier that way. The media immediately seizes on the story and he is made out to be a terrorist. Meanwhile, the only terrorists in this whole damn country are the ones who work for our goverment. When is enough going to be enough? I'm sitting here doing my taxes and discovering how badly I've been robbed again this year. I was going to go on a trip, but then I thought about the fascist police state that has sprung up in our nation's airports. Maybe I'll drive instead. I don't think much of Amtrak (another government boondoggle). When is the revolt going to begin? Because honestly, I am getting to the point where if it doesn't, I'm going to leave this piece of shit country. Maybe I can joing a real revolution that's worth a damn someplace else. We're not free country anymore. Not when even the slightest beef or complaint about any one of the tens of thousands of idiotic things our government does brings you so much grief. The strangulation of America is well underway now.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 4:11:25 AM EDT
Post from trickshot -
When is the revolt going to begin? Because honestly, I am getting to the point where if it doesn't, I'm going to leave this piece of shit country.
View Quote
Don't worry, you'll know in plenty of time when the revolution will begin. And where are you going to flee? The rest of the world is going to hell in a handbasket. And if there was a spot on God's green earth that [u]wasn't[/u], the last thing those folks would want to see arriving on their shores would be an American! Eric The(SoIt'sEitherHereOrNowhere)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 4:42:27 AM EDT
THis is simple: Ex Post Facto.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 4:54:34 AM EDT
Is BATF bad?? Yes. Is BATF UnConstitutional? VERY likely. Can Bush disregard the law of the land as it currently exists? No. Can Bush wave a magic wand and make BATF go away? No. Can Bush , thru legal channels, make BATF go away? Doubtful. Would pushing abolishing of the BATF be political suicide right now? Probably. (Tell ya what - YOU march right up to your boss right now and scream in his face about everything he is doing wrong right now (like disallowing concealed carry in your office). If you aren't willing to put YOUR job on the line for your "principles" don't expect Bush to be the bigger man than you are ) Can Bush drop everything he is doing, and take up Charlie Pucket's matter? No. Should Bush work toward righting the wrongs of BATF?? Absolutely. Do I know the WHOLE story of Charlie Puckett's affairs? No. Would I risk my reputation by siding with someone who I know VERY LITTLE about? No. Will I pick a side here? No, other than a loud proclamation of the principles of the BoR and the US Constitution.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 5:36:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: When is the revolt going to begin? Because honestly, I am getting to the point where if it doesn't, I'm going to leave this piece of shit country. Maybe I can joing a real revolution that's worth a damn someplace else.
View Quote
What is your objective, and what's a "real revolution"?
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 5:42:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott:
Originally Posted By trickshot: When is the revolt going to begin? Because honestly, I am getting to the point where if it doesn't, I'm going to leave this piece of shit country. Maybe I can joing a real revolution that's worth a damn someplace else.
View Quote
What is your objective, and what's a "real revolution"?
View Quote
Indeed. Methinks Johnny bin Walker went looking for a "real revolution" he could join. Trickshot - I share yer frustration, but power down there pal. If this country is a POS, the next best is the whole freaking sewage plant.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 5:59:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: Maybe I can joing a real revolution that's worth a damn someplace else.
View Quote
Yes, from a "documentary" I saw several years ago there's a small South American nation of San Marcos that's in dire need of brave revolutionaries such as yourself [b]trickshot[/b]. Shall I book a flight? [;)]
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 6:03:34 AM EDT
His felony conviction came before the law making it illegal for felons to possess firearms was passed. The argument then, is that old felons can have guns but young felons can't? I'm trying to get around this one but find it to be a bit of a stretch.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 6:22:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2002 6:24:46 AM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: LEXINGTON - Second Amendment activist Charlie Puckett
View Quote
With the recent attempts by his friends to blow up college campuses, assassinate rival militia leaders, and kill cops, I would say its about time!
View Quote
[b]Excuse me??[/b] WTF does his "friends", or what they may or may not have done have to do with HIS arrest?? Are we now arresting people for the friends they have?? Sheeeeeit!!!!! I notice you don't put your state where you reside in your profile. I hope you don't live/ move to my state, for you would surely support MY arrest!!!
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 6:27:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2002 6:28:22 AM EDT by stator]
It used to be looked at as "double jeopardy" when laws such as this one is retro-active. This is also an issue currently with Megan's law.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 7:06:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Oslow: His felony conviction came before the law making it illegal for felons to possess firearms was passed. The argument then, is that old felons can have guns but young felons can't? I'm trying to get around this one but find it to be a bit of a stretch.
View Quote
at first, i thought that there was a big problem with the indictment also. but the more i thought about it, the more the ex post facto thing doesn't apply. you're right, it is a bit of a stretch. ex post facto: joe schmoe does something that isn't illegal. 2 years later, the state legislature makes that action illegal. joe can't be arrested and tried for it because it wasn't illegal when he did it. this doesn't apply to the puckett case. a felon is a felon is a felon. it makes little difference when he was convicted of the felony. the law says that felons can't own or possess firearms. puckett is a felon. ergo, he can't own or possess firearms. there is not violation of ex post facto here. he is not charged with a crime after the fact. he's charged with violating a law now. the two years between his conviction and the passage of the law would have been okay for him to own or possess. but upon passage of that law, he legally had to relinquish possession of all his firearms. and never have them again. sorry, guys. ex post facto isn't a valid defense. not that the ATF is in the right here. that's a completely separate issue.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 7:17:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: [b]Excuse me??[/b] WTF does his "friends", or what they may or may not have done have to do with HIS arrest??
View Quote
Simple, Charlie was their leader. As the militia commander he is ultimately responsible for the (illegal) actions of his militia troops.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 7:28:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ARlady: ex post facto: joe schmoe does something that isn't illegal. 2 years later, the state legislature makes that action illegal. joe can't be arrested and tried for it because it wasn't illegal when he did it. this doesn't apply to the puckett case. a felon is a felon is a felon. it makes little difference when he was convicted of the felony. the law says that felons can't own or possess firearms. puckett is a felon. ergo, he can't own or possess firearms. there is not violation of ex post facto here. he is not charged with a crime after the fact. he's charged with violating a law now. the two years between his conviction and the passage of the law would have been okay for him to own or possess. but upon passage of that law, he legally had to relinquish possession of all his firearms. and never have them again. sorry, guys. ex post facto isn't a valid defense. not that the ATF is in the right here. that's a completely separate issue.
View Quote
What she said!
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 8:01:36 AM EDT
As an Executive Branch Agency, the BATF is under direct control of the President. The President can intervene and direct the BATF to do exectly what HIS interpretation of the law is. We are simply seeing what Bush's interpretation is. As far as this persons past.. I don't know enough to comment on it.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 8:31:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2002 8:37:17 AM EDT by NYPatriot]
Posted by ARlady...
ex post facto: joe schmoe does something that isn't illegal. 2 years later, the state legislature makes that action illegal. joe can't be arrested and tried for it because it wasn't illegal when he did it. this doesn't apply to the puckett case. a felon is a felon is a felon. it makes little difference when he was convicted of the felony. the law says that felons can't own or possess firearms. puckett is a felon. ergo, he can't own or possess firearms. there is not violation of ex post facto here.
View Quote
Taken from Lectric law library... [url]www.lectlaw.com[/url] The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very [b]law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.'[/b] Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). [b]An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.[/b] Not every change in a convicted person's situation violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. A law implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause only if it criminalizes conduct that was not a crime when it was committed, [b]increases the punishment for a crime beyond what it was at the time the act was committed[/b], or deprives a person of a defense available at the time the act was committed. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42-43 (1990). Courts have held that legislation may lawfully impose new requirements on convicted persons if the statute's 'overall design and effect' indicates a 'non-punitive intent.' United States v. Huss, 7 F.3d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir.'93). ARlady, ex post facto [b]does[/b] apply here.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 9:46:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NYPatriot: Not every change in a convicted person's situation violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. A law implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause only if it criminalizes conduct that was not a crime when it was committed,
View Quote
are we in agreement that this is not applicable to this case?
[b]increases the punishment for a crime beyond what it was at the time the act was committed[/b],
View Quote
it has not done this either. the law which prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms is not punitive. it is not meant as a punishment for any particular crime, therefore, this part does not apply either.
or deprives a person of a defense available at the time the act was committed. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42-43 (1990).
View Quote
i think we are in agreement that this is not the case either.
Courts have held that legislation may lawfully impose new requirements on convicted persons if the statute's 'overall design and effect' indicates a 'non-punitive intent.' United States v. Huss, 7 F.3d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir.'93).
View Quote
well, then, looks like the law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms (imposition of new requirements) is perfectly okay and not a violation of the ex post facto standard because it is "non-punitive" in its "intent." as the "overall design and effect" is a deterrent to criminal use of firearms. (caveat: what a totally ridiculous law this is as it's intent will never be realized in this manner; however, the point remains that the intent of this law was not to further inflict punishment on felons.)
ARlady, ex post facto [b]does[/b] apply here.
View Quote
respectfully, it does not. your bolded phrase would require a particular sentence (harsher punishment, stricter regulations, etc.) for a [b]particular crime[/b]. being a felon is not a crime. it is a category. therefore, any stipulations or requirements or impositions on a person as a result of felon status canNOT be a violation of the ex post facto standard.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 10:45:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pottsie350: As an Executive Branch Agency, the BATF is under direct control of the President. The President can intervene and direct the BATF to do exectly what HIS interpretation of the law is. We are simply seeing what Bush's interpretation is. As far as this persons past.. I don't know enough to comment on it.
View Quote
Not true. Its under Paul O'Neill at Treasury. I don't know WHY its that way, but that's the way it is.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 6:46:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Can Bush wave a magic wand and make BATF go away? No.
View Quote
Yes he can. It is called an "executive order".
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 7:11:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2002 7:14:04 PM EDT by trickshot]
Originally Posted By DScott:
Originally Posted By trickshot: When is the revolt going to begin? Because honestly, I am getting to the point where if it doesn't, I'm going to leave this piece of shit country. Maybe I can joing a real revolution that's worth a damn someplace else.
View Quote
What is your objective, and what's a "real revolution"?
View Quote
A real revolution is one in which we all just stop cooperating because the cost of cooperating becomes too great and let the problem escalate to its final conclusion. I assume it would quickly turn into a shooting war, not that I'd like to see that. I would like to avoid it at all costs, but how is that possible? I look at the situation in Israel and see the US just a few more years down the road. Bush has no interest in reducing the size of government, nor does any politician. It is their lifeblood. Their lesson will come about in due course I think. Ye reap what ye sow. And yeah, maybe I'll take that flight to San Marcos. It can't be any worse than here in a lot of ways. I'd rather die fighting with freemen than live in chains amongst cowards.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 8:20:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NYPatriot: ARlady, ex post facto [b]does[/b] apply here.
View Quote
What about "status crimes"? Is there constitutional law on that?
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 8:29:13 PM EDT
I saw a great thought on subguns... "Charlie Has Hired Bob Stewart as His Attorney... -- Billy Bob " Bwahaha!
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 10:46:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pottsie350: As an Executive Branch Agency, the BATF is under direct control of the President. The President can intervene and direct the BATF to do exectly what HIS interpretation of the law is. We are simply seeing what Bush's interpretation is. As far as this persons past.. I don't know enough to comment on it. Not true. Its under Paul O'Neill at Treasury. I don't know WHY its that way, but that's the way it is.
View Quote
But isn't the Treasury Department an Executive Branch Agency? The President is the Head of all Executive Branch Agencies. I feel sure that he is running things exactly as he thinks he should.
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 6:10:15 PM EDT
Is there an allegation here that an undercover ATF agent posed as a reporter to interview a potential suspect? Did the broadcast entity ever air any of the footage? If not, what happend to it? Has anyone checked to see if the "news reporters" were legite or not? Have government authorities improperly impersonated reporters? I want details, and I want them now! And yes, I am a journalist who has built black-powder guns, shoots AR's and Garands, and competes in local highpower competitions..so don't give me any crap!
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 7:47:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By drshame: And yes, I am a journalist who has built black-powder guns, shoots AR's and Garands, and competes in local highpower competitions..so don't give me any crap!
View Quote
The ATF says you are the Information Officer of your militia group, active in paramilitary training exercises and in possession of explosives and bomb making components. Game over.
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 9:15:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By drshame: And yes, I am a journalist who has built black-powder guns, shoots AR's and Garands, and competes in local highpower competitions..so don't give me any crap!
View Quote
Which part of that should prevent us from giving you crap? [:P] If you read the story, you'd see that the ATF agents met Charlie coming out of the interview... What, cops aren't allowed to go undercover as reporters of something? Is there a law against that?
Top Top