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: 3/23/2006 5:30:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 5:38:54 PM EDT by SayUncle]
This will probably be in the paper tomorrow.

Arfcommer and friend Shoot-N-Scoot just called to tell me that:

*The ATF is at his house

*They’re asking if he has any machine guns

*They have seized his house pending approval of a search warrant

*Told him he was free to go but they were going to search his house

He did the smart thing and left. He also called his lawyer. He (like me) is one of those gun owners who meticulously follows the law to avoid trouble. In that situation, I, myself, would be wondering if I had all my I’s dotted and T’s crossed s there are a lot of technicalities out there. His only crime is apparently marrying his ex-wife, who has supposedly called the ATF and said he has machine guns. He does not have machine guns and is one of my friends who I build AR-15s with.

He asked that I spread the word. More details as I get them.

ETA: He probably won't be making the 3/25 shoot.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 5:43:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 9:34:14 AM EDT by Spooge5150]
Olivent was convicted in Blount County in 1997 of three felonies, one of which involved the aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer.


The truth comes out!


BATF is doing their job here. Sorry I have no sympathy for this guy knowing this.

Link Posted: 3/23/2006 5:50:38 PM EDT
What a Bitch..............................
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 7:14:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pappy1:
What a Bitch..............................



That's putting it a HELL OF LOT nicer than I would have put it. I'm thinking four letters, begins with a C.

I hope all turns out well for him and that she gets to spend at least a few nights in the county jail for making a false statement. Reality, being the bitch that it is, the most she'll get is a harsh word of warning.

Once he is cleared by BATFE, he needs to sue her ass for everything she's worth, which probably isn't much.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 4:41:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2006 4:42:26 AM EDT by SayUncle]
Update:

He has been arrested

A hearing is scheduled this afternoon

They took his guns, some books, and drawings he had

They've been there all night

They are currently taking his milling machine

They keep telling his girlfriend You know he was making machine guns, right? Which he was not. He was finishing up some 0% lower receiver castings for semi-auto AR-15s, which is a lawful activity.

When it comes to gun laws, gun enthusiasts do act at their own peril.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 9:19:52 AM EDT



best of luck to S-N-S.

why do i feel more-and-more avary day that no matter how lawfull i am, one of these days i'll get a visit from an alphabet agency because i own guns?
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 9:28:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 9:31:25 AM EDT
I've been in contact with a few lawyers, top notch guys in the gun law field.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 9:37:10 AM EDT
How can someone seize a house???

And why did they not have a warrent????

FREE
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 9:39:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FREEFALLE7:
How can someone seize a house???

And why did they not have a warrent????

FREE



Without a warrent how can they seize his house or make any type of containment?
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 9:44:05 AM EDT

Without a warrent how can they seize his house or make any type of containment?


Surrounded his house, no one in or out until the warrant wsa approved.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 10:15:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SayUncle:

Without a warrent how can they seize his house or make any type of containment?


Surrounded his house, no one in or out until the warrant wsa approved.



Under what legal stance? I mean they can surround, sure, but without a warrnet they cannot contain.

Somthing is not right here.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 10:17:09 AM EDT

Under what legal stance? I mean they can surround, sure, but without a warrnet they cannot contain.


I concur but it's probably not worth getting shot to make that point.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 10:23:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2006 11:02:26 AM EDT by HermanSnerd]
It's stuff like this that scares the hell outta me.

Even if you follow all firearms laws to the letter (which I do) , one person
can call your semi AR a "machinegun" and the JBT's are soon beating
your door down.

Scary stuff.

It's stuff like this that at times makes me want to sell every damn gun I own, and
start flying RC airplanes for a hobby.

It's also the reason why, because of stuff like this, that I won't sell my guns.

Link Posted: 3/24/2006 11:26:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2006 11:27:04 AM EDT by HKOVERKILL]

Originally Posted By HermanSnerd:
It's stuff like this that scares the hell outta me.....
It's also the reason why, because of stuff like this, that I won't sell my guns.




WORD!

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000­00....


HKO
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 12:29:39 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 1:56:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 3:10:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SayUncle:
His only crime is apparently marrying his ex-wife, who has supposedly called the ATF and said he has machine guns.




I have seen that happen more than once ....
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 4:45:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 6:50:26 PM EDT
this is called a tag
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 5:20:17 AM EDT
If a reliable tip comes in that you have illegal weapons, the BATFE will come and search your house. Until the weapons are tested, they will seize them.

Since she is his ex-girlfriend and had access to his house, they have to take her claims seriously.

I don't think he can sue the BATFE, as long as they followed the letter of the law.

His ex, on the other hand, could be up on Federal charges when it turns out she lied. He can also sue her ass off, assuming she has a pot to piss in.

Link Posted: 3/25/2006 2:43:43 PM EDT
Another favorite tactic we are seeing in court lately is the ex or soon to be ex getting an Order of Protection. This in effect makes it where ownership of ANY guns is gone forever!

For this I blame alot of lawyers as much as I do the ex's. And YES I work in a divorce court. We do about a 1000 a year.
Link Posted: 3/26/2006 6:49:38 AM EDT
Man, that sucks.. I wish that guy well..
Link Posted: 3/26/2006 9:23:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 9:28:15 AM EDT
Tag. Any updates?
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 9:54:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TnHawk-45:
Another favorite tactic we are seeing in court lately is the ex or soon to be ex getting an Order of Protection. This in effect makes it where ownership of ANY guns is gone forever!

For this I blame alot of lawyers as much as I do the ex's. And YES I work in a divorce court. We do about a 1000 a year.




My divorce attorney knows about this. Here in TX, it is standard procedure to get a protection order during a divorce. He actually knew about the loss of firearms when that happens, and he is not a big gun owner. (Although now, after talking with me alot, he owns a bushy ar and a glock 19).

Anyway, here in TX, if you can remove anything related to violence, then the protection order does not restrict your right to keep and bear arms.

MY first attorney knew nothing about it.

TXL
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 3:59:32 AM EDT
So is THIS S-n-C?

Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:00:55 AM EDT
yes
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 9:23:52 AM EDT
that article says he has 3 felony convictions, is that right?

Link Posted: 3/29/2006 9:34:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 11:11:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arfreak74:
that article says he has 3 felony convictions, is that right?





That's the way I read it.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 11:26:27 AM EDT
ouch.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 11:38:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 2:05:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:10:44 PM EDT
Am *I* the only one thinking, "WTF was HE thinking????"?????????????????
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:22:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 8:41:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 7:28:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 8:02:51 AM EDT
Talked to him yesterday. He’s back at work and getting on with his life. Thanks to readers, I have a ton of legal info to give to him. The ATF said he was a flight risk and should be held. The judge was unconvinced. On the felony charges, I have no information on the incident other than the names of the charges per the TN database (they were felony contempt, felony reckless endangerment and aggravated assault). However, he said to me that when it happened (he was 18 years old), he plead down and served 30 days. He said it was his understanding that charges were misdemeanor. And based on what I read, felonies often carry more than a one year sentence. Additionally, the database said he was sentenced to three years. So, Scoot is convinced he was not a felon and said when he was thinking about enlisting, a background check showed him clean. And there is a discrepancy in the sentence based on what the database says and what he said he served. Possibilities:

Scoot’s wrong or stretching the truth (the latter I find unlikely but obviously can’t prove)
The database is wrong
When he plead, he was told one thing but another was recorded

Anyway, I’ll be curious to see how it goes.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:50:15 AM EDT
Uh, in Tennessee aggravated assault is considered a violent felony last time I checked.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 10:17:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kennymc80:
Uh, in Tennessee aggravated assault is considered a violent felony last time I checked.



Not if he plead it down.

Felony INDICTMENTS don't mean squat. It's the convctions that count.

Assuming he had no illegal guns and the convictions were for misdemenors, he should come out fine. Poor (from legal bills), but otherwise fine.

Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:30:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cpt_Kirks:

Felony INDICTMENTS don't mean squat. It's the convctions that count.






Thank goodness!!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:49:42 AM EDT
It's like the recruiter scene in Stripes:

Recruiter: "Any felony convictions?"

Bill Murray: "Convictions?!?...No."

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:40:14 PM EDT
Does anyone here know the details of the convictions on shoot n scoot. I found out. Its not bad but its not good either. Think of it as no one got physically injured. But it was reckless and stupid even for an 18 year old
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:42:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mytwocents:
Does anyone here know the details of the convictions on shoot n scoot. I found out. Its not bad but its not good either. Think of it as no one got physically injured. But it was reckless and stupid even for an 18 year old



I never did find out.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:48:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 7:50:11 PM EDT by mytwocents]
you are welcome and any time

his attorney says no one injured; other two felonies all related to same
event




So was anyone actually injured, and what constituted the other felonys?


He fled from officers in a car chase situation and rammed a cruiser with his
car, according to court records. It is the intentional ramming of a cruiser
that would constitute the assault via a deadly weapon on the officer under
state law. He pleaded guilty to that charge, along with two related felony
charges. If you have any more questions, let me know.



The answer no one seems to have is. Exactly what are the details
of his original arrest. We know he was arrested for aggravated assault. But
what is that? Did he push an officer? Spit on him?
Any help would be greatly appreciated


Ok this is what i got in an email exchange. I edited out all the stuff that Idnetifies me and the person im talking too.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 1:26:13 PM EDT
If he has 3 felonies on paper - he's screwed. Even if the papers are wrong, he's got one heck of a battle, because it would appear to a jury that he was manufacturing weapons because he couldn't buy them. At least that's gonna be the "intent" that the feds will push. I don't see where he can come out good on this one - there are enough smelly things together that there's no wiggle unless he can fight the search without a warrant.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 4:30:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lancew:

- there are enough smelly things together that there's no wiggle unless he can fight the search without a warrant.





Here is where lawyers earn their $$$$$, it would seem....................
Top Top