llinois officer cleared of machine gun charge (Sgt Vest) (2nd Try first locked) - Page 1

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - llinois officer cleared of machine gun charge (Sgt Vest) (2nd Try first locked) (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:10:13 AM EDT

www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stcharles/story/8604AC10DBBE2CFA862571DB00181616?OpenDocument

Illinois officer cleared of machine gun charge
By Tim O'Neil
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
08/31/2006

Charges that an Illinois State Police sergeant illegally possessed a machine gun were dismissed Wednesday by a federal judge, who ruled that the law was "unconstitutionally vague" as applied to him.

In federal court in East St. Louis, U.S. District Judge David R. Herndon dropped the charges against Sgt. James V. Vest of O'Fallon, Ill., who was lead rifle instructor for the department's District 11 in the Metro East area. Herndon's 26-page order says the confusion is over the federal law's exception for police officers, and whether Vest could reasonably be expected to know whether he was breaking the law.

Vest was one of four people, including two other Illinois state troopers, separately accused in January of illegally possessing machine guns. Such fully automatic weapons are banned by federal law except for certain uses, such as by the military and police agencies, or by people with a special license, which the four did not have.

How Herndon's ruling would affect the other cases was unclear Wednesday, partly because the charges against them are not identical.

The case against Vest concerned an M-4 machine gun that he bought in 1998 and used in his state police training classes. The charges allege that he lacked authority from the state to buy or possess the weapon.

Vest argued that he bought and used it under the "law enforcement exception" in the federal law.

Herndon noted that the prosecution never claimed that Vest ever used the M-4 for anything but official purposes. The judge said the government argued that a law enforcement agency, not a single police officer, has the authority to permit possession of a machine gun.

But Herndon wrote that the federal law granting that authority was too vague in this instance to support the charges against Vest. Given that Vest apparently used it only for law enforcement purposes, Herndon said, charging him "seems to go against the purpose" of the federal law.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:15:31 AM EDT

[#1]

Something tells me justice was served on an individual level. (The officer didn’t do anything wrong.) But justice was just slaughtered on a higher level. (An unjust law is only being selectively enforced.)

I’m happy he’s free and all, but I’m not very happy about the precedent this sets.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:17:15 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Something tells me justice was served on an individual level. (The officer didn’t do anything wrong.) But justice was just slaughtered on a higher level. (An unjust law is only being selectively enforced.)

I’m happy he’s free and all, but I’m not very happy about the precedent this sets.

Agree 100%

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:17:27 AM EDT

[#3]

Standing by............

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:21:00 AM EDT

[#4]

keep it clean guys. consider this the formal warning for this thread. discuss all you want but keep the personal insults out of it.

as for the topic.....

it's bullshit. anyone else would be in jail right now.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:22:39 AM EDT

[#5]

I think it's total bullshit but I can't say I want for this cop to be in prison. What I want is for the rest of us to have the same freedom.

And I don't believe this is a step in the direction of repealing the NFA/FOPA or hurting the ATF.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:24:28 AM EDT

[#6]

In federal court in East St. Louis, U.S. District Judge David R. Herndon dropped the charges against Sgt. James V. Vest of O'Fallon, Ill., who was lead rifle instructor for the department's District 11 in the Metro East area. Herndon's 26-page order says the confusion is over the federal law's exception for police officers, and whether Vest could reasonably be expected to know whether he was breaking the law

I support the police but they need to live by the same rules as we do. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:26:48 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I think it's total bullshit but I can't say I want for this cop to be in prison. What I want is for the rest of us to have the same freedom.

+1

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:27:22 AM EDT

[#8]

"A prosecutor has said Vest used a fake state police letterhead to order the weapon that he paid for with his own money."

Since he forged a letter he knew he was in the wrong. There's no way around that. I'm glad he was found not guilty because I think he and any other non-felon should be allowed to own any rifle.

It will be interesting to see if the cops get this one locked quickly by starting personal attacks as they usually try to in most threads that are about a cop doing something wrong. Having so many of those guys intentionally disrupting threads is getting old.z

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:28:13 AM EDT

[#9]

The officer bought the gun with the sole intention of training and used it for exactly that.
He never used it for his own personal use, he should never have been charged.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:29:31 AM EDT

[#10]

"seems to go against the purpose" of the federal law.

Ya, and banning their production for civillian sale seems to go against the Second Amendment, but you don't see any federal judges making these kinds of statement in that regard.

M4F

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:30:08 AM EDT

[#11]

Eh...

...like it or not, this is kind of different than you or I buying a new M4. He bought it for use at work and believed that he was following the law. All indications are that he never used it away from his job as a rifle instructor. I really don't think this is favoritism, at least as much as it would initially seem.

Now, if he was bringing it to ARFCOM shoots...you'd have a point.

EDIT: Whoops! I missed the part about the fake letterhead.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:30:09 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
In federal court in East St. Louis, U.S. District Judge David R. Herndon dropped the charges against Sgt. James V. Vest of O'Fallon, Ill., who was lead rifle instructor for the department's District 11 in the Metro East area. Herndon's 26-page order says the confusion is over the federal law's exception for police officers, and whether Vest could reasonably be expected to know whether he was breaking the law

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Sure it is if you don't have to obey it to begin with. I mean why are MG's banned in the first place? Afterall, wasn't a LEO the only person to use a registered MG while commiting a crime? If they do the crime, we get punished with bans and jail time and they get off. Bunch of bullshit.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:30:12 AM EDT

[#13]

Total bullshit. Some are more equal than others, I guess. Of course, laws don't apply to special people, especially those who are sworn to uphold it.

This makes me sick.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:33:27 AM EDT

[#14]

I should remind people that the "spirit" of the NFA is a revenue generating act allegedly

So did he attempt to avoid paying the tax...

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:33:51 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
The officer bought the gun with the sole intention of training and used it for exactly that.
He never used it for his own personal use, he should never have been charged.

He forged documents and paid for it with his own money. He may have had good intentions but he still broke the law.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:36:39 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
The officer bought the gun with the sole intention of training and used it for exactly that.
He never used it for his own personal use, he should never have been charged.

How do you know that? He took the weapon home and stored it there. How does anyone except the officer know what he did with it?

My brother inlaw is a U.S. Marshal and works on a warrant team. He carries an UMP .45, and takes his weapon home too. The difference is that the DOJ owns his weapon. He does not. When he retires he doesn't get to keep it. And yes, he's an instructor too. He has no ability to purchase it on his own.

"The case against Vest concerned an M-4 machine gun that he bought in 1998"

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:36:40 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

"A prosecutor has said Vest used a fake state police letterhead to order the weapon that he paid for with his own money."

Since he forged a letter he knew he was in the wrong. There's no way around that. I'm glad he was found not guilty because I think he and any other non-felon should be allowed to own any rifle.

It will be interesting to see if the cops get this one locked quickly by starting personal attacks as they usually try to in most threads that are about a cop doing something wrong. Having so many of those guys intentionally disrupting threads is getting old.z

Once again, you put a different spin on things.

The Prosecutor says the letter was forged. The supervisor whose signature is on the letterhead does not remember.

That's hardly proof. It's an allegation. One that apparently the court thougt was BS.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:39:01 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

"A prosecutor has said Vest used a fake state police letterhead to order the weapon that he paid for with his own money."

Since he forged a letter he knew he was in the wrong. There's no way around that. I'm glad he was found not guilty because I think he and any other non-felon should be allowed to own any rifle.

It will be interesting to see if the cops get this one locked quickly by starting personal attacks as they usually try to in most threads that are about a cop doing something wrong. Having so many of those guys intentionally disrupting threads is getting old.z

Once again, you put a different spin on things.

The Prosecutor says the letter was forged. The supervisor whose signature is on the letterhead does not remember.

That's hardly proof. It's an allegation. One that apparently the court thougt was BS.

One thing is for sure his supervisor is a punk "can't remember"

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:39:33 AM EDT

[#19]

If his supervisor signed off and it was for "Official Purposes" why did he have to pay out of his own pocket?

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:39:42 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

"A prosecutor has said Vest used a fake state police letterhead to order the weapon that he paid for with his own money."

Since he forged a letter he knew he was in the wrong. There's no way around that. I'm glad he was found not guilty because I think he and any other non-felon should be allowed to own any rifle.

It will be interesting to see if the cops get this one locked quickly by starting personal attacks as they usually try to in most threads that are about a cop doing something wrong. Having so many of those guys intentionally disrupting threads is getting old.z

Once again, you put a different spin on things.

The Prosecutor says the letter was forged. The supervisor whose signature is on the letterhead does not remember.

That's hardly proof. It's an allegation. One that apparently the court thougt was BS.

Well, that's the whole ball game then. He either was authorized, and this is all a waste of time, or he was not, and got very lucky.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:39:48 AM EDT

[#21]

from the first thread...

Crowe said during the hearing that if it could be proven that Vest had specific authority from a state police supervisor to order an automatic weapon, there might not be a need for a trial.

But during a March hearing before Herndon, Vest's state police supervisor said he couldn't remember whether he gave permission to Vest to order the automatic M-16.

After a 90-minute hearing, Herndon said he would study the issues and make a decision. A court assistant later said the decision will probably come next week.

Vest, a firearms instructor and former State Police Tactical Response Team or SWAT team leader, is accused of violating a federal law regulating automatic weapons. An indictment states Vest improperly ordered the M-16 in 1998 from a California supplier and then failed to register it with federal authorities. A prosecutor has said Vest used a fake state police letterhead to order the weapon that he paid for with his own money.

^^^^

if thats true, he knowingly broke the law and should face the same punishment the rest of us would.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:43:25 AM EDT

[#22]

How can he be the "lead rifle instructor" for his police dept. AND NOT have the authority given by his police dept. to buy and possess?

- I'm sure there is a proper procedure for his police dept. to aquire such weapons and if he knowingly bypassed those procedures in order to obtain one - then he is wrong.

- If he was using said weapons for official purposes I see no problem but if he was bringing it home with him to play with on his days off without authority to do so then he is wrong.

My opinion? He knew there was a grey area, played the game and got caught. I'm also wondering if his Dept. backed him up or left him out there to hang.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:43:55 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
If his supervisor signed off and it was for "Official Purposes" why did he have to pay out of his own pocket?

It is not uncommon for officers to pay for their own personal weapons yet buy them on letterhead for official use. In my agency officers all own their own weapons including ban era ARs that were bought on letterhead with personal funds.

I think what the judge saw in this case, was that there was no intent to own this weapon for personal purposes, rather an officer who used his personal funds to buy the weapon for official purposes. The basis of our justice system is still that each case be judged on its own merits, and that seems to me what happened here.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:48:17 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
from the first thread...

Crowe said during the hearing that if it could be proven that Vest had specific authority from a state police supervisor to order an automatic weapon, there might not be a need for a trial.

But during a March hearing before Herndon, Vest's state police supervisor said he couldn't remember whether he gave permission to Vest to order the automatic M-16.

After a 90-minute hearing, Herndon said he would study the issues and make a decision. A court assistant later said the decision will probably come next week.

Vest, a firearms instructor and former State Police Tactical Response Team or SWAT team leader, is accused of violating a federal law regulating automatic weapons. An indictment states Vest improperly ordered the M-16 in 1998 from a California supplier and then failed to register it with federal authorities. A prosecutor has said Vest used a fake state police letterhead to order the weapon that he paid for with his own money.

^^^^

if thats true, he knowingly broke the law and should face the same punishment the rest of us would.

But the prosecutor has the burden of prof. That means if he can't prove it 100% to a judge that he used a fake letterhead the judge will not consider it when he makes his judgement.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:52:01 AM EDT

[#25]

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

- George Orwell in Animal Farm

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:55:05 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If his supervisor signed off and it was for "Official Purposes" why did he have to pay out of his own pocket?

It is not uncommon for officers to pay for their own personal weapons yet buy them on letterhead for official use. In my agency officers all own their own weapons including ban era ARs that were bought on letterhead with personal funds.

I think what the judge saw in this case, was that there was no intent to own this weapon for personal purposes, rather an officer who used his personal funds to buy the weapon for official purposes. The basis of our justice system is still that each case be judged on its own merits, and that seems to me what happened here.

How many of those are NFA items?

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:56:47 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
from the first thread...

Crowe said during the hearing that if it could be proven that Vest had specific authority from a state police supervisor to order an automatic weapon, there might not be a need for a trial.

But during a March hearing before Herndon, Vest's state police supervisor said he couldn't remember whether he gave permission to Vest to order the automatic M-16.

After a 90-minute hearing, Herndon said he would study the issues and make a decision. A court assistant later said the decision will probably come next week.

Vest, a firearms instructor and former State Police Tactical Response Team or SWAT team leader, is accused of violating a federal law regulating automatic weapons. An indictment states Vest improperly ordered the M-16 in 1998 from a California supplier and then failed to register it with federal authorities. A prosecutor has said Vest used a fake state police letterhead to order the weapon that he paid for with his own money.

^^^^

if thats true, he knowingly broke the law and should face the same punishment the rest of us would.

But the prosecutor has the burden of prof. That means if he can't prove it 100% to a judge that he used a fake letterhead the judge will not consider it when he makes his judgement.

The prosecutor does have the burden of proof and that’s what a trial is for and the jury to decide. This judge simply dismissed the case saying the laws don't apply to the police or are too ambiguous.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:56:56 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

- George Orwell in Animal Farm

And another ridiculous quote.

Just for a second think of this guy's legal bills. I've never understood the attraction of full auto.

Posted: 8/31/2006 6:58:48 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If his supervisor signed off and it was for "Official Purposes" why did he have to pay out of his own pocket?

It is not uncommon for officers to pay for their own personal weapons yet buy them on letterhead for official use. In my agency officers all own their own weapons including ban era ARs that were bought on letterhead with personal funds.

I think what the judge saw in this case, was that there was no intent to own this weapon for personal purposes, rather an officer who used his personal funds to buy the weapon for official purposes. The basis of our justice system is still that each case be judged on its own merits, and that seems to me what happened here.

How many of those are NFA items?

No idea, most officers don't care about full auto. It's not unheard of though. Just WAY too much of a hassle.

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:00:21 AM EDT

[#30]

Pisses me off.

All of are equal under law, some of are just more equal.

He happens to be luckier than you or I and is more equal.

He fudged the law in order to get himself one of those new 'cool-uber-tactical' rifles.

Doesn't matter what he used it for.

Another person, a less equal fellow citizen who fudges goes to prison without question. While most people bust their *sses to avoid even the apearance of any action which could be construed as fudging the law.

America is degenerating into a do-whatever-the-hell-you want kind of place where the laws do not apply equally and are selectively enforced.

How soon will this be sop for all leo to have a fully automatic weapons just because it has become common knowledge that the law doesn't apply to them?

This isn't meant to bash specific leo's so keep your panties out of your ass crack. It's more of a general rant against the injustice of the situation.

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:01:58 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
If his supervisor signed off and it was for "Official Purposes" why did he have to pay out of his own pocket?

Getting permission is one thing, getting the money is another. A lot of police buy their own weapons, with permission.

I'm glad he got the charges dropped, but mostly because I'm against the law, entirely.

We all have to deal with the same threats. The advantage should belong to the upright citizens, not the criminals.

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:08:53 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
from the first thread...

Crowe said during the hearing that if it could be proven that Vest had specific authority from a state police supervisor to order an automatic weapon, there might not be a need for a trial.

But during a March hearing before Herndon, Vest's state police supervisor said he couldn't remember whether he gave permission to Vest to order the automatic M-16.

After a 90-minute hearing, Herndon said he would study the issues and make a decision. A court assistant later said the decision will probably come next week.

Vest, a firearms instructor and former State Police Tactical Response Team or SWAT team leader, is accused of violating a federal law regulating automatic weapons. An indictment states Vest improperly ordered the M-16 in 1998 from a California supplier and then failed to register it with federal authorities. A prosecutor has said Vest used a fake state police letterhead to order the weapon that he paid for with his own money.

^^^^

if thats true, he knowingly broke the law and should face the same punishment the rest of us would.

But the prosecutor has the burden of prof. That means if he can't prove it 100% to a judge that he used a fake letterhead the judge will not consider it when he makes his judgement.

The prosecutor does have the burden of proof and that’s what a trial is for and the jury to decide. This judge simply dismissed the case saying the laws don't apply to the police or are too ambiguous.

There are things called pre-trials where the prosecutor has to show the judge enough evidence for it to even go on to a trial!

The prosecutor must not have shown enough evidence that the judge thought it would need to go to trail.

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:10:49 AM EDT

[#33]

Wifes nephew an Alabama Trooper, bought a pistol with his own cash on dept letterhead just like his carry piece. It went outside the regular FFL and came straight to his home due to the letter. Alabama kept him in practice ammo to use off the clock training that was "In the line of duty" per the regs. He deducted it and the safe from his taxes.

Illinios law IIRC "Requires" that duty weapons be stored in the cruiser trunk, glovebox, or home of the officer. He obeyed Illinios law but ran afoul of the BATFE. We all know how they make it up on the fly.

This officer not the guys that converted AR15's but this guy didn't break the law. Had he retired and kept the machinegun the he would have broken the law.

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:13:15 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
from the first thread...

Crowe said during the hearing that if it could be proven that Vest had specific authority from a state police supervisor to order an automatic weapon, there might not be a need for a trial.

But during a March hearing before Herndon, Vest's state police supervisor said he couldn't remember whether he gave permission to Vest to order the automatic M-16.

After a 90-minute hearing, Herndon said he would study the issues and make a decision. A court assistant later said the decision will probably come next week.

Vest, a firearms instructor and former State Police Tactical Response Team or SWAT team leader, is accused of violating a federal law regulating automatic weapons. An indictment states Vest improperly ordered the M-16 in 1998 from a California supplier and then failed to register it with federal authorities. A prosecutor has said Vest used a fake state police letterhead to order the weapon that he paid for with his own money.

^^^^

if thats true, he knowingly broke the law and should face the same punishment the rest of us would.

But the prosecutor has the burden of prof. That means if he can't prove it 100% to a judge that he used a fake letterhead the judge will not consider it when he makes his judgement.

The prosecutor does have the burden of proof and that’s what a trial is for and the jury to decide. This judge simply dismissed the case saying the laws don't apply to the police or are too ambiguous.

There are things called pre-trials where the prosecutor has to show the judge enough evidence for it to even go on to a trial!

The prosecutor must not have shown enough evidence that the judge thought it would need to go to trail.

That goes to a grand jury who did feel that there was plenty of evidence..

On a side note.. something like this recently happened locally. A judge found that a law was too vague and completly threw it out for revision. maybe if this goes federal....

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:25:26 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Total bullshit. Some are more equal than others, I guess. Of course, laws don't apply to special people, especially those who are sworn to uphold it.

This makes me sick.

You sound like a criminal talking. Besides NOBODY except the Military and Police would need a weapon capable of firing in fully auto. None of the weekend warriors (including you) would ever need full auto unless you just wanted to be cool and show it to your friends. He did nothing wrong so stop crying.

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:28:07 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Total bullshit. Some are more equal than others, I guess. Of course, laws don't apply to special people, especially those who are sworn to uphold it.

This makes me sick.

You sound like a criminal talking. Besides NOBODY except the Military and Police would need a weapon capable of firing in fully auto. None of the weekend warriors (including you) would ever need full auto unless you just wanted to be cool and show it to your friends. He did nothing wrong so stop crying.

Why would anyone need ANY weapons when there are competent LEO's all over the place. Especially ones with Full auto.

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:28:21 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
How can he be the "lead rifle instructor" for his police dept. AND NOT have the authority given by his police dept. to buy and possess?

- I'm sure there is a proper procedure for his police dept. to aquire such weapons and if he knowingly bypassed those procedures in order to obtain one - then he is wrong.

- If he was using said weapons for official purposes I see no problem but if he was bringing it home with him to play with on his days off without authority to do so then he is wrong.

My opinion? He knew there was a grey area, played the game and got caught. I'm also wondering if his Dept. backed him up or left him out there to hang.

That's my question. Why on earth would the dept hang him out for the ATF if everything was up-and-up? How would he not have the authority to buy it and own it if the department had granted it to him? What were the policies of the agency regarding where he should store the rifle? If he purchased that with the sole intent and with explicit permission to use it as a rifle instructor then how did this not get handled before coming to court? As I said in the previous shitstorm; I'm not really cheering about any of these cops being arrested over this, but they are simply getting burned by the same bullshit that we can get burned on when dealing with the maze that makes up firearms regs. The cops here seem to expect that we should all be cheering that they usually have a ready made exception to having to deal with this crap. Well, I'm not.

In this case I'm still not 100% clear on what this guy actually did, but the Judge coming up with the "didn't mean too" and "it's only a technical violation" is bullshite. If there is more to it than that I'm listening, but as it stands now it looks like a judge didn't like applying a crappy law to someone he sees as a good guy.

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:30:47 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Total bullshit. Some are more equal than others, I guess. Of course, laws don't apply to special people, especially those who are sworn to uphold it.

This makes me sick.

You sound like a criminal talking. Besides NOBODY except the Military and Police would need a weapon capable of firing in fully auto. None of the weekend warriors (including you) would ever need full auto unless you just wanted to be cool and show it to your friends. He did nothing wrong so stop crying.

Yer smart n stuff! Great post!

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:32:32 AM EDT

[#39]

Imagine that. Ole blue line himself (JIA), defending these cops.

TXL

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:32:35 AM EDT

[#40]

Dang, I run off to a meeting for a few hours, and try to check the original thread... sheesh.

Questions:

Wouldn't a PD keep a copy of the letters that give the officers permission to purchase/own/posess firearms not issued by the dep't and not normally legal to posess (like NFA stuff in IL)? Or no? Vest was arrested and charged months ago, and if his PD had a copy of his letter to show the prosecutor there never would have been a trial.

Wouldn't the officer also want to keep a copy of such a letter? I know I would.

Finally, even if the trooper had the LE exemption, that gun should have been transferred on a BATF Form 4 (xfer to individual), Form 5 (tax-free xfer to individual), or Form 10 (xfer to gov't agency).

ETA: No legitimate FFL/SOT who deals in NFA weapons would have completed this transfer without a signed-off Form 4, 5, or 10. I'll bet BATF is taking a real close look at him now...

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:41:18 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Total bullshit. Some are more equal than others, I guess. Of course, laws don't apply to special people, especially those who are sworn to uphold it.

This makes me sick.

You sound like a criminal talking. Besides NOBODY except the Military and Police would need a weapon capable of firing in fully auto. None of the weekend warriors (including you) would ever need full auto unless you just wanted to be cool and show it to your friends. He did nothing wrong so stop crying.

Sorry to sound so harsh, but you sound like a hard-core-anti-gunner. It's not about need. It's not about justifying the need to a higher authority.

Why do you instantly assume that the previous poster is a criminal or a weekend-warrior? Is it so you can feel better about triviolizing his concerns or is it so you can feel better about taking his rights because he doesn't need them?

Do you really need everything that you own? Or do you have most of it because you can and want to?

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:42:43 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Total bullshit. Some are more equal than others, I guess. Of course, laws don't apply to special people, especially those who are sworn to uphold it.

This makes me sick.

You sound like a criminal talking. Besides NOBODY except the Military and Police would need a weapon capable of firing in fully auto. None of the weekend warriors (including you) would ever need full auto unless you just wanted to be cool and show it to your friends. He did nothing wrong so stop crying.

Sorry to sound so harsh, but you sound like a hard-core-anti-gunner. It's not about need. It's not about justifying the need to a higher authority.

Why do you instantly assume that the previous poster is a criminal or a weekend-warrior? Is it so you can feel better about triviolizing his concerns or is it so you can feel better about taking his rights because he doesn't need them?

Do you really need everything that you own? Or do you have most of it because you can and want to?

I think he's being sarcastic.

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:43:42 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Total bullshit. Some are more equal than others, I guess. Of course, laws don't apply to special people, especially those who are sworn to uphold it.

This makes me sick.

You sound like a criminal talking. Besides NOBODY except the Military and Police would need a weapon capable of firing in fully auto. None of the weekend warriors (including you) would ever need full auto unless you just wanted to be cool and show it to your friends. He did nothing wrong so stop crying.

Nice try for a lock... try harder next time

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:46:36 AM EDT

[#44]

Every American needs a full auto weapon. They need it for the day they have to take up arms agenst an unjust govt. It is the reason the 2nd amendment was added.

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:47:04 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Something tells me justice was served on an individual level. (The officer didn’t do anything wrong.) But justice was just slaughtered on a higher level. (An unjust law is only being selectively enforced.)

I’m happy he’s free and all, but I’m not very happy about the precedent this sets.

that about sums it up for me too.

Posted: 8/31/2006 7:53:33 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If his supervisor signed off and it was for "Official Purposes" why did he have to pay out of his own pocket?

It is not uncommon for officers to pay for their own personal weapons yet buy them on letterhead for official use. In my agency officers all own their own weapons including ban era ARs that were bought on letterhead with personal funds.

I think what the judge saw in this case, was that there was no intent to own this weapon for personal purposes, rather an officer who used his personal funds to buy the weapon for official purposes. The basis of our justice system is still that each case be judged on its own merits, and that seems to me what happened here.

How many of those are NFA items?

Not NFA but not LEGAL without the letter were the PreBan Rifles during the ban. I'd bet thousands were purchased during the ban with personal funds.

The paperwork forgery was not proven by the prosecution. Therefore in the eyes of the court didn't happen. They could bring a forgery charge againt him if they could prove it.

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:07:24 AM EDT

[#47]

He had his day in court and won. This is how the legal system works. Good judge bad judge, good lawyer bad lawyer, agree or disagree he won and it's over. There is nothing we can do about it but bitch and moan or congrat him. So does he get his gun back or what?

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:11:38 AM EDT

[#48]

I always thought the only requirement was a letter from his department for a police officer to be able to buy a full auto weapon.

Seems like the government was reaching in this case, good decision imo.

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:13:32 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If his supervisor signed off and it was for "Official Purposes" why did he have to pay out of his own pocket?

It is not uncommon for officers to pay for their own personal weapons yet buy them on letterhead for official use. In my agency officers all own their own weapons including ban era ARs that were bought on letterhead with personal funds.

I think what the judge saw in this case, was that there was no intent to own this weapon for personal purposes, rather an officer who used his personal funds to buy the weapon for official purposes. The basis of our justice system is still that each case be judged on its own merits, and that seems to me what happened here.

Odd that one would have to pay for an item that they may not own.

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:13:48 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Dang, I run off to a meeting for a few hours, and try to check the original thread... sheesh.

Questions:

Wouldn't a PD keep a copy of the letters that give the officers permission to purchase/own/posess firearms not issued by the dep't and not normally legal to posess (like NFA stuff in IL)? Or no? Vest was arrested and charged months ago, and if his PD had a copy of his letter to show the prosecutor there never would have been a trial.

Wouldn't the officer also want to keep a copy of such a letter? I know I would.

Finally, even if the trooper had the LE exemption, that gun should have been transferred on a BATF Form 4 (xfer to individual), Form 5 (tax-free xfer to individual), or Form 10 (xfer to gov't agency).

ETA: No legitimate FFL/SOT who deals in NFA weapons would have completed this transfer without a signed-off Form 4, 5, or 10. I'll bet BATF is taking a real close look at him now...

Exactly, if the weapon was not on a F4 to the officer or a F5,10 to the PD his ass should be in court.

Just a little tip for those that do not know, ALL NFA weapons MUST be properly transferred through the BATFE to LE agencies. LE agencies are not exempt from the NFA transfer polices. They can not and do not simply pay for a weapon and have it sent to them, the transfer goes through the BATFE.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - llinois officer cleared of machine gun charge (Sgt Vest) (2nd Try first locked) (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us