Posted: 4/15/2010 6:38:01 AM EDT
|
I want to keep this short and I need short answers. One of our guys acquired an ACOG in a private trade from an FFL in my area. He thought something might be wrong with the ACOG and contacted Trijicon who told him to send it to them for repair/replacement/whatever. This was a week or so ago. He was contacted by Trijicon this morning and was informed that the ACOG was registered as purchased by the DoD and that the DoD has already been notified. He contacted his supervisor already who will have to run it up the chain. I need to know what the DoD is going to do so I can try to mitigate the potential outcome of a panicky chain of command who will only hear that this guy was in possession of stolen govt property. I need an answer quick. Knee jerk reactions are the norm and we've had some...issues in my dept this week that might make the reaction more severe than what it needs to be. |
|
I would think DoD would make a claim to get the ACOG back from Trijicon however they would do that (court order, subpoena, etc...). I would think, at the bare minimum, the officer that bought the stolen optic would write a report documenting what happened, including having the FFL disclose who he bought the optic from. It's up to the FFL and the officer to negotiate if there will be any kind of refund.
There are always risks with private FTF transactions. If the officer unknowingly bought a stolen item and had no reason to be suspicious, he should be fine. He may be out the money though. Buyer beware. |
|
Quoted:
If the officer unknowingly bought a stolen item and had no reason to be suspicious, he should be fine. He may be out the money though. Buyer beware. Aimless discussed this in a few threads when the stuff started showing up from the sandbox "a buddy who bought it and doesn't want it anymore". This info is based off of what I recall from those. As long as the buyer (officer) can provide some form of paper trail showing who/where he purchased it - perhaps an affadavit given his sworn status - he shouldn't be facing any criminal charges from FedGov, at least judging by past examples. The ACOG will be heading back to uncle, and so the "restoration of property" will be complete, making them happy in that regard. That said, despite being "made whole" DoD/JAG will not refund any funds; any claim for $$$ lost will be included in the case against the original thief, and probably included in restitution secondary to prosecution. IOW his best bet for a quick refund will be with the FFL - who may "pass the buck" and direct him to DoD/JAG and keep his money. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If the officer unknowingly bought a stolen item and had no reason to be suspicious, he should be fine. He may be out the money though. Buyer beware. Aimless discussed this in a few threads when the stuff started showing up from the sandbox "a buddy who bought it and doesn't want it anymore". This info is based off of what I recall from those. As long as the buyer (officer) can provide some form of paper trail showing who/where he purchased it - perhaps an affadavit given his sworn status - he shouldn't be facing any criminal charges from FedGov, at least judging by past examples. The ACOG will be heading back to uncle, and so the "restoration of property" will be complete, making them happy in that regard. That said, despite being "made whole" DoD/JAG will not refund any funds; any claim for $$$ lost will be included in the case against the original thief, and probably included in restitution secondary to prosecution. IOW his best bet for a quick refund will be with the FFL - who may "pass the buck" and direct him to DoD/JAG and keep his money. He contacted Trijicon and got the POC for whoever investigates these things and has already contacted him. It was a good faith purchase from a (soon-not-to-be) reputable dealer. I'm sure it will work out for him. Since he took it to his CoC and because we have had some issues this week I just wanted to try to mitigate any unnecessary over-reaction IF the investigative agency called our department head. |
|
So long as it was purchased for "fair market value" or "near fair market value", there should be no backlash for the officer. The price he paid, and the manner in which it was bought, will be the tell-all in this case.
Was this from a STORE FRONT gun shop or just some guy with an FFL? |
|
Quoted: So long as it was purchased for "fair market value" or "near fair market value", there should be no backlash for the officer. The price he paid, and the manner in which it was bought, will be the tell-all in this case. Was this from a STORE FRONT gun shop or just some guy with an FFL? I'd rather not say who right now. He is a one-man show but he is not "some guy with an FFL" either. There are quite a few people here who know and recommend him nationally. That being said, I won't even consider buying something like an ACOG or PEQ or NVGs used again. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So long as it was purchased for "fair market value" or "near fair market value", there should be no backlash for the officer. The price he paid, and the manner in which it was bought, will be the tell-all in this case. Was this from a STORE FRONT gun shop or just some guy with an FFL? I'd rather not say who right now. He is a one-man show but he is not "some guy with an FFL" either. There are quite a few people here who know and recommend him nationally. That being said, I won't even consider buying something like an ACOG or PEQ or NVGs used again. I understand about not wanting to mention any names... was not wanting you to. In most cases, it is the SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES surrounding a purchase that gives way to possible criminal attachment. Let's just hope the deal had by the FFL and/or officer was not of the "too good to be true" or "one hell of a bargin" variety... If the seller got it through what a reasonable person would deem a "normal business transaction" at a "fair" price, and this was also the case with the officer, I see nothing but lost $$ on the part of the seller and/or officer. However, if the FFL got it from "some guy" at the local truck stop for a "hell of a price", there could be some bumps in the road.... Some states, Florida for one, have laws that "suck you into criminal charges" when you buy something "well below fair market value" or "outside the normal course of business". Example... when some business guy stops at your house and offers to insulate your attic for "pennys on the dollar" simply because he has some insulation left over from a local job, you might want to think about it... (True Story). |
|
Well brother I hope for the best for ya.
I'm not a lawyer, internet or other wise but I did witness first hand what happened to an officer who purchased a set of body armor off eBay that turned out to be stolen, right off the supply truck. He's no longer an officer. He bought it in good faith from someone with a good bit of positive feed back and he paid an average price for it. What he found out from his attorney is that under 18 USC 662 all the feds have to do is build the case that you should have known the item or items were stolen or in his case admit that he was once suspicious that items could be stolen. And all he actually said was that he knew that stolen property was turning up for sale stateside on websites and that he was aware of it because it had been discussed openly in front of him and on various websites that he had visited. Nothing more. He never said he thought the actual item he was buying was stolen. In fact he said the opposite when confronted with the accusation. Now this was in the height of all that stolen armor when the DoD was on the war path. So the lesson I learned is that no matter how great the deal, stuff like armor, ACOGS, AimPoints etc... I'm buying NIB through an established dealer with a good web presence or a brick and mortar store. |
|
I get calls and e-mails like this all the time. Some military or DOD type cop may contact him. Usually they just want to know where he got it so they can follow it up the food chain to the soldier/supply sergeant etc who stole it. Sometimes they fart around wanting to take statements, drag you into grand jury etc but that's unusual and if he's a leo with proof he bought it from some gear merchant he shouldn't lose any sleep over it. Personally I would not buy body armor, night vision or optics that are a military model off the net without some serious proof of where it came from. I have seen this stuff go through "reputable merchants" who just "go it off some dude" without using common sense. Honestly I would not touch used military model night vision or body armor. I don't care if I ran into the Pope at a gun show and he had a receipt he bought it for the Swiss Guard direct from the manufacturer. |
|
Quoted:
I get calls and e-mails like this all the time. Some military or DOD type cop may contact him. Usually they just want to know where he got it so they can follow it up the food chain to the soldier/supply sergeant etc who stole it. Sometimes they fart around wanting to take statements, drag you into grand jury etc but that's unusual and if he's a leo with proof he bought it from some gear merchant he shouldn't lose any sleep over it. Personally I would not buy body armor, night vision or optics that are a military model off the net without some serious proof of where it came from. I have seen this stuff go through "reputable merchants" who just "go it off some dude" without using common sense. Honestly I would not touch used military model night vision or body armor. I don't care if I ran into the Pope at a gun show and he had a receipt he bought it for the Swiss Guard direct from the manufacturer. You Sir, are on point. |
| Apparently he's going to come out smelling like a fucking rose. He was contacted Friday by the investigator. He told the whole story and the investigator asked if he was planning on using the optic on his duty rifle. He of course replied in the affirmative and the investigator said they would probably just give it to him if he sent them a letterhead saying it would be for duty purposes. This guy has some ridiculous luck. I've got half a dozen stories just like this about this guy. |
|
No kidding... Quoted:
Hmm... if I were to buy anything anymore that's potentially .mil related, I'm gonna call the manufacturer and verify the S/N with them. Seems like this is happening more and more these days. Best of luck to the OP and I'm sure he'll be fine. -SleeperShooter |
| I had a similar thing happen to one of my Guard guys, back when the IBAs were new on the market. He bought one in a private sale; DoD tracked his purchase down...I guess the seller was selling a LOT of IBAs....they came to the airbase we were guarding at the time and took the vest. My guy was able to show that he had purchased the vest and from whom. He was never charged with anything but was out several hundred dollars. |
|
Quoted:
Apparently he's going to come out smelling like a fucking rose. He was contacted Friday by the investigator. He told the whole story and the investigator asked if he was planning on using the optic on his duty rifle. He of course replied in the affirmative and the investigator said they would probably just give it to him if he sent them a letterhead saying it would be for duty purposes. This guy has some ridiculous luck. I've got half a dozen stories just like this about this guy. That's smelling better than a fucking rose.... that's smelling like Tactical Bacon after having blown something up with C4. Good on the .mil to not blue falcon the guy and let him use it on his duty rifle. Are they going to let him keep it or will it be given to the agency?? -SleeperShooter |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Apparently he's going to come out smelling like a fucking rose. He was contacted Friday by the investigator. He told the whole story and the investigator asked if he was planning on using the optic on his duty rifle. He of course replied in the affirmative and the investigator said they would probably just give it to him if he sent them a letterhead saying it would be for duty purposes. This guy has some ridiculous luck. I've got half a dozen stories just like this about this guy. That's smelling better than a fucking rose.... that's smelling like Tactical Bacon after having blown something up with C4. Good on the .mil to not blue falcon the guy and let him use it on his duty rifle. Are they going to let him keep it or will it be given to the agency?? -SleeperShooter He said they'd give it to him if he submitted a letterhead saying it was for duty purposes. I'd guess it's similar to the form you fill out when buying a firearm on letterhead. Crazy. I'm teaching for a few days but I'll check with him about any more details when I get back. |
|
Quoted:
He said they'd give it to him if he submitted a letterhead saying it was for duty purposes. I'd guess it's similar to the form you fill out when buying a firearm on letterhead. That may mean he cannot keep it whenever he separates from the department; various LEOs around the country have previously been prosecuted for using official letterhead for personal purchases. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: He said they'd give it to him if he submitted a letterhead saying it was for duty purposes. I'd guess it's similar to the form you fill out when buying a firearm on letterhead. That may mean he cannot keep it whenever he separates from the department; various LEOs around the country have previously been prosecuted for using official letterhead for personal purchases. I believe the caveat was he had to sell it to another officer. I haven't talked to him since last week. I'll see if he's heard back from them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He said they'd give it to him if he submitted a letterhead saying it was for duty purposes. I'd guess it's similar to the form you fill out when buying a firearm on letterhead. That may mean he cannot keep it whenever he separates from the department; various LEOs around the country have previously been prosecuted for using official letterhead for personal purchases. I believe the caveat was he had to sell it to another officer. I haven't talked to him since last week. I'll see if he's heard back from them. Exactly my point; he may not keep it when he separates from the department (e.g. retires). By selling it to another officer, the ACOG is, in effect, staying with the department. IMHO, he should tread lightly with this, as DoD and the .gov would not hesistate to prosecute in the right climate with the right AUSA. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He said they'd give it to him if he submitted a letterhead saying it was for duty purposes. I'd guess it's similar to the form you fill out when buying a firearm on letterhead. That may mean he cannot keep it whenever he separates from the department; various LEOs around the country have previously been prosecuted for using official letterhead for personal purchases. I believe the caveat was he had to sell it to another officer. I haven't talked to him since last week. I'll see if he's heard back from them. Exactly my point; he may not keep it when he separates from the department (e.g. retires). By selling it to another officer, the ACOG is, in effect, staying with the department. IMHO, he should tread lightly with this, as DoD and the .gov would not hesistate to prosecute in the right climate with the right AUSA. Do you think he should just tell them to keep it? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He said they'd give it to him if he submitted a letterhead saying it was for duty purposes. I'd guess it's similar to the form you fill out when buying a firearm on letterhead. That may mean he cannot keep it whenever he separates from the department; various LEOs around the country have previously been prosecuted for using official letterhead for personal purchases. I believe the caveat was he had to sell it to another officer. I haven't talked to him since last week. I'll see if he's heard back from them. Exactly my point; he may not keep it when he separates from the department (e.g. retires). By selling it to another officer, the ACOG is, in effect, staying with the department. IMHO, he should tread lightly with this, as DoD and the .gov would not hesitate to prosecute in the right climate with the right AUSA. Do you think he should just tell them to keep it? Not necessarily, but he should definitely stick to whatever the agreement is; if they say he needs to sell it to another officer, then IMHO he better do that, even if it's 5 or 10 or 15 years down the line. |