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

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

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

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:15:58 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
. So does he get his gun back or what?

now THAT is a good question.

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:17:50 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
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.

No. You are probably thinking of the letterhead requirement for officers to buy semi-auto weapons for duty use during the 94-04 Federal ban. That did not include FA weapons.

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:23:16 AM EDT

[#3]

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.

Gift?! If the Dept needs but cannot afford XYZ, Officer that needs item uses a bakesale to purchase. No law broken but the taxpayer spared the burden.

Volunteer Fire Dept do this stuff all the time. Firefighters buy it with money from wherever , own pocket or bakesale, and the title is with the agency for liability reasons.

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:27:48 AM EDT

[#4]

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.

Gift?! If the Dept needs but cannot afford XYZ, Officer that needs item uses a bakesale to purchase. No law broken but the taxpayer spared the burden.

Volunteer Fire Dept do this stuff all the time. Firefighters buy it with money from wherever , own pocket or bakesale, and the title is with the agency for liability reasons.

If that was the case the Department should have a Form 5 or 10 for the weapon, if not it is a unregistered MG and is just as illegal for them to be in possession of as you or me.

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

[#5]

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.

yes very well put

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:32:47 AM EDT

[#6]

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.

Since you mentioned intention, lets look at the intent.

Was it ever mentioned if this officer actually trained ANYONE with this rifle?
Wouldn't there be paperwork on said training?

Aren't fully automatic weapons like this supposed to be checked out of the
department's armory? Was this weapon ever logged into the armory's inventory?

Does anyone actually believe that the supervisor doesn't remember if he signed
the letter allowing the purchase?

Wasn't the rifle found at the officer's home?

To me, it sounds like the officer intended to obtain this rifle for his own personal
possession and use. I seriously doubt that the rifle ever saw the inside of the
police station.

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:33:45 AM EDT

[#7]

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.

yes very well put

How many firetrucks to you see being used for personal transportation?

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:36:10 AM EDT

[#8]

The ruling is online.

After reading it, my conclusion is that this judge said "922(o) doesn't apply to cops".

www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/06-30011_US_v._Vest_-_order_granting_MTDs.pdf

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:39:10 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

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.

Since you mentioned intention, lets look at the intent.

Was it ever mentioned if this officer actually trained ANYONE with this rifle?
Wouldn't there be paperwork on said training?

Aren't fully automatic weapons like this supposed to be checked out of the
department's armory? Was this weapon ever logged into the armory's inventory?

Does anyone actually believe that the supervisor doesn't remember if he signed
the letter allowing the purchase?

Wasn't the rifle found at the officer's home?

To me, it sounds like the officer intended to obtain this rifle for his own personal
possession and use. I seriously doubt that the rifle ever saw the inside of the
police station.

Doesn’t even have to go that deep.

It just needs to be traced through the BATFE and if it was never transferred either to the officer or the PD then he should be in deep shit.

This was a NFA (tittle 2) weapon not a tittle one weapon that may be bought and transferred directly from transferor to transferee

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:44:37 AM EDT

[#10]

Illinois home dispaches the ISP. They REQUIRE that the duty weapons be locked in the Cruiser trunk or glovebox or IN THE OFFICERS HOME This weapon was purchased out of his pocket to TRAIN officers as the state didn't/wouldn't fund the purchase.

Batfe went too far when they busted this guy with other officers who had converted semiautos. My opinion and the courts opinion agree.

While Sgt Vest MAY have danced around at the edge of the law in the opinion of the BATFE the court saw no willful violation of the NFA.

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:45:16 AM EDT

[#11]

I don't like the fact that if it were anyone else, they would be in jail. However, being that the prosecution never claimed that it was used for anything but official purposes, and the judge said the law was too vague to convict him, I agree with the ruling. Sounds like the prosecution dropped the ball on the case. Personally, I would rather side on the side of innocent, and keep borderline cases from being convictions. That, by a logical standpoint, would keep a lot more innocent people out of jail. Criminals will be criminals, and they will have a few more chances to stay at the motel max.

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:46:43 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
It just needs to be traced through the BATFE and if it was never transferred either to the officer or the PD then he should be in deep shit.

This was a NFA (title 2) weapon not a title one weapon that may be bought and transferred directly from transferor to transferee

And I'll ask you, since you deal in C3 firearms - if you do a transfer to a LEO (individual, not the department) who has dep't letterhead authorizing him to own it, what BATF form gets filled out?

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:47:51 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
The ruling is online.

After reading it, my conclusion is that this judge said "922(o) doesn't apply to cops".

www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/06-30011_US_v._Vest_-_order_granting_MTDs.pdf

yep, wish I wad "exempt" from certain laws.

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:50:38 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It just needs to be traced through the BATFE and if it was never transferred either to the officer or the PD then he should be in deep shit.

This was a NFA (title 2) weapon not a title one weapon that may be bought and transferred directly from transferor to transferee

And I'll ask you, since you deal in C3 firearms - if you do a transfer to a LEO (individual, not the department) who has dep't letterhead authorizing him to own it, what BATF form gets filled out?

Form5

Posted: 8/31/2006 8:54:25 AM EDT

[#15]

If the judge had ruled that the law is constitutionally vague for EVERYONE, not just because hes a LEO, I might support the ruling(setting a precedent. Sp?)

Otherwise it a BS decision. If that were me Id be in the Pen, or underneath it and a felon for life w/ no RKBA

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:00:04 AM EDT

[#16]

I thought new machine guns could only be sold to military, or goverment agencies.

That a police officer (hopefully former in this case) is too stupid to comprehend the difference between an individual and a government agency is, frankly, beyond belief.

I therefore have to conclude that the officer is full of shit.

I find it similarly hard to believe that a judge is too stupid to find the distinction between a government agency and individual to be anything but crystal clear.

The inescapable conclusion is that he is an elitest bastard who fashioned a narrow bullshit ruling to get his bro off the hook.

I am not happy that this guy got off in this manner. Every law or ruling that exempts police from the laws that every other citizen is compeled to follow is another nail in the coffin of our republic.

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:06:19 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
If the judge had ruled that the law is constitutionally vague for EVERYONE, not just because hes a LEO, I might support the ruling(setting a precedent. Sp?)

Otherwise it a BS decision. If that were me Id be in the Pen, or underneath it and a felon for life w/ no RKBA

But you and I weren't given the loophole that LEO and MIL in his official capacity were. BATFE screwed the pooch when they didn't prove the alledged forgery. That is the entire case as the Judge saw it. I agree.

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:06:50 AM EDT

[#18]

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.

Oh crap.

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:07:26 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
And I'll ask you, since you deal in C3 firearms - if you do a transfer to a LEO (individual, not the department) who has dep't letterhead authorizing him to own it, what BATF form gets filled out?

Form5

Ok, follow-up question. That rifle is on a Form 1 somewhere (Colt?) and on Form 3 to Botach Tactical. So did Botach send it out without the proper BATF paperwork?

The implication now is that the NFRTR is not 100% accurate as the BATFE has been testifying in numerous court cases... but we knew that, didn't we?

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:17:13 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
And I'll ask you, since you deal in C3 firearms - if you do a transfer to a LEO (individual, not the department) who has dep't letterhead authorizing him to own it, what BATF form gets filled out?

Form5

Ok, follow-up question. That rifle is on a Form 1 somewhere (Colt?) and on Form 3 to Botach Tactical. So did Botach send it out without the proper BATF paperwork?

The implication now is that the NFRTR is not 100% accurate as the BATFE has been testifying in numerous court cases... but we knew that, didn't we?

let's do the official time line (if you will) if we can.

The weapon was mfg. on a form 1 (was the tax payed or not? I’m assuming not)

Then transferred to Botach on a tax exempt form 3

Then was it Form5 or 10 to the Agency? The ruling says it was registered to the State agency so I assume it was transferred.

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:20:28 AM EDT

[#21]

edited out for stupidity.

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:21:29 AM EDT

[#22]

height=8

Quoted:
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Apparently it is if your job is to enforce it.

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:23:19 AM EDT

[#23]

The rifle wasn't registered to the IL PD on Form 10; that scenario was brought up during the trial when debating whether SWAT team members would be in violation when posessing department-owned weapons. Vest's Colt was registered with the State of IL as being personally owned by Vest the same way that I have to register my MG's in the state of VA.

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:28:46 AM EDT

[#24]

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.

Yep, but that was exactly the situation during the ban. If one separated from service prior to retirement the weapon either belonged to the department, or could be sold to a dealer or to another active officer.

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:29:58 AM EDT

[#25]

I just wanto to know one thing.

When he retires, who gets the weapon?

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:36:02 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
From what I understand, the rifle wasn't registered to the IL PD on Form 10. It was registered with the State of IL as being personally owned by Vest the same way that I have to register my MG's in the state of VA. Otherwise Vest would have been ok.

So like VA the State of IL has a MG registration? But that doesn’t really matter on the Federal level.

If the weapon was not registered (NFA registry) to His official department or him Care of his department he was/is in possession of a unregistered MG. It's pretty simple LE or not a NFA weapon must be transferred correctly through the BATFE. If it was papered to him or his department (even though if papered to the agency he should not have control of the weapon if not on official duty, try telling the cops your holding onto your friends legally owned transferable MG and see what happens) he is clear.

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:43:00 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I just wanto to know one thing.

When he retires, who gets the weapon?

Post sample MG's may ONLY be owned by FFL/SOT's, Gov agencies and authorized employees, LE agencies and authorized employees. Once you are no longer a Authorized employee you may no longer have control over a Post sample.

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:49:48 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I just wanto to know one thing.

When he retires, who gets the weapon?

Post sample MG's may ONLY be owned by FFL/SOT's, Gov agencies and authorized employees, LE agencies and authorized employees. Once you are no longer a Authorized employee you may no longer have control over a Post sample.

Yeah, so who gets it?

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:49:53 AM EDT

[#29]

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.

Hey guys, use smilies when you're being sarcastic.

With

Its a humorous comment on the absurdity of the situation.

Without, it means you're a

Thanks,

96Ag

Posted: 8/31/2006 9:52:40 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I just wanto to know one thing.

When he retires, who gets the weapon?

Post sample MG's may ONLY be owned by FFL/SOT's, Gov agencies and authorized employees, LE agencies and authorized employees. Once you are no longer a Authorized employee you may no longer have control over a Post sample.

Yeah, so who gets it?

He will not, legally anyways.

Posted: 8/31/2006 10:02:42 AM EDT

[#31]

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.

Happens a lot with Equipment..If the AWB had not expired, those firearms would have had to have been given or sold to either the agency, or another officer upon that purchasing officer's separation from the agency or retirement. Without a LOT more information on this one, im not sure how to read it..one would think the FFL/SOT just for his Own protection would make sure the paperwork is in order, no matter who the purchaser was.

Posted: 8/31/2006 10:17:17 AM EDT

[#32]

From Attorney: Law should not apply to police; Says cop bought gun to use in his duties:

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.

In this case Vest should have a Form 5 for the rifle. If he did and was still prosecuted then someone at BATF/DOJ needs to be slapped. If not, he was very lucky.

But Cook argued that the purchase was approved by a police supervisor. He said the automatic carbine, or short rifle, was then duly registered with the Illinois State Police, where it has been used for eight years, primarily on police training ranges.

I'm wondering if the reporter didn't make a mistake, and the rifle was registered ***by***, not ***with***, the IL State Police. If so, the PD would have the rifle on a Form 10 and could issue it to any trooper. That trooper could then posess it at home, car, on patrol, etc... and the BATF/DOJ needs to be slapped.

Posted: 8/31/2006 10:34:50 AM EDT

[#33]

I'm glad the guy got off. The automatic firearm laws are bs. But this guy sure was shown favoritism. It's the establishments way of keeping their soldiers happy to protect their (the establishments) power. Damn, and I thought the law was impartial.

Posted: 8/31/2006 10:51:48 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

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.

Since you mentioned intention, lets look at the intent.

Was it ever mentioned if this officer actually trained ANYONE with this rifle?
Wouldn't there be paperwork on said training?

Aren't fully automatic weapons like this supposed to be checked out of the
department's armory? Was this weapon ever logged into the armory's inventory?

Does anyone actually believe that the supervisor doesn't remember if he signed
the letter allowing the purchase?

Wasn't the rifle found at the officer's home?

To me, it sounds like the officer intended to obtain this rifle for his own personal
possession and use. I seriously doubt that the rifle ever saw the inside of the
police station.

Perhaps the officer was also on the SWAT team, which is quite common. He would use the rifle for instruction, plus keep it in his personal possession for rapid response, as do other members of the SWAT team.

Posted: 8/31/2006 11:07:25 AM EDT

[#35]

Only here could you get goofballs wanting a gun conviction.

Shit! I bet the D Uh would have a more pro gun attitude on this one.

Posted: 8/31/2006 11:10:27 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

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.

Since you mentioned intention, lets look at the intent.

Was it ever mentioned if this officer actually trained ANYONE with this rifle?
Wouldn't there be paperwork on said training?

Aren't fully automatic weapons like this supposed to be checked out of the
department's armory? Was this weapon ever logged into the armory's inventory?

Does anyone actually believe that the supervisor doesn't remember if he signed
the letter allowing the purchase?

Wasn't the rifle found at the officer's home?

To me, it sounds like the officer intended to obtain this rifle for his own personal
possession and use. I seriously doubt that the rifle ever saw the inside of the
police station.

Perhaps the officer was also on the SWAT team, which is quite common. He would use the rifle for instruction, plus keep it in his personal possession for rapid response, as do other members of the SWAT team.

It's not really what he used it for, it's how he got it.

Posted: 8/31/2006 11:19:12 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
From what I understand, the rifle wasn't registered to the IL PD on Form 10. It was registered with the State of IL as being personally owned by Vest the same way that I have to register my MG's in the state of VA. Otherwise Vest would have been ok.

So like VA the State of IL has a MG registration? But that doesn’t really matter on the Federal level.

If the weapon was not registered (NFA registry) to His official department or him Care of his department he was/is in possession of a unregistered MG. It's pretty simple LE or not a NFA weapon must be transferred correctly through the BATFE. If it was papered to him or his department (even though if papered to the agency he should not have control of the weapon if not on official duty, try telling the cops your holding onto your friends legally owned transferable MG and see what happens) he is clear.

Class 3 is illegal for individuals in IL.

Posted: 8/31/2006 11:29:42 AM EDT

[#38]

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

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

Especially when they aren't ignorant of the law!!!

Anyone know what happened to the dentist who was also charged?

Posted: 8/31/2006 11:36:47 AM EDT

[#39]

So, since this guy was found exempt from the laws because he fell into the law enforcement or miltary category does that mean somebody in the military can buy a machinegun on their own as long as they're only buying it to use in a professional capacity. What if this was Pvt. Joe Snuffy and he sent off a letter on Company stationary with the First Sergeants signature (forged, not forged who knows)? The judge would have called BS. He'd have been found guilty and be in jail.

*for purposes of this discussion lets ignore the UCMJ and say that Pvt. Snuffy just has to follow the same laws as this officer or any other civilian

Posted: 8/31/2006 11:46:44 AM EDT

[#40]

INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS MAY NOT BUY OR POSSESS MACHINEGUNS UNDER 922 (O)

Posted: 8/31/2006 11:48:53 AM EDT

[#41]

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.

What happened to 'ignorance of the law' being no excuse?!

Posted: 8/31/2006 11:55:23 AM EDT

[#42]

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.

So that's the standard, eh? Reminds me of when the Clintons were still in office and were facing charges of using official White House telecommunications to solicit campaign funds/assistance. The "government" declined to prosecute because it said that the Clintons didn't realize they were breaking the law.

Now I see how it works.

Posted: 8/31/2006 11:56:05 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Standing by............

Posted: 8/31/2006 11:57:17 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
"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.

Word.

Posted: 8/31/2006 12:00:16 PM EDT

[#45]

<---- runs off to buy an $800 MP5 with Dept Letterhead

Sheep

Posted: 8/31/2006 12:04:49 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
The ruling is online.

After reading it, my conclusion is that this judge said "922(o) doesn't apply to cops".

www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/06-30011_US_v._Vest_-_order_granting_MTDs.pdf

So I could join a reserve PD buy a bunch of stuff and quit as long as I didn't intend to do anything wrong.?

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

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us