At first i thought of this is unfair but the obstructed serial number makes it hard to say you were unaware of the legal status of the rifle. I would like to know how the ATF knew he had it in the first place. Someone must have ratted him out.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/v...m14-automatic-rifle/

"Once a machine gun, always a machine gun". I learned that phrase in the year 2000.

In 2000, I saw this ad online for M14 receivers for sale. No, not SA Inc, not Smith Arms or Chinese forgings or MKS re-welds from DEWATs or any of that stuff. This guy was advertising honest to God M14 receivers. I called him up, but he was "busy" and had to call me back. I asked him the details when he called back. Well, he said, the post inside the receivers that would allow for full auto fire have been removed from these receivers, he said, and that makes them legal for private ownership, he said. How many did I want, he asked. He had several. I asked him to let me think about it. I called him back. Again, he was "busy", and had to call me back. I am in Georgia and he was in Alabama. He could "meet me at the state line". I kid you not. Again, I sad I would think about it. I told a neighbor about this, and he said "It's a sting. Once a machine gun, always a machine gun".

And then, it all made sense. He wasn't "busy" when I called him. He had to turn on his audio recorder and then call me. BATFE, FBI, take your pick.

True story

So, in my ignorance, I could have found myself in very, very hot water.

quote:

Originally posted by Woof:
At first i thought of this is unfair but the obstructed serial number makes it hard to say you were unaware of the legal status of the rifle. I would like to know how the ATF knew he had it in the first place. Someone must have ratted him out.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/v...m14-automatic-rifle/

says so right there in the article:

quote:

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives raided Pick's house last year on a tip about the weapon, KTVT reports.

If you can't find any real criminals, you can always manufacture some.

It’s a pisser he was a veteran, and it’s a pisser he’s 70 years old, and I hope they go easy on him, but damn. It’s not like the law against owning fully automatic weapons just passed last week, and they were keeping it secret.

Is anyone else concerned about the feds "raiding" your house based on a "tip"???

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
If you can't find any real criminals, you can always manufacture some.

Um, no. Not in this case. Regardless of ones feelings on the GCA of 86, it’s the law, and quite clear. It is a prohibited item under the law.

They still would have needed probable cause for a warrant, that takes more than an anonymous tip.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
If you can't find any real criminals, you can always manufacture some.

Um, no. Not in this case. Regardless of ones feelings on the GCA of 86, it’s the law, and quite clear. It is a prohibited item under the law.

Um, yes. Simply because it's "The Law" doesn't mean it's "right." Lots of things are illegal simply because someone needed to manufacture a villain.

quote:

Originally posted by Muddflap:
It’s a pisser he was a veteran, and it’s a pisser he’s 70 years old, and I hope they go easy on him, but damn. It’s not like the law against owning fully automatic weapons just passed last week, and they were keeping it secret.

That is my take.

Was this weapon capable of full auto fire, or not? If it was capable of full auto (and wasn't a MG merely by virtue of once having been full auto), then I especially have no sympathy for him.

While I think the MG laws are bad laws, they remain the law.

As for the tip, they still had to go get a warrant from a judge to raid the house.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
If you can't find any real criminals, you can always manufacture some.

Um, no. Not in this case. Regardless of ones feelings on the GCA of 86, it’s the law, and quite clear. It is a prohibited item under the law.

Um, yes. Simply because it's "The Law" doesn't mean it's "right." Lots of things are illegal simply because someone needed to manufacture a villain.

The article doesn't provide some pertinent details that could be germane to the case. For example, when in the 80s did he buy it? If it was prior to 1986, was the rifle still legally transferable at the time he bought it? Either way he's at least guilty of a paperwork error, but it does seem like an extreme sentence. Especially to a guy who earned a Silver Star.

As is often the case, there is more to this than meets the eye. It also points up why speculating is so dangerous.

A lawyer buddy of mine, who is very active in the shooting community around here, and who is a Class III licensee, and who does a lot of firearms trust work found the following from the order committing this defendant to detention pending trial:

"Evidence was presented regarding Defendant’s verbal threat to kill hospital employees. Evidence was also presented regarding items recovered at Defendant’s residence, including, but not limited to, fourteen firearms, one of which was a machine gun, ammunition, marijuana, and cocaine. Evidence was also presented regarding Defendant’s habitual drug use, as well as alleged sexual misconduct with his daughter, including inappropriate pictures of his daughter as a minor. Notably, not one family member would agree to be Defendant’s third party custodian, and all expressed that they would fear for their safety if Defendant was released. Finally, evidence was presented that Defendant is a trained and licensed pilot and owns a plane. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court is unable to fashion any conditions that would ensure the safety of the community and that would ensure Defendant’s appearance as required in these proceedings. Therefore, the United States’ motion for detention (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED, and Defendant is detained pending trial."

None of this bears directly on his guilt, but it probably had an effect nonetheless. I feel sure it had a lot to do with the sentence. It may also explain why there was a tip - sounds like this guy scared people.

yes - there was definitely 'more to the story'

--------------------------------------

Must've been the weed.

(I kid)

Those threats and inappropriate photos are big problems if true, and are most certainly a legitimate issue.

Thanks for the additional details.

Thank you, jhe888.

I can't believe CBS missed all the pertinent details. Thanks for the follow up jhe888. I figured there was more to the story.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
It also points up why speculating is so dangerous.

Golly gee, mister. Surely this must have been the very first time something like that happened in these parts.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
If you can't find any real criminals, you can always manufacture some.

Um, no. Not in this case. Regardless of ones feelings on the GCA of 86, it’s the law, and quite clear. It is a prohibited item under the law.

Um, yes. Simply because it's "The Law" doesn't mean it's "right." Lots of things are illegal simply because someone needed to manufacture a villain.

You’re arguing from feelings, not facts. I agree that the law is wrong but it exists. I have a registered sub gun, but would not DREAM of owning an unregistered machine gun. The statute doesn’t care if it upsets me, and neither will the judicial system. The law may be stupid, but I’d be stupid to violate it because I thought it was wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
It also points up why speculating is so dangerous.

Golly gee, mister. Surely this must have been the very first time something like that happened in these parts.

Yeah. Doesn’t it just suck when facts screw up a good story