Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:24:17 AM EDT
Not that I think that NFA laws are constitutional but Feds are turning down cases against drug dealers with glock switches where there is no admission that the suspect knew what function the glock switch performed.

LOL...

The more and more they don't prosecute the more they become common and "common use"

ATF should mean there is a party.
Link Posted: 5/10/2024 11:34:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Jmo371] [#1]
Originally Posted By urbanredneck:
Not that I think that NFA laws are constitutional but Feds are turning down cases against drug dealers with glock switches where there is no admission that the suspect knew what function the glock switch performed.

LOL...

The more and more they don't prosecute the more they become common and "common use"

ATF should mean there is a party.
View Quote


There's a bit more to the story, and they are almost always being prosecuted on the local level for Felon in Possession of a firearm, dope, possession with intent to distribute, robbery.....they are easy slam dunk cases....



and if you look in general the Feds Prosecute almost no NFA violations, usually they are satisfied with getting the item in question, look at how many forum members we have had that got a letter or two agents at the door, saying basically hand it over and well leave you alone. Would you like them to prosecute more people? Or just people you don't like?
Link Posted: 5/10/2024 8:50:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Perhaps they decline them because there is a "mens rea" requirement to the crime that couldn't be satisfied if the person did not knowingly have possession of a machine gun. Many criminal statutes require you to knowingly commit the act to be considered in violation. In your scenario above you noted that the people they decline to prosecute were unaware of what the switch did and thus did not knowingly possess a machine gun.
Link Posted: 5/10/2024 8:58:49 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WilsonCQB1911:
Perhaps they decline them because there is a "mens rea" requirement to the crime that couldn't be satisfied if the person did not knowingly have possession of a machine gun. Many criminal statutes require you to knowingly commit the act to be considered in violation. In your scenario above you noted that the people they decline to prosecute were unaware of what the switch did and thus did not knowingly possess a machine gun.
View Quote

Or because they don’t want the appeals risk in post-Bruen world.
Link Posted: 5/10/2024 10:19:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Stahlgewehr762] [#4]
One reason that "they" don't prosecute drug dealers armed with machine guns is that "they" want that felon to be on the loose in society, wreaking havoc. "They" use these felons as a boogeyman, to justify the sweeping Societal Changes that "they" want, such as "Gun CONTROL".

"They" create or magnify a problem, then offer up what "they" want as the "solution". It's a twisted form of social engineering.

I hope it's obvious who "they" are. I'm trying to keep this out of G.D. or a lock.
Link Posted: 5/11/2024 2:39:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Stahlgewehr762:
One reason that "they" don't prosecute drug dealers armed with machine guns is that "they" want that felon to be on the loose in society, wreaking havoc. "They" use these felons as a boogeyman, to justify the sweeping Societal Changes that "they" want, such as "Gun CONTROL".

"They" create or magnify a problem, then offer up what "they" want as the "solution". It's a twisted form of social engineering.

I hope it's obvious who "they" are. I'm trying to keep this out of G.D. or a lock.
View Quote
This is the correct answer.
Link Posted: 5/11/2024 8:42:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Link Posted: 5/17/2024 3:55:30 AM EDT
[#7]
Perhaps they want them back out on the street because they know the dealers are at extreme risk of re-offending. Keep those numbers up.
Top Top