User Panel
I hate to say this but I think you are right on target. |
|
|
It's good that they were busted, like any one of us would be.
It's bad that what they were doing was against the law in the first place. I have no personal vendetta against these three cops whom I don't even know. I'm not going to pretend to know what they have and haven't arrested people for. This needs to play out in the courts. I hope they take it to the SCOTUS and the cops clean house. I'm not going to hope they lose because "it's three JBT's, so fuck'em!" That is so ridiculously short-sighted. Usually, the only ones who get sent up the river on this stuff are criminals, even the bootlegger in the original decision. If these are otherwise upstanding citizens, and LEO's to boot, who just wanted to go have a little FA fun at a regulated range, this is perfect. Who cares if they are idiots. Make them 'useful idiots' and let's get something done. Get your heads out of your asses. What make of AR was this guy shooting? Was it made in Illinois? That would be PERFECT to show the BS about interstate commerce allowing the federal regulation of MG's. Any ruling against the MG ban/regulations would be chipping away at its foundation. |
|
+1 |
|
|
I am in IL (unfortunately). -The local public gun range that deals & rents some FA guns (for the indoor range) said when I asked them about (the FA guns they rent) that you pretty much had to have a storefront business in IL now to get class-3 at all, and you have to "be moving inventory" as an active dealer. A paperwork home-business just to get the fun stuff for your own use doesn't cut it anymore. And I don't know for sure, but I can't recall anyone renting or dealing suppressors in IL either. I was under the impression that there was a specific law preventing IL CLEO's for signing for suppressors at all. ~ |
|
|
Face it guy's we civilians will never again be allowed to own machine guns without all the Federal regulation and paperwork. The '86 ban is never going away no matter who is on the SCOTUS.
|
|
Offhand, I think he would probably say something about "established law" (precedent), unless the attys for the LEOs (and Dr.) were able to frame the argument as a clear-cut Interstate Commerce case. |
||
|
Or to put away someone they just don't like? Forgery isn't very far removed, intent-wise, from evidence planting/manufacturing. Also, I think the red highlighted part shows them to be more than aware of the criminality of their actions. |
|
|
Bingo! For the case at hand, though, I think the forgery issue buries them. If they had done it without the forgery, I'd think they had a stronger/better case. You know how people ask/exclaim: "Well, don't that beat all?" If this case were picked up as a test case for 1934 or 1986 or Interstate Commerce, it *would* "beat all". I make no predictions as to whether it would "win" (bad word choice) or not; merely commenting on my perception of the likelihood of it being used as a SCOTUS test case. ETA: Speaking of "extreme unlikelihoods," this is in the same ballpark, though a *little* more unlikely than the above scenario: Tomorrow, GWB issues an executive order repealing NFA 1934, GCA 1968, and FOPA 1986, all in one fell swoop. Suppressed SBMG matches are held on the White House lawn. Laura Bush wins; Feinstein and Schumer come in 2nd and 3rd, respectively. High fives all around. No dogs were harmed in the dreaming-up of this scenario, or its aftermath. |
|
|
That's how they get *all* organized criminals. |
||
|
Police or not, this is bullshit. They're facing 10 years, but if they lived 80 or so miles east, they would be in compliance with the law. This needs to go before the SCOTUS so that the illegal regulations in Illinois and elsewhere can be proven unconstitutional and repealed.
|
|
Let's not forget mail fraud as well... |
|||
|
Are you sure? Did these guys have permission from Uncle Sam and were just in violation of State law? I got the distinct impression that at least one of the weapons was illegally converted and would have been illegal no matter what state law applied. I'm not trying to be smart, I'm just asking. |
|
|
How exactly is forgery EVER in compliance with the law? |
|
|
As I mentioned earlier, I'm not familiar enough with the process to have picked up on that. P08's post gave the impression that the proper paper-shuffling can get the job done legally and given my lack of familiarity with the process, I did not immediately conclude that he was referring to a C3 SOT. Nothing in the entire thread suggested that the accused qualified for a C3 and that a mere $530 would have avoided the whole debacle. This is why I got the impression that perhaps P08 knew a way that an IL resident could obtain NFA goodies for personal use. I was asking a serious question as to how one could do that because I seriously would get to work on it right away so I could legally own a Krink, something I have wanted for some time now. If there is a way that ordinary folk can legally possess NFA items in IL, I'd want to know about it. |
|
|
There was a very simple and easy way for these guys to get the MG's that they wanted and not go to jail. They could have gone in as a corporation and gotten their FFL $90 for three years (the first time is more but I don't remember, been a FFL since 89) After they got their FFL they simply kick in enough to cover the $500 SOT Special Occupational Taxpayer status. Once this was paid for they would be in business as Class 3 machine gun dealers. As LEO I am sure that they would have had little trouble getting demo letters for post samples. Remember you really do not have to sell guns, but you do have to try. As far as I remember the ATF cannot do anything if you are a crappy salesman! What they did was plain and simple stupidity, or arrogance that because they were LEO that they could get away with it. |
|
|
I am going to ASSUME that they had a valid FOID card. It would have been interesting if one of the ISP finest did not have his card up to date.
|
|
I KNEW IT! Its all about money edit: i mean; the .gov getting the money |
||
|
Legalese:
Easiest way to get Full Auto in IL is to buy a place in Wisconsin or Indiana or other bordering state. You can set up a part time residence in that state, and be legal (per Federal Law) to get Full Auto (assuming you do the Form 4 and pay the Transfer Tax). The Full Auto must be stored in that state (you can use a bank safe deposit box if you want). AFARR Additionally--I belive you can get (the state might frown on it) Full Auto as a Licensed Dealer and pay the $200 transfer tax on the individual item (instead of the SOT--my understanding of the SOT is that it covers all the transfer taxes in one flat fee, so it is a TAX, not a license). |
|
Does anyone know if the forgery part is true? I have searched, and this is the first reference to it I can find. Thanks efpeter |
|
|
Yep. |
|
|
I have a hard time feeling sorry for these cops ----- as cops have always thought that cus they are cops that these gun rules dont apply to them , IF it is true that this cop got caught shooting his gun & another cop wanted to see his "paperwork"-- this is too ritch !!-- i would like to know why the courts decided to take this case- this far - as these liberal judges here in chicago are gonna be reluctant to touch this one?-- there has to be alot more to this story !
|
|
Its this sort of thing that led to a total lack of confidence in IL LE by the former governer and a boat-load of commutted death sentences. |
|
|
They didn't pay their taxes. It is a federal charge not a state charge. It wouldn't matter if they were living across the Wabash River or just on the other side of the Mississippi, where FA is legal as well, they'd still be charged on the Federal stuff. In fact, I'd be willing to bet in any state they'd be charged with forging the dept letterhead. |
|
|
I think the point is they wouldn't have resorted to what they did if there was a readily available legal avenue to pursue. In Indiana they hand out machine guns as door prizes at gun shows. (Well, almost) |
||
|
We don't know what they would or would not have done. All we do know is they bypassed Federal laws to get their toys. Specifically, they faked dept letterhead. Now whether they did that to bypass state laws OR just to bypass the Federal tax OR a combination of both, we'll never know. |
|||
|
Well, as a resident of Illinoisistan I can assure you it is all but impossible to own a MG, SBR, suppressor, or pointy stick. In Indiana you pay a $200 one time tax, get your paperwork in order, and take possession of your toy. No reason for skullduggery. |
||||
|
I'm originally from Illinios and maintain a residence there. I know the laws there, but if these guys were willing to go this far we don't know how far they'd be willing to go in IN, MO, or VA to avoid the Federal stuff. Let's face it once you've demonstrated a lapse in honor, it's impossible to know just how much honor, if any, someone has. |
|
|
It's impossible to argue with that. Hopefully it was simply hubris and a bold spirit. In case you can't tell, I have a very cavalier attitude about breaking laws (NOT that I do, have, or would do so myself--I'm chickenshit and have too much to lose) which are so blatantly unconstitutional and WRONG. |
||
|
10 Chiefs oppose gun charges against troopers . . . .
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1575098/posts Machine gun charge in Illinois is challenged www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisstatenews/story/21A115E7CF1C712B862571100019A71D?OpenDocument |
|
This entire article and incident makes me want to puke. They used to sell full autos through the mail with no questions asked. No matter if the guys were cops and would have busted anyone else, this should not be happening to ANYONE in a free country.
This is a sorry excuse for a free country. GR |
|
Thousands of people in this country are in jail for simply doing drugs and minding their own business. I doubt a few cops busted with illegal machine guns is going to change anything except for their living arragements (to federal prison). |
||
|
<Whips out handy-dandy copy of United States Constitution> Nope--no mention of "doing drugs" as an enumerated God-given right. |
|||
|
You must have the expurgated version.
Considering that opium and tobacco and hemp and alcohol were commonly available back in the 1780's, if the Founding Fathers had intended for the federal government to throw people in prison for using them, they probably would have mentioned it somewhere in the document, just as their heirs did with the 18th (and the 21st) Amendment(s). |
|||||
|
I totally agree with you re enumerated vs. non-enumerated rights, 71-Hour_Achmed. It [most likely] *should* be an issue for "the many states".
That said, I think a case for "compelling state interest" and/or "interstate commerce" could be made *much* easier for drug-related issues than 2A/RKBA issues. |
|
There is no mention of God at all in our constitution, maybe you should check again. There is this amendment you might read: Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Sorry, but I just don't buy it. The arguement for the drug war is just as foolish as the arguement for gun control. |
|||||
|
No, it's not. |
|
|
npd, what is your rationale for your statement? Tim84: Same question. |
||
|
Not this shit again.
Last time this came up I got lynched because I think law enforcement officers who intentionally commit felonies ought to be punished. |
|
I'm still looking for the part that gives the federal government to "regulate" drugs at all. Are we looking at the same Constitution? |
||||
|
This POV is exactly what the Founders feared: that which is not explicitly allowed is implicitly prohibited. Your enumerated right is FREEDOM. The entire war on drugs and the regulation of guns are drastic overreaches of Federal power based on the commerce clause. |
|
|
Agreed--but it's important to point out I wasn't expressing a "point of view." When the druggies trot out to compare and attach "doing drugs" with "the right to keep and bear arms" it's absurd, and I only sought to point that out. This is a subject I will not debate--same as abortion, and for the same reasons--but I did want to clarify that I DO understand the concept of enumerated rights versus implicit rights. |
||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.