Man Arrested for Stolen Magazines


PDA






Mikee Loxxer
July 5, 2009, 01:48 PM
Follow the link and read this news story about a guy with M16 magazines stamped "for law enforcement only." What does the The High Road readership think about this?


I have seen such magazines for sale at gun shows. Does possessing these make one criminally liable?

http://www.kolnkgin.com/home/headlines/49627267.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Man Arrested for Stolen Magazines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gamera
July 5, 2009, 01:54 PM
He's not in trouble because they're "law enforcement only" mags, he's in trouble because he (apparently) stole them from the army. I wonder how the cops knew right away that they were stolen? Or did they? Hmmmm.....

TexasRifleman
July 5, 2009, 01:57 PM
Might turn out to be some egg on the face of LE here unless he really stole them.

I don't think the magazines issued by the army say "LE only".

GRIZ22
July 5, 2009, 02:18 PM
I don't think the magazines issued by the army say "LE only".
__________________


M16 magazines procured by the military during the AWB were marked "LE/Govt Use only".

divemedic
July 5, 2009, 02:22 PM
Nebraska State Patrol were surprised at some of the cargo they found while conducting a checkpoint for illegal fireworks near Auburn...NSP conducted the checkpoint along with the State Fire Marshal's Office. NSP says they inspected 125 vehicles for safety issues, and issued some warnings for traffic violations, including 11 seatbelt violations. NSP spokesperson Deb Collins said one person was cited for having an open container.

Doesn't sound like a check for illegal fireworks to me. Sounds more like a fishing expedition that is designed to circumvent the 4A while trashing the 2A, to me.

I also would like one of those cops to explain what the difference is between an M-16 and an AR-15 magazine, and even if they WERE proven to be M-16 magazines, what made them illegal to possess. Also, I want to hear how they can tell they were Army property, and even if they were, how they can prove they were not legally acquired.

This is an article designed to impress the public into believing that the checkpoints that destroy our liberty is needed, so the bad men won't get them while America sleeps.

4v50 Gary
July 5, 2009, 02:22 PM
So, if the magazines are marked, "Le only," does this mean that the Army stole them from some LE agency?

Zach S
July 5, 2009, 02:23 PM
I don't think the magazines issued by the army say "LE only".
That's what I was thinking.

The LEOs may have just assumed he stole them since he's in the NG.

these are illegal because they are stamped for law enforcement only,
:rolleyes:

NC-Mike
July 5, 2009, 02:31 PM
I bet they were also somehow marked property of Nebraska National Guard.

And they could have also been marked for LEO use only cause the Guard can be called upon for that role.



Regardless of that, the reporting remains incorrect.

fireman 9731
July 5, 2009, 02:34 PM
State police checking for illegal fireworks?
Don't they have anything better to do?!?!

As child molesters lurk in the night, they ruin peoples 4th of July because they have a few pop bottle rockets.:banghead:

I guarantee they decided to check things more thoroughly just because he had a few guns in the car :barf:

jerkface11
July 5, 2009, 03:03 PM
I've never had cops at a checkpoint ask if I had guns in the car. One time I even had a gun case in the passenger seat in plain view.

Tim the student
July 5, 2009, 03:26 PM
Almost all the magazines I used in the Army were marked like that.

It was common that the armorer wouldn't want mags from guys who were clearing as they were up about 300 on the books.

I think thats kind of scary that guys might get arrested after trying to turn them in and not being able to.

On the upside of that checkpoint, at least they arrested a drunk driver.

damien
July 5, 2009, 03:35 PM
I wonder how the cops knew right away that they were stolen? Or did they? Hmmmm.....

It may be that they questioned him and he self-incriminated. A lot of crooks do that.

But if he didn't self-incriminate and they can't show the providence of those magazines, then they don't have a case. Any criminal attorney would be able to win that one. If they can show the providence of the mags or he self-incriminated then he's a crook.

duckman007
July 5, 2009, 04:09 PM
I have several magazines marked as such and obtained them legally from law enforcement agencies. As mentioned earlier, they're from the previous ban and are basically identical to any other magazine. Unless they have something other than the markings to suspect him of theft, their case is weak at best, and may very well come back to bite them.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 5, 2009, 04:20 PM
So, if the magazines are marked, "Le only," does this mean that the Army stole them from some LE agency?

That's what I was wondering - seems to me that the cops here ought to be over at the base arresting the ranking general for stealing these from a LEOA (before this guy stole them from the army, as they say). Absolutely absurd.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 5, 2009, 04:23 PM
Best guess:

These are surplus magazines manufactured during the AWB and are, of course, are now legal for anyone to own. I'll bet there isn't even a BOLO for magazines stolen from the military. I haven't heard of one.

The mistake here is the dude was driving drunk, or drinking while driving.

Woody

jordan1948
July 5, 2009, 04:24 PM
If he did purchase them and they weren't stolen, then this is where the dremel comes in handy.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 5, 2009, 04:27 PM
Except that there's no need to do that, when it's perfectly legal to own them.

bigalexe
July 5, 2009, 04:28 PM
Nebraska State Patrol were surprised at some of the cargo they found while conducting a checkpoint for illegal fireworks near Auburn

I'd like to know at what point the United States became Eastern Germany and the "Law Enforcement" was given the ability to setup random checkpoints where they can search your vehicle without due cause. I thought there was some clause somewhere in some document of law stating protection from "Unreasonable Search and Seizure." Im pretty sure that random checkpoints for all citizens falls under this category.

Flyboy
July 5, 2009, 04:44 PM
I wonder what the checkpoint cops would have done with a 1911 stamped "Property of US Government."

Ah, well. Running a checkpoint has to be safer than hunting down actual criminals, and we all know that officer safety is paramount.

kirklandkie
July 5, 2009, 04:49 PM
i have two 20 round magazines labeled for LE and Military use only, i obtained both legally. it seems to me this is another case of an individual power tripping on his LE time.

-kirk

jordan1948
July 5, 2009, 04:52 PM
Except that there's no need to do that, when it's perfectly legal to own them. No but it avoids convusion and news stories like this one.

Crash_Test_Dhimmi
July 5, 2009, 04:58 PM
The magazines in the army are listed as expendable, since they do go "bad" (FTF's) and the springs can go bad, or the weld points breaking, etc... they are expendable, you can turn them in for a one for one basis. That being said, there is little accountability for these things, and I have known many people acquiring poop loads of them throughout their careers. Kind of like a bank teller bringing home free pens with the little chains on them.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 5, 2009, 05:05 PM
No but it avoids convusion and news stories like this one.

True enough....

Here is the contact page for the Nebraska State Patrol...have at em kiddos:

http://www.nsp.state.ne.us/findfile.asp?id2=54#Troop%20C

http://www.nsp.state.ne.us/contact_us.asp

rbernie
July 5, 2009, 05:43 PM
it seems to me this is another case of an individual power tripping on his LE time.
I know that it's not nearly as much fun, but let's avoid jumping to generalized conclusions until we get a few more details, ok?

Comments like this define the exact opposite of The High Road.

Im pretty sure that random checkpoints for all citizens falls under this category. Sadly, 'public safety' checkpoints (e.g. sobriety checkpoints) have been ruled as legal and Constitutional for many years now.

NavyLCDR
July 5, 2009, 05:48 PM
The magazines I was issued by the Army to go to Iraq with last year were stamped "Brownells".

John Parker
July 5, 2009, 05:53 PM
The guy probably told them that he stole them from his unit. People do STUPID things when talking to cops.

Bill2e
July 5, 2009, 05:55 PM
Troopers arrested the man for DUI and Possession of Stolen Property.


The man got a DUI, the rest are tack on charges. Driving Drunk is the problem here.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 5, 2009, 06:32 PM
Driving Drunk is not the only problem here. It's being accused of a crime you didn't commit - that's a SECOND additional problem here.

the rest are tack on charges.

So just any and every "tack on" charge is ok, so long as the first charge is legit? So if you're given a speeding ticket, you should also be charged with reckless driving and robbery for good measure?

ljnowell
July 5, 2009, 06:40 PM
VI'd like to know at what point the United States became Eastern Germany and the "Law Enforcement" was given the ability to setup random checkpoints where they can search your vehicle without due cause. I thought there was some clause somewhere in some document of law stating protection from "Unreasonable Search and Seizure." Im pretty sure that random checkpoints for all citizens falls under this category.

Here in the Peoples Republic of Illinois those are called Roadside Safety Checks. Every holiday weekend and around any holiday they will randomly set up road blocks at Interstate Exit ramps and four way intersections in smaller towns. They will then "Randomly" pull over cars as they come through. Typically you get harassed about where you are going, where you have been, what you are doing, and who you are doing it with. When they become satisfied with this they ask you if you have any guns, drugs, alcohol, or naked midgets in the car. If they think you have had a drink, or any fun at all, they will ask to search your vehicle. If you refuse they have a stack of Fill-in-the-blank warrants sitting there, signed by a judge just for the occasion. What bill of rights?

jimmyraythomason
July 5, 2009, 06:49 PM
"Fill-in-the-blank warrants sitting there, signed by a judge just for the occasion" I think a good defense lawyer should be able to get these thrown out. Never heard of a generic warrant. I should think a competent judge would know better.

SCKimberFan
July 5, 2009, 06:52 PM
Sadly, 'public safety' checkpoints (e.g. sobriety checkpoints) have been ruled as legal and Constitutional for many years now.

I must agree. It is sad that the 4th Amendment doesn't protect us from things of this nature.

MDW GUNS
July 5, 2009, 06:58 PM
Unless he told them he stole them form the Army, Trooper Christopher Richardson is wrong and is lucky that the guy was drunk!
Otherwise he would have to answer a claim for false arrest.

There are ten thousands if not hundred thousands of magazines out there stamped "LE/Military only".
Everything made between 1994 and 2004 was stamped this way and they are all legal for civilians to own.

cassandrasdaddy
July 5, 2009, 06:59 PM
So if you're given a speeding ticket, you should also be charged with reckless driving and robbery for good measure?

if you were reckless or robbing yea


If you refuse they have a stack of Fill-in-the-blank warrants sitting there, signed by a judge just for the occasion.


yea? source?

jimmyraythomason
July 5, 2009, 07:01 PM
States require a license to drive a vehicle on the highway and sets safety standards for that vehicle. So since you are obviously driving when you come to a roadblock/license/safety check these are legitimate stops. Vehicle SEARCHES on the other hand require (1)probable cause,(2) warrant signed by a judge,(not a fill in the blank warrant) or drivers permission. ANY other search is a violation of the 4th Amendment regardless of what state you are in.

chuckusaret
July 5, 2009, 07:04 PM
Wow, I have dozens marked "for law enforcement only." and according to the state are legal.
I did something at a gun show today that bothered me. A LEO told a vendor that the switch blade knives he was selling were illegal in Florida. I suggested that he, the LEO, review Florida Statute 790.225 and his reply was "son you read it, I know that it is illegal". With that I knew that it was a waste of time to talk to him. Hey, Son, I am 72 years old.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 5, 2009, 07:05 PM
if you were reckless or robbing yea

And that's precisely the point; he wasn't; Mr. Bill2e implies that if one charge is legit, any "tack on" charges are too, even if completely innocent of them. See the distinction? I'll spell it out: In one case, the person DID commit a 2nd/3rd crime (your hypothetical which no one even raised), and in this second case, the person did NOT commit a 2nd/3rd crime.

cassandrasdaddy
July 5, 2009, 07:26 PM
ANY other search is a violation of the 4th Amendment regardless of what state you are in.

terry
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04

cassandrasdaddy
July 5, 2009, 07:27 PM
And that's precisely the point; he wasn't; Mr. Bill2e implies that if one charge is legit, any "tack on" charges are too, even if completely innocent of them. See the distinction? I'll spell it out: In one case, the person DID commit a 2nd/3rd crime (your hypothetical which no one even raised), and in this second case, the person did NOT commit a 2nd/3rd crime.

once they pop ya anything else they find while booking/processing you is fair game. solution? don't drive drunk

JR47
July 5, 2009, 07:38 PM
Any number of magazines produced during the AWB of 1994 were marked for Government/LEO use. When the ban expired in 2004, they were legally sold on the open market. Some of the current Ruger 20 round Mini-14 mags that are for sale are so marked. With the expiration of the Ban, in 2004, the markings became an interesting historical foot note.

It appears that the State Police are a few years behind the times, and took the stampings to be somehow still in effect. I wonder what other laws they're five years behind on?

Maelstrom
July 5, 2009, 07:57 PM
once they pop ya anything else they find while booking/processing you is fair game. solution? don't drive drunk

Don't try to reason with Tad. He hates cops a tad too much.

Mags
July 5, 2009, 08:00 PM
I think everyone is missing the point that this guy was a National Guardsman who had apparently had access to these magazines from his employement. I think the dotted lines are missing in the story as to how they identified the magazines as ones stolen from the Guard.

longdayjake
July 5, 2009, 08:04 PM
If he was driving drunk and in posession of stolen property then he deserves whatever punishment he gets. However there should be a presumption of innocence in both cases before anyone does any judging of the officers or the subject. Interestingly stupid media story though.

Rockwell1
July 5, 2009, 08:50 PM
I remember seeing foot lockers full of M-16 30 round magazines in the surplus stores on B-street here in the springs. I don't recall ever seeing a magazine stamped " LE/Military use during my career" but I Got out in '88.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 5, 2009, 08:53 PM
And that's precisely the point; he wasn't; Mr. Bill2e implies that if one charge is legit, any "tack on" charges are too, even if completely innocent of them. See the distinction? I'll spell it out: In one case, the person DID commit a 2nd/3rd crime (your hypothetical which no one even raised), and in this second case, the person did NOT commit a 2nd/3rd crime.

once they pop ya anything else they find while booking/processing you is fair game. solution? don't drive drunk

That's hilarious. What you just posted PROVES that you didn't READ what you just posted, as the second part flies directly in the face of the first part!

"anything else they find" - they didn't FIND ANYTHING AT ALL. ZILCH. ZIP. NADA. NOTHING. Nothing beyond a DUI. Don't you get the difference between a crime and not a crime? That's the fundamental distinction you learn day ONE on the job. But I guess you didn't. I was only kidding when I said let me spell it out for you - but now I think you really may not understand the difference between a crime and not a crime, based on your completely nonsensical posts.

Don't try to reason with Tad. He hates cops a tad too much.

That would be YOU Maelstrom, that completely lacks any reasoning skills, if you think that what CD said makes any sense at all. Everyone understands what an add on charge is; it's just that most people think you should actually have done something before being charged with it; whereas CD and others apparently think you should just make stuff up and charge it. And I like cops; have several friends; just hate illogic and clear rights violations.

raskolnikov_22
July 5, 2009, 08:57 PM
The magazines I was issued by the Army to go to Iraq with last year were stamped "Brownells".

Good mags.

cassandrasdaddy
July 5, 2009, 09:10 PM
seems that the cop claims the mags were stolen from the army and they were turned over to them so the army can deal with him. time will tell if they were stolen. but then again perhaps mr winslow has info i haven't seen. then again maybe not

hso
July 5, 2009, 09:10 PM
Troopers arrested the man for DUI and Possession of Stolen Property. Trooper Richardson said the man, who's a member of the Kansas National Guard, stole eight magazines for the army M16

Let's see them prove he stole them since I've picked up plenty at gunshows that were well used and marked "LE/Military Only".

danprkr
July 5, 2009, 09:22 PM
Sadly, 'public safety' checkpoints (e.g. sobriety checkpoints) have been ruled as legal and Constitutional for many years now.

Just because the courts have made a bad ruling doesn't make it a just ruling.

Mags
July 5, 2009, 09:27 PM
Let's see them prove he stole them since I've picked up plenty at gunshows that were well used and marked "LE/Military Only".

Maybe the unit that is missing the mags has an identifier on them. My unit has barcodes affixed to the bottom of the mags to issue them out of a computer system. Firearms are issued the same way.

cassandrasdaddy
July 5, 2009, 09:28 PM
oh don't spoil their fun

NC-Mike
July 5, 2009, 09:32 PM
Quote:
The magazines I was issued by the Army to go to Iraq with last year were stamped "Brownells".

Good mags.

I got some of em, they are good mags! :)

earlthegoat2
July 5, 2009, 09:38 PM
I don't think the magazines issued by the army say "LE only".

They do if they are from the first AWB days.

Colt Ar-15s still have the little "For LE and Military Only" marked right on the receiver of all their rifles. Nothing illegal about it but I bet it sells more rifles.

danprkr
July 5, 2009, 09:48 PM
cassandrasdaddy - I think you miss a point here. We're not, or at least I'm not saying the cops did anything technically illegal.

However, random stops and searches are violations of the 4th amendment regardless of the legality. We just may not be able to do anything about them at the moment. That doesn't make them morally right or constitutional, merely legal. There is a difference, and some of us are pointing it out. At least that's what I got out of jimmyraythomason's post.

jimmyraythomason please correct me if I'm wrong, and that's not what you were trying to say. I stand beside it regardless.

As to the mags themselves there are 2 possibilities. One, he stole them from his unit or 2 he didn't. We don't have enough information to decide right now. The real issue is did the LEO on site have enough to make a reasonable judgment that the mags were stolen. If he went strictly off the markings then the LEO is in for a rude awakening. If the drunk dude admitted something or there were other reasons for the LEO to believe the mags were stolen, and they were then I hope he gets the max. Oh wait, except for that whole it happened during an unconstitutional search in which case it all becomes inadmissible, and he should walk.

Boy what a mess for 100 bucks worth of magazines.


.

jimmyraythomason
July 5, 2009, 10:01 PM
That is exactly what I'm saying,danprkr. LEO often violate our rights in the name of safety but you deal with it in court after the fact not on the side of the road. A few years ago when my son-in-law was in the police academy,I treated the family to dinner out. When my s-i-l arrived I asked him what they had studied that day. His response; HOW TO GET AROUND THE 4th AMENDMENT.

SharpsDressedMan
July 5, 2009, 10:13 PM
As a cop, I always asked myself, "Do I have real probable cause here", when I made an arrest. If I didn't, I didn't arrest. It always worked well for me. Never had a bad arrest, always gave the benefit of doubt. Figured if the guy was dirty, we'd get him on something GOOD on another day............I guess they don't operate that way anymore.....

Jim K
July 5, 2009, 10:31 PM
That marking was required by the now defunct AWB; it has no meaning now as far as federal law goes, and I don't think there is any state law about possession. The cops are just over-reacting. At one time, police and federal agents tried to arrest everyone with a .45 pistol marked "U.S.Property" for possessing stolen government property. They got their fannies kicked in court when defense attorneys proved that the government had sold thousands of those guns and kept no records.

Jim

TheFallGuy
July 5, 2009, 10:50 PM
I bet this guy probably incriminated himself while drunk. People do stupid things while drunk which is why we aren't supposed to drive drunk. Guys like to brag when drunk. This guy probably whipped out his military ID to get out of a jam like a lot of us have. The LEO probably asked him about his service and he went on to talk about where he got the mags. We don't have enough details here to make a judgement call.

As any cop who has been on the job for more then a day will tell you, people often incriminate themselves without much prodding. A good cop knows will just sit back and LISTEN and then ask for the story again to see if it is consistent. We have the right to be silent but as a people we seldom use it.

As for the mags, if he did take them from the military, he is an idiot. If you have been in the service, you know what these things go through and they get abused and used. What does a Pmag cost? $20 or so? Versus theft charges and trial, and a better mag in better shape. Tough call...

divemedic
July 5, 2009, 11:37 PM
terry
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...on/amendment04

Terry is not as wide reaching as you think.

Flyboy
July 6, 2009, 12:05 AM
Sadly, 'public safety' checkpoints (e.g. sobriety checkpoints) have been ruled as legal and Constitutional for many years now.
So were treating blacks as property (Dred Scott) and "separate but equal" (Plessy).

Just because the nine tin Jesuses said so, don't make it right. It's the law for now, but that's a long way from being right.

tkopp
July 6, 2009, 01:57 AM
Holy cow. Welcome to the wild-arse world of 'I wasn't there but based on a second hand report from TV news aimed at a disinterested and uneducated public I think...'

armoredman
July 6, 2009, 04:09 AM
I have one mag for my P01 marked "law enforcement only". The incredible thing is there were no LE at that time issuing P01/PCR/Compacts, so it is one of maybe 5 mags marked that way before the ban ended.
Legal as church on any day of the week to own out here in AZ, does Nebraska specifically bar possession of marked magazines by statute?

danprkr
July 6, 2009, 09:21 AM
Holy cow. Welcome to the wild-arse world of 'I wasn't there but based on a second hand report from TV news aimed at a disinterested and uneducated public I think...'

Well yeah? That's the fun of it. :p

Zach S
July 6, 2009, 10:10 AM
Oh wait, except for that whole it happened during an unconstitutional search in which case it all becomes inadmissible, and he should walk.
Have you ever watched COPS? Its amazing at how many people dont care about their rights and say "sure, go ahead" when a LEO asks to search the vehicle. A lot of these folks are sober. The guy in the news story was not.

BHP FAN
July 6, 2009, 10:36 AM
Heck,they're on sale THIS VERY MINUTE over at CDNN Sports.

doc2rn
July 6, 2009, 11:24 AM
Easy fix he bought them at a dermo sale.
He bought them when he was serving and lost one so he bought extras
He wanted to practice with same thing he would be using if he went to the academy

Sounds like they just wanted to keep his weapons

Omaha-BeenGlockin
July 6, 2009, 11:35 AM
They do this every year --"to stem the flow of illegal fireworks(bottle rockets) from Missouri"---what a joke. Basically make an example of one guy in the hopes nobody else does it.

Most of em go to Omaha--up I-29(Iowa) then to I-80 into Omaha----will be a cold day in hell if they ever set up a check point on the I80 bridge---the public outrage would be swift and sure.

danprkr
July 6, 2009, 02:44 PM
Have you ever watched COPS? Its amazing at how many people dont care about their rights and say "sure, go ahead" when a LEO asks to search the vehicle. A lot of these folks are sober. The guy in the news story was not.

I figured that was implied in my post when I said If the drunk dude admitted something...

You're right though if he gave permission for the search then he skrood himself. People do that ALL THE TIME - I had a 'tenant' once that had to go all the way through the 3 month process of eviction to get her out. With 3 months notice that it was coming she still had crack in the apartment when I showed up with the constable for the forcible eviction.:what: So, it is perfectly believable that he said something stupid. However, he should not have been being checked in the first place which is what bothers me about the whole affair.

-

runrabbitrun
July 6, 2009, 02:49 PM
he should not have been being checked in the first place is what bothers me about the whole afair.

Same here. These road side 'check points' are unconstitutional IMHO.

It reminds me of Nazi Germany and it is very unsettling
to see it going on here in the US of A.

JohnBT
July 6, 2009, 02:52 PM
"It reminds me of Nazi Germany."

What years did you live in Nazi Germany?

John

John Wayne
July 6, 2009, 03:01 PM
Mags marked "LE/Gov't. Use Only" can still be purchased at PX stations on military bases. They're available for the M9 and M-16 (obviously), and are dirt cheap because they're made by the lowest bidder. The last one I saw was an M9 mag marked this way, but with a 2005 manufacturing date stamped on it. This leads me to believe it's not so much a capacity issue as it is something to mark government property.

logjam
July 6, 2009, 03:03 PM
Years ago I was burglarized and lost over a dozen fine guns. The perp was caught on his way to LA to sell his ill gotten gains. I asked the cops what had happened to my guns. They said, "Gee, we don't know".

danprkr
July 6, 2009, 09:36 PM
"It reminds me of Nazi Germany."

What years did you live in Nazi Germany?

John

Of what relevance is the answer to your question? I personally never lived in Nazi Germany, but have this mysterious power to read and comprehend history so don't have to have lived in Nazi Germany to understand what happened there and see how it is similar or not to current situations.

cassandrasdaddy
July 6, 2009, 09:44 PM
so that was a rather long "never"?

alemonkey
July 6, 2009, 09:45 PM
Regarding the checkpoint, Auburn is in the southeastern corner of Nebraska, right next to the Missouri border. Missouri is the mecca for illegal (in other states) fireworks...M80's, bottle rockets, etc. Just across the border there are huge fireworks stands selling anything you could want. The State Patrol sets up check points every year around the 4th and searches cars coming across the border from Missouri. I think it's a ridiculous and unconstitutional waste of law enforcement resources, but anyone who drives drunk from Missouri to Nebraska this time of year is a class A idiot.

Mags
July 6, 2009, 09:47 PM
Mags marked "LE/Gov't. Use Only" can still be purchased at PX stations on military bases.
BS. The only gun related stuff the BX sells anymore is cleaning kits and Air guns however you can't discharge an air gun on base.

jimmyraythomason
July 6, 2009, 10:09 PM
"The State Patrol sets up check points every year around the 4th and searches cars coming across the border from Missouri." RED FLAG! There is NO WAY such radom searches can be Constitutionally justified! Has anyone contacted the Nebraska state AG office about this? How about on the Federal level? Do they also check for alcohol that hasn't had Neb.state taxes paid on it? This stinks to high heaven.

cassandrasdaddy
July 6, 2009, 10:28 PM
they did check for booze back when i lived in bellvue in the 70's. particularly underage booze buyers they would fill a dumpster with what they confiscated

smktr8
July 6, 2009, 10:48 PM
Well they got him for drinking and the fireworks so they are going to charge him with anything they can make up. Even low air in his tires if they can out there. I bet if they pulled him over any other for a tail light out they would of just blew it off he could of got them at a swap meet. But what kind of state is that where they let there troopers set up check points for fire works. I live in the Rotten wealth of Mass and I have never seen such a check point and this state would of chared this guy for trying not to pay the tax on the beer and fireworks.

Hanzerik
July 6, 2009, 10:49 PM
Mags marked "LE/Gov't. Use Only" can still be purchased at PX stations on military bases.
BS. The only gun related stuff the BX sells anymore is cleaning kits and Air guns however you can't discharge an air gun on base.

Depends on the Base, there are still USAF Base Exchanges that sell guns.

ETA: I personally have not been to a base that sells guns, but there was an article from Whiteman AFB, MO (http://www.442fw.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123147529) that stated they would start carrying firearms, and Eglin AFB, FL, and some of the AF bases up in AK are some of the other bases that I have read about carrying guns. Now that I am thinking about it, the Rod&Gun club at RAF Lakenheath did sell guns when I was stationed there (RAF Mildenhall 95-98), but I'm sure they don't anymore with the crazy British laws.

Mags
July 6, 2009, 10:54 PM
Been in 8 years and some change and havent came across one yet. Only been to 6 bases though. The guys at Barksdale said they used too you must be at F.E., you a 2w2?

riverrat373
July 6, 2009, 10:56 PM
I didn't know that there were sooooooooo many attorneys that are members here!

w_houle
July 6, 2009, 10:58 PM
Yeah, and every MRE is marked "U.S. Government Property Commercial Resale is Unlawful", but the commissary was selling those.

ChCx2744
July 6, 2009, 11:08 PM
I'll be honest with you (as an LEO) and this doesn't make sense to me, either. If you think about it, there is no such thing as a "LE only M16 magazine." All civilian market magazines you see in stores and online can fit M16A2s and M4A2s that the military use...Now I think they stamp that kind of stuff on certain guns to differentiate between different models, however. For example, on the Beretta 92G. The regular 92 and 92FS magazines do NOT work on 92Gs. The 92G can ONLY accept a SINGLE type of magazine that is obviously different (bigger floorplate, different location of magazine catch hole/hook indentation, different size of lips on the top). If you try to use a regular model mag on a 92G it will not seat into the magazine well, period. Unless it is to prevent confusion and mis-use in the improper weapon, I don't see why they would stamp "Restricted LE/Military use only" on any of them. There IS NO explanation for this, especially because they are AR style magazines. No explanation, unless he really stole them.

Another explanation is probably the fact that they MAY have been "illegal" at one point in time, maybe during the AWB. There are many milsurp magazines with those stamps and it "shouldn't" be illegal to have them. Do not quote me on this, but I do not believe that having a milsurp "LE/Military only" stamped AR mag is illegal...Many people own them that are not LE or military.

riverrat373
July 6, 2009, 11:17 PM
Maybe they were Ruger Mini 14 factory mags. I have several of them and they all are stamped "For law Enforcement Only" even though I bought them from the Ruger store. M16 and Mini 14 mags look very similar.

Hanzerik
July 6, 2009, 11:24 PM
Been in 8 years and some change and havent came across one yet. Only been to 6 bases though. The guys at Barksdale said they used too you must be at F.E., you a 2w2?
Nope, 8S000 (Facility Manager - Special Duty), been in 20+ years, with 7 PCS assignments, tons of TDYs to other US bases, and have not been to a one that had firearms for sale in a Base Exchange (Just RAF Lakenheath R&G club). Just because we have not been to one, doesn't mean they don't exist :-)

Mags
July 6, 2009, 11:27 PM
Just because we have not been to one, doesn't mean they don't exist :-)
Good point, but it sure would be nice to have a BX that sold guns here.

KenWP
July 6, 2009, 11:52 PM
For the Canadain made M16 look a like they only have plastic clips issued up here. We have to buy US clips if we want metal out of our own pocket.

Jeff White
July 7, 2009, 01:17 AM
This thread is diverging off into about 4 different directions. We have a discussion of magazines, a discussion of roadside safety checks a discussion of how the man came into possession of the magazines and a discussion of checks for fireworks and untaxed liquor.....Tell you what, the first person who comes up with the arrest report so we can have a discussion about the actual incident is free to open a new thread. In the meantime, there is no sense carrying on with this thread.

Mal H
July 7, 2009, 11:11 AM
I'm adding one more post. We received an email from the Nebraska State Patrol concerning this story. I will post it in it's entirety, including the foreward:

The Nebraska Sate Patrol has received numerous contacts from members of your website in regards to a recent news story involving a vehicle checkpoint. We would like to address the situation in this email, to ensure your members are aware of the situation as it unfolded. If possible would you please post the following reply so that all of your members might view our response.


Thank you for taking the time to contact the Nebraska State Patrol with your concerns, about a recent TV news stories filmed during a fireworks checkpoint in Nemaha County, Nebraska. You are correct that the possession of magazines marked in the fashion described by many of your members are legal to possess. Our trooper made an inaccurate statement to the news crew filming the story. This was pointed out to him by his fellow officers soon afterward. This also was not a factor in the arrest of the suspect. The subject in the story was placed under arrest for DWI. The officers obtained additional information that the magazines in question had been stolen from a specific National Guard Base in Nebraska. This information has been forwarded to the local prosecutor. It will be up to the prosecutor to decide whether additional charged are filed for possession of stolen property.

Sincerely,
Captain Steve Ayres
Nebraska State Patrol


Deb Collins
Public Information Coordinator
Nebraska State Patrol
(402) 479-4985
deb.collins@nebraska.gov

If you enjoyed reading about "Man Arrested for Stolen Magazines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!