Illegal select fire weapons...


PDA






Lindy7443
April 24, 2014, 05:29 PM
This is what happens to someone the makes illegal full/select fire weapons. I was on this domestic battery call and noticed a Sten gun laying out in the open shed bench. At a minimum it would be a SBR. Upon closer inspection I noticed this was a functioning select fire gun and there were many of them. This guy was making them using modified receiver tubing templates and selling them to god knows who. The guy had fled the home before we got there but we got him later the same night on a traffic stop, complete with a select fire AK47 in his truck. What the news article fails to mention was not only was he a felon but also had a prior for making machine guns. This is the kind of guy that gives us legal gun owners a bad name IMO and glad he is gone for a while (again)'.

http://wishtv.com/2014/04/22/felon-with-175-guns-convicted-sentenced/

If you enjoyed reading about "Illegal select fire weapons..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim K
April 24, 2014, 05:54 PM
Impossible. Making a machinegun is against the law, so no one would ever do it.

Jim

wally
April 24, 2014, 06:47 PM
Impossible. Making a machinegun is against the law, so no one would ever do it.

As is using dope. If we only had more laws banning things it'd be Nirvana.

WestKentucky
April 24, 2014, 07:40 PM
I have often wondered how exactly a LEO figures out a gun is full auto aside from hearing/seeing it actually fire.

OARNGESI
April 24, 2014, 09:41 PM
Sounds like for the charges his sentencing really isn't that bad

hso
April 24, 2014, 09:51 PM
Hold the trigger while cycling the action and pay attention to what the hammer does can tell you if a firearm is FA or semi without having to fire it.

10 years is pretty light sentencing considering the prior conviction record and the number of firearms.

IBEWBULL
April 24, 2014, 10:09 PM
Hso is correct. On testing it.

The penalty in Lindy7443 s article was too light.
I recall a news story years ago about illegal underground manufacturing of full autos . bombs etc. By drug cartels.
Then there is fast and furious.

Theohazard
April 25, 2014, 01:27 AM
10 years is pretty light sentencing considering the prior conviction record and the number of firearms.
This kind of thing disgusts me. They want to make all sorts of new gun laws, but they won't even properly punish people who repeatedly break many of the existing firearm laws we already have.

WestKentucky
April 25, 2014, 02:21 AM
So at what point does your AR, AK, Whatever get checked? I have had plenty stops and never had a gun inspected. Usually verify weapon is not loaded and run the numbers.

ugaarguy
April 25, 2014, 03:19 AM
I'm sure the fact the Sten was visually identified as an SBR lead to the more in-depth inspection.

Bubbles
April 25, 2014, 09:50 AM
10 years is pretty light sentencing considering the prior conviction record and the number of firearms.
This. Guy should have been popped for felon-in-posession (10 years), illegal manufacture (10 years), illegal posession (10 years for a machine gun), illegal transfer (10 years)... and I'm sure I missed a few.

medalguy
April 25, 2014, 05:44 PM
If they had sentenced him to the maximum, it's very likely the new Obama release program might have put him back on the street in short order. After all, we don't want felons to feel like they are subjected to overcrowding in the pen, do we?

Throw them in the big house and throw away the key. These guys sure aren't doing the rest of us any good.

Telekinesis
April 25, 2014, 08:21 PM
Throw them in the big house and throw away the key. These guys sure aren't doing the rest of us any good.

I've gotta say I'm a little surprised to see these kinda comments, especially in the NFA sub forum.

If we except the domestic disturbance and fellon in possession issues (and boil it down to just the possession/manufacture of illegal machine guns) the only difference between us as a forum saying "cool toy man!" and "he should burn in hell for what he did!" seems to be one piece of paper with a pretty blue stamp.

I'm sure we have enough NFA owners and SOTs on this board that we can safely say that simply owning a machine gun in and of itself is not the issue, so it would appear that the issue is the registration status of the weapon. Yet we, as a community, cheered on those who refused to register their magazines and assault rifles when state laws were recently passed.

I'm just making an observation and not trying to be argumentative with anyone, I just think its interesting to see the difference in how we as a community of gun owners treat machine guns in regards to their paper trail.



And just so everyone's clear I'm not condoning making or owning illegal machine guns and definitely don't blame the LEOs (and the OP) for making the arrest. They're sworn to uphold the law whether we (or maybe I should just say "I") agree with the law or not.


Bubbles: If I remember correctly, I think Ive heard lawyers state that there are legal issues in going after people for failure to register something when the registration would be a defacto admission of guilt (something in regards to self incrimination). I'm not sure if it's a complete blanket prohibition on charging the defendant with that crime, or if it's just harder to convict when trying it. But even so, they could definitely still go for the Fellon in Possession charges.

barnbwt
April 25, 2014, 09:52 PM
"They want to make all sorts of new gun laws, but they won't even properly punish people who repeatedly break many of the existing firearm laws we already have."
Probably because on some level, there is a large-scale unconscious realization it isn't one thousandth of the problem they've turned it into over the years.

"If we except the domestic disturbance and fellon in possession issues (and boil it down to just the possession/manufacture of illegal machine guns) the only difference between us as a forum saying "cool toy man!" and "he should burn in hell for what he did!" seems to be one piece of paper with a pretty blue stamp."
Exactly, because that stamp is the only difference between a law-abiding citizen and a filthy degenerate --thus sayeth those in charge :neener:

What's that old saw about Capone's liquor, guns, and prostitution all being crimes no just society would outlaw? :neener:

We have to condemn him because we can only support law-abiding gun owners if we seek to maintain our legitimacy, even though it is the laws themselves we seek to change as unjust/illegitimate. It's... a conundrum. ;)

"Yet we, as a community, cheered on those who refused to register their magazines and assault rifles when state laws were recently passed."
Technically, we shouldn't have. And now the anti's are whipped up about unregistered guns (guns are registered?) made off the books (what books?) by any plebian who dares to do something for themselves (or even more terrifyingly; think

TCB)

medalguy
April 26, 2014, 12:38 AM
What I was saying is that there is a world of difference in a convicted felon making a machine gun from scratch in his garage, and not one but many, and a once legal standard capacity magazine turned into an illegal "high capacity" magazine by stupid politicians in one particular state. One is a crime that has absolutely no justification, and the other is a crime by ex post facto law which is clearly unconstitutional. See the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

Sam1911
April 26, 2014, 12:55 AM
What I was saying is that there is a world of difference in a convicted felon making a machine gun from scratch in his garage, and not one but many, ... a crime that has absolutely no justification,... Meh. I'm still completely of the opinion that one gun is no more or less worthy of being owned by a citizen than any other (machine gun or not) and how many someone has or wants to make is no one's business, and who he or she sells them to or how they are disposed of is likewise a matter for free people to handle on their own, without laws which pretend to constrict their behavior. Owning and making guns needs no "justification."

So that leaves us with the "felon in possession" matter. My thoughts on that one are likewise pretty sceptical. As I don't believe that the situation of having "quasi-free" people walking around in public who are not trusted enough to lawfully have guns is anything more than a laughable conceit we foist upon ourselves, In my world this guy would have to fry or fly based entirely on the merits of the claims against him of violent behavior.

Asinine nit picking over how many inches long the barrel of the gun is, or counting how many rounds it fires when you pull the trigger are blinkered, stupid irrelevancies our supposedly free nation is pointlessly saddled with due to an ill-conceived BAD law and the laughingstock of a bureaucracy that we've propped up to try to enforce it.

... a once legal standard capacity magazine turned into an illegal "high capacity" magazine by stupid politicians in one particular state.... by ex post facto law which is clearly unconstitutional. See the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

Once more: that's not what ex post facto means.

EPF only applies if someone is being prosecuted for something they did or had sometime in the past, when it was LAWFUL, but now isn't doing (or doesn't have) any more, now that it is unlawful.

If you sold a gun to your friend in another state without a dealer, back in 1965, and the BATFE tried to come after you for that now, because it is against a law written in 1968, that would be ex post facto.

Making something illegal, that once was legal, is unfortunately, perfectly Constitutional. It happens frequently. Time was, there was no law against possession of Cocaine. Now that's been made illegal. The fact that the cocaine you had before is now unlawful for you to possess is NOT ex post facto, and neither is a magazine or gun ban.

To sustain a claim that the CT law is ex post facto you'd have to show that the CTSP has arrested someone and charged them for HAVING HAD a now illegal magazine sometime last year or five years ago or at some other point in history but DOESN'T own it now. "Hey, we know you had one a few years ago. Now that the law would make that mag illegal today, we're going to charge you with a crime for what you had back then..." THAT's ex post facto.

barnbwt
April 26, 2014, 05:31 PM
"Making [possession of an object] illegal, that once was legal, is unfortunately, perfectly Constitutional."

You know, I just realized that this legal justification is the root of much, if not all, even, of the mischief we gunowners and/or libertarians object to in this nation. It seems like all 'possession' laws are at their core unenforceable or prone to abuse, and none rely on criminal intent or damages to others for their justification. They invite violations of 4th and 5th amendments by their very nature (if you consider personal possessions as being some extension of one's self).

We have a specific amendment against ex post facto laws; perhaps an amendment against possession laws be added as well? What's Latin for "possession of an object?"

TCB

smkummer
April 26, 2014, 06:42 PM
The 1934 NFA was a knee jerk reaction to the tabloids (papers, radio) of the time of all the REPOERTED bloodshed cause by the tommy gun and sawed off shotguns. 2 years after it passed almost all of the gangsters were dead. Time to abolish it. It is a good reason why any new law should have a sunset clause. We are all living with it now. 2 different classes of weapons, title 1 and title 2. My title one SKS is a much better weapon than my title 2 H&R 410 handi gun but one of those will put me in jail if its not properly known to the govt.. Remember initially Colt percussion handguns that came with a stock fell under the NFA until Eisenhower signed a law to remove them. Gee, I wonder how many of them were destroyed to save the children. The NFA is long over due for elimination but no one wants to touch it. So now its a big fat govt. bureaucracy that was never made to handle all that would comply with it. It was never designed to be used to the extent it is today. Suppressors were initially added because during the depression, game wardens would not here shooters poaching game. Now states are passing laws allowing suppressors so more will shoot game in sensitive areas! Again, govt. bull crap allowed to expand. For those not wanting the govt. hassle, a 2 liter soda bottle or a lawnmower muffle does OK and its disposable. I too and not advocating breaking the law but this is ridiculous. Oh and a 10 month wait to buy that $400 suppressor and pay the govt. its $200. This is also unfair taxation and unfair trade practices. The Hughes amendment just now means that only the rich can play with a full auto.

Sam1911
April 26, 2014, 07:08 PM
The 1934 NFA was a knee jerk reaction to the tabloids (papers, radio) of the time of all the REPOERTED bloodshed cause by the tommy gun and sawed off shotguns. And the Bonus Army. Which might, maybe, have been even more of a spur for congress to make "dangerous" types of guns impossible for law abiding poor folks to own.

Sam1911
April 26, 2014, 07:12 PM
We have a specific amendment against ex post facto laws; perhaps an amendment against possession laws be added as well? What's Latin for "possession of an object?"

Not sure. However, we do have some broad terms for laws that codify the illegality of behavior that is unlawful because of it's inherent wrongness (like murder, arson, rape, theft, and so forth) -- malum in se.

The rest, and the vast majority of, our identified "crimes" are what we'd call, malum prohibitum, that is "wrong because it is prohibited." Or "wrong because we said so." Jaywalking, pot smoking, possession of certain weapons, etc.

Granby140
April 27, 2014, 08:02 AM
10 years for violating an unconstitutional law? Seems harsh.

barnbwt
April 27, 2014, 12:06 PM
"The rest, and the vast majority of, our identified "crimes" are what we'd call, malum prohibitum, that is "wrong because it is prohibited." Or "wrong because we said so." Jaywalking, pot smoking, possession of certain weapons, etc."

Yeah, those are the ones! "Because I said so" is exactly the laws you don't want a government capable of passing if you think about it, or at least, not without an enormous civil backing (like a constitutional amendment). "Because I said so" is not a real justification; it's in reality "Because we can" or "Because you let us" and therefore an open-ended door to the inevitable. If there's a word for them, are they treated differently in Constitutional court of law (like how SCOTUS has always said flagrantly unconstitutional laws can persist so long as they are 'narrowly tailored' and don't piss off a large enough number people that they could defend themselves democratically? ;) )

TCB

bflee
April 28, 2014, 09:44 PM
Who can find enough ammunition for a machine gun now?

RCArms.com
April 29, 2014, 03:02 PM
Hold the trigger while cycling the action and pay attention to what the hammer does can tell you if a firearm is FA or semi without having to fire it.

10 years is pretty light sentencing considering the prior conviction record and the number of firearms.
There is a difference between a hammer follow and a disconnector/sear delayed hammer blow.

Had a few FAL semi-autos that when the selector was swept into the FA position, the hammer would follow the bolt down into battery, but failed to have energy to strike the firing pin with enough energy to fire the round leaving the rifle loaded, in battery, with a "down" hammer.

Granted, the proof would be in the test fire performed as part of the evidence and prosecution process.

Best,
Don

wally
April 29, 2014, 04:43 PM
Had a few FAL semi-autos that when the selector was swept into the FA position, the hammer would follow the bolt down into battery, but failed to have energy to strike the firing pin with enough energy to fire the round leaving the rifle loaded, in battery, with a "down" hammer.

Mine was like that, I replaced the safety lever with one that wouldn't rotate into the FA position, as the hammer follow really bothered me.


Granted, the proof would be in the test fire performed as part of the evidence and prosecution process.
Haven't the BATmen loaded rifle rounds with pistol primers to nail someone in the past? Or is this urban legend?

FuzzyBunny
April 29, 2014, 05:28 PM
When it comes to laws and crime I always ask "Where is the victim?"

But my opinion does not account for much it seems.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illegal select fire weapons..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!