Troopers to be Charged for NFA Violation

[LAR-15]

Somebody upset the Feds

 

[Janitor]

But the bottom line is that with all the thugs out on the street, is society served by putting these officers in jail?"

Man. I hope if I ever get busted for posessing an illegal firearm that somebody highly placed will write something like that for me! Seriously - I do good for our customers. How would it serve them to put me in jail, simply because I may have broke one of those silly little federal laws?

 

[CAS700850]

You know, it's one thing for a cop to let another cop off on a speeding citation. But federal felony offenses? Sorry, I was a pro-LEO prosecutor, but even I prosecuted cops that broke the law. These guys did. Bring 'em into court!

 

[ArmedBear]

They shouldn't be prosecuted because they didn't hurt anyone.

But neither should anyone else who has violated any law prohibiting mere possession, without any intent to harm others.

As it stands, the chiefs should write letters condemning the law, not asking for special treatment for their boys.

 

[billwiese]

Until all other violators of simple possession of NFA guns (i.e., not used in violent crime) have their convictions voided and records expunged, these cops should be treated the same way.

Five years in prison, $10,000 fine. Forfeit retirement. if their wives know about this, they should be charged too.

No two tiers for criminal enforcement. Hang 'em high.


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

 

[ArmedBear]

Until all other violators of simple possession of NFA guns (i.e., not used in violent crime) have their convictions voided and records expunged, these cops should be treated the same way.

Five years in prison, $10,000 fine. Forfeit retirement. if their wives know about this, they should be charged too.

No two tiers for criminal enforcement. Hang 'em high.


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

+1

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Ordinary citizens shouldn't be charged with these unconstitutional victimless crimes, and neither should the cops. Although on one hand it makes me angry that police are usually treated as if they are above the law, I would like to see them get off scott free since they could be used as an example for any other honest citizen who gets caught in the same trap. I would also like it if the law itself was critisized, not the fact that these were good guys who broke a just law by accident. Of course that's probably not the way it would work.

 

[roo_ster]

The NFA is a chicken-manure law, but it is a law I can be sent to the pokey for violating.

Until it is repealed, everyone, LEO or not, ought to eat the same bitter pill.

 

[LAR-15]

Wouldn't this set a precident that all LEOs could break NFA laws and get away with it?

Then what good is the NFA?

Wonder what Blago thinks

 

[JohnBT]

I initially thought this was going to be a case of somebody borrowing the department's guns for a little off duty plinking, but now I see that these were privately owned rifles from start to finish. OOPS, boy did these guys screw up.

John

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

The Constitution clearly states that there should be no titles of nobility in this country.

As time goes on, it becomes clear that there are several kinds of justice. The special dispensations regularly handed out to "The King's Men" reeks with the foul odor of a "special class" of people.

Actually, they should not be treated equally, but rather the law should be harsher on them as they have, by virtue of their jobs as guardians of the law, special privileges that they sought to use in their own favor.

 

[NineseveN]

Where are the 100% pro-police folks now? Can't wait to hear from them on this, perhaps this will be a good case for them to articulate how they're not above the law, nor should they be. This is a Second Amendment issue, not an us VS them issue, though the different treatment standard enters that into it.

 

[Jeff White]

Well one of the lawyers for the troopers is saying that the weapons are property of the ISP:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...2E6FE9F034F167C48625711000172486?OpenDocument

Machine gun was used in training, sergeant's lawyer says
By Michael Shaw
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/09/2006

FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS

The attorney for a decorated Illinois State Police sergeant charged with illegally possessing a machine gun said Wednesday that he is mystified by the charge against his client.

Tom Keefe, the attorney for Sgt. James Vest, 39, of O'Fallon, said the M4 submachine gun in question was registered to the state police and used by Vest to train other officers.

In addition, the regulations state that for an off-duty officer, "any authorized firearms will be stored in the trunk or the glove compartment of the assigned department vehicle or in the officer's residence," according to Keefe.


"These facts are critical," said Keefe, who is representing Vest along with renowned Belleville lawyers Bruce Cook and Clyde Kuehn. "That rifle was owned by state police. (Vest) is a heavily decorated 18-year veteran. He has commendations coming out of his ears."

The debate has gone public, with 10 Metro East police chiefs issuing a letter Tuesday recommending leniency for Vest and two other police officers accused in the case. The chiefs' letter prompted a response from Ed McNally, the U.S. attorney prosecuting them. McNally's statement says he respects their views, but noted that "several of these chiefs have had to personally make the difficult decision to investigate criminal cases in which their own officers were charged."

The fact that the U.S. attorney has spoken out about a pending case is unusual. And it prompted Keefe to speak out Wednesday.

"Ordinarily I wouldn't say anything," said Keefe, adding that the door was opened with the U.S. attorney's comments.

Under federal rules, anyone who can pass a background check, pay $200 and file the proper forms can legally purchase one or convert one to automatic fire. Even a ban on "military style" assault weapons lapsed in 2004.

So it's no surprise that some are puzzled by the charges - and the possibility of prison time - for three Illinois State Police troopers accused in federal court of illegally possessing machine guns. Since police officers should easily pass background checks, the crime looks like a mere oversight.

"If that's what happened, it's a lapse in judgment," said John Shanks, director of law enforcement relations for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, of the registration process.

Keefe's statements, however, appear to be at odds with court documents indicating that Vest said he bought his M-4/M-16 in 1998 in California.

The defense lawyers representing the two other officers, Special Agent John Yard, 36, of Collinsville, Senior Master Trooper Greg Mugge, 51, of Jerseyville, as well as Dr. Harold Griffiths, 69, of Spaulding, Ill., did not comment Wednesday.

The charges carry maximum 10-year prison terms.

 

[WT]

Is it too much to hope for 'jury nullification'?

 

[k_dawg]

Where is the ACLU defending their 2nd amendment rights?

Barring having the NFA ruled unconstitutional, these guys should serve a maximum of the 10 years per charge, subsequently [ not concurrently ].

 

[Chipperman]

"said the M4 submachine gun in question was registered to the state police "

"Keefe's statements, however, appear to be at odds with court documents indicating that Vest said he bought his M-4/M-16 in 1998 in California."

One of these things is not like the other....

It is either registered to the Dept or it is not. No great mystery in finding out.

 

[LAR-15]

That is only for one gun out of four

 

[Rumble]

From the Post-Dispatch article:

Since police officers should easily pass background checks, the crime looks like a mere oversight.

"If that's what happened, it's a lapse in judgment," said John Shanks, director of law enforcement relations for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, of the registration process.

I, too, can easily pass a background check. But I don't see a journalist calling it a "mere oversight" were I to possess a full-auto-capable M4 without the necessary paperwork (I am pretty sure I can't just say to the cops and the BATF and whoever that I just "forgot" about the paperwork). And I really don't see the Brady Campaign folks calling it a "lapse in judgement." They'd be positively howling for me to go to jail for the rest of my life.

If the truth outs and the gun was owned by the department and issued lawfully and stored properly and all the necessary dots and crosses were in place, then maybe one of the cops is okay here. Otherwise, it's fines and felonies for the lot of 'em.

 

[c_yeager]

Id the argument being presented here was that the NFA is unconstitutional I would be standing right behind these guys. However, they dont seem to have a problem with the law, they just think that it shouldnt apply to them because they are special.

In an interview, Ruebhausen said, "You're not supposed to own (illegal) weapons... But the bottom line is that with all the thugs out on the street, is society served by putting these officers in jail?"

I wonder what would happen if every person in the world made a statement like this when charged with a victimless crime. Oh wait, they do, and they recieve laughter in response.

 

[sturmruger]

It is an oversight, but a pretty serious one. I wonder how all of this came up?? You have to scew up prety bad to have the US attorney gunning for you.

 

[NineseveN]

They look like criminals to me, they should be arrested and jailed.

Somehow, I think being police officers will make it worse for them once they go to trial, and it will defnitely make it worse for them when they go to jail.

 

[Fly320s]

There is a simple solution, but it will take years to work out:

All accused persons take their cases to court, eventually ending up in the Supreme Court. After the SC rules that the NFA is unconstitutional, the accused can pick up their guns from the evidence locker and go on their merry way.

Simple, right.

 

[scout26]

and two AR-15 semiautomatic rifles that had been converted to fire fully automatic

I'll once again point this out from the original article.

I don't think even the ISP is allowed to install "Da Switch" without the blessing of the BATFE.

 

[MN_Strelok]

Under federal rules, anyone who can pass a background check, pay $200 and file the proper forms can legally purchase one or convert one to automatic fire. Even a ban on "military style" assault weapons lapsed in 2004.

So it's no surprise that some are puzzled by the charges - and the possibility of prison time - for three Illinois State Police troopers accused in federal court of illegally possessing machine guns. Since police officers should easily pass background checks, the crime looks like a mere oversight.

Yeah, under federal rules. This is Illinois, though, where NFA items are outright banned... Except for peace officers. Something tells me the author of that article doesn't know about our state restrictions.

If I was a cop, I'd jump at the chance to do the paperwork and pay the tax. (How messed up is that?)

Hmm... Maybe I should find a local cop who wants to share a suppressor.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

We're all equal under the law, or at least we should be. A badge is not a license to scoff at the law; rather, it is a trust with society and should come with even more rigorous standards of conduct. Do the crime, do the time.

That said, the NFA should be thrown out. It saddens me that anyone is prosecuted under it, ever.