MN_Strelok,
Unfortunatley this is Illinois where not even peace officers can have suppressors....
Jeff
Unfortunatley this is Illinois where not even peace officers can have suppressors....
Jeff
Troopers to be Charged for NFA Violation
- Thread starter Leatherneck
- Start date
- Status
Sistema1927
Member
Some animals are more equal than others.
I despise the NFA and believe that it violates not only the letter but the intent of the Bill of Rights.
I would be behind these officers if their lawyers were screaming about the injustice of the laws that they are charged under.
However, since they seem to think the law is just fine, but that they should not be subject to it since they have a gold star on their report card or some other silly reason -- let the trial begin and let the facts and the jury decide their fate.
As for the lawyer claiming that his client does not own the rifle in question -- who knows? I can certainly believe that a US Attorney would be so incompetent as to not check such a little matter.
I would be behind these officers if their lawyers were screaming about the injustice of the laws that they are charged under.
However, since they seem to think the law is just fine, but that they should not be subject to it since they have a gold star on their report card or some other silly reason -- let the trial begin and let the facts and the jury decide their fate.
As for the lawyer claiming that his client does not own the rifle in question -- who knows? I can certainly believe that a US Attorney would be so incompetent as to not check such a little matter.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
wdlsguy said:
Thank you, Ronnie!
MN_Strelok
Member
Jeff White said:
Really? Well, I guess we're equally screwed on that one then.
Plan B: Maybe I should move to Indiana...
TallPine
Member
So the same should be true for CCW permits: since I could easily pass the background checks (and have, every time I purchased a gun) I shouldn't need to bother with actually getting the permit, right...?
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
That's only if we're all equal under the law.
beerslurpy
member
Wait a damn second here. I cant beleive the double standard I am hearing.
These cops violated a BS law, but a BS law that even the most casual of gun owners knows is a strict liability law with long prison sentences attached to it.
Intent is not the issue. Whether they are cops is not the issue. The law must be applied equally to all. If we must obey the NFA, then police must obey the NFA. If we would be imprisoned, we should expect that the police be subject to the same rules and imprisoned.
If the law is unjust, strike down the law, dont make a bogus exemption for your favorite class of citizens.
These cops violated a BS law, but a BS law that even the most casual of gun owners knows is a strict liability law with long prison sentences attached to it.
Intent is not the issue. Whether they are cops is not the issue. The law must be applied equally to all. If we must obey the NFA, then police must obey the NFA. If we would be imprisoned, we should expect that the police be subject to the same rules and imprisoned.
If the law is unjust, strike down the law, dont make a bogus exemption for your favorite class of citizens.
NOW..
this COULD be a golden opportunity for them to defend themselves, on the account that NFA is an unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd amendment rights.
the NRA/GOA/etc should be looking hard at this being a test case. [ provided the troopers are going to fight it ]
this COULD be a golden opportunity for them to defend themselves, on the account that NFA is an unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd amendment rights.
the NRA/GOA/etc should be looking hard at this being a test case. [ provided the troopers are going to fight it ]
None of the gun rights groups is prepared to mount a court challenge to the National Firearms Act.
In fact, the NFA would probably pass constitutional muster, because back then the legislators had enough respect for the constitution that they realized an outright ban would be unconstitutional. That's why we ended up with the tax stamp scheme.
This could be a case to find the 1986 closure of the National Firearms Registry to new machine guns unconstitutional though. However if we do succeed in that quest, I look for congress to make a tax stamp cost $10,000 or whatever would be the equivalent of $200 1934 dollars is in today's money.
Jeff
In fact, the NFA would probably pass constitutional muster, because back then the legislators had enough respect for the constitution that they realized an outright ban would be unconstitutional. That's why we ended up with the tax stamp scheme.
This could be a case to find the 1986 closure of the National Firearms Registry to new machine guns unconstitutional though. However if we do succeed in that quest, I look for congress to make a tax stamp cost $10,000 or whatever would be the equivalent of $200 1934 dollars is in today's money.
Jeff
No Jeff, they disrespected the Constitution enough to use their taxing powers as an end-run around a clearly worded injunction against action on their part.
The articles suggest they obtained the guns from FFLs (in California, no less)? How did they manage to break the law, given the kind of scrutiny that goes into title II transfers, from both the FFL and the BATF?
The articles suggest they obtained the guns from FFLs (in California, no less)? How did they manage to break the law, given the kind of scrutiny that goes into title II transfers, from both the FFL and the BATF?
Waitone
Member
Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Seems to me there exists another interesting story somewhere.
atblis
Member
They are no different than me.
"The law should be applied equally to all citizens. Just my opinion."
They can go to jail for stupid laws too.
"The law should be applied equally to all citizens. Just my opinion."
They can go to jail for stupid laws too.
- Status