Carl N. Brown
Member
^#49 It is possible that he would rather take the gun charge, rather than have something else less honorable come out at trial..
Vietnam War hero sentenced to 7 years for decades-old rifle purchase: report
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
GunnyUSMC
Member
I may seem insensitive but, This guy was stupid.
Possession of a fire are with an Obliterated SN#.
Possession of a stolen firearm.
Possession of an unregistered NFA firearm
He also got off pretty easy with just 7 years, he could have gotten up to 30.
Do I feel bad for him? Yes, but he knew better, he was stupid and he got caught.
Possession of a fire are with an Obliterated SN#.
Possession of a stolen firearm.
Possession of an unregistered NFA firearm
He also got off pretty easy with just 7 years, he could have gotten up to 30.
Do I feel bad for him? Yes, but he knew better, he was stupid and he got caught.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,305
I am a law abiding dude that lived in Plano for 38 years before it became north Dallas.
If one of my NFA firearms were illegal I would be subject to.
Not to mention as a “collector” to have had any 4473’s aprooved he would have lied on them as well, 11e more specifically.
Maybe the thread should be what laws should one be able to break or at least escape punishment, if you have served your country with honor and distinction?
And those are just the gun-related charges,,,,, The Dallas article mentions at least (1) other felony as well as, best case scenario, another misdemeanor / potential felony.
7 yrs. for 'all the above' (and anything else we aren't aware of) is far from harsh or excessive.
Sensationalism sells. If you remove 'War Hero' and 'Decades old' from the title (both of which are completely irrelevant to the legality of the case), I doubt anyone here would object, much less even bother to discuss.
BSA1
member
Being a Vietnam Vet and war hero is immaterial. The article says he was a Officer which would suggest he has a higher level of intelligence. (Grunts feel free to disagree with this statement).
Doing time in Club Fed will not be so bad. Since he is a first time offender he will have a low custody level. In addition his medical condition (if any) will help determine where and how he does his time. The Feds will pay for his medical care, he will eat and be treated well. (Sorry boys but it isn't as hard and violent like it is in the movies). Most likely he will be housed in a minimum custody facility in a unit with a bunch of other old guys.
This is a perfect object lesson for those of you that want to get tough with mandatory sentencing laws. He did the crime, now do the time without the whine.
Doing time in Club Fed will not be so bad. Since he is a first time offender he will have a low custody level. In addition his medical condition (if any) will help determine where and how he does his time. The Feds will pay for his medical care, he will eat and be treated well. (Sorry boys but it isn't as hard and violent like it is in the movies). Most likely he will be housed in a minimum custody facility in a unit with a bunch of other old guys.
This is a perfect object lesson for those of you that want to get tough with mandatory sentencing laws. He did the crime, now do the time without the whine.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
I doubt that he will serve the full 7 years, given the parole system. The worst aspect of this is that he will have a felony on his record. Executive clemency is also a real possibility. In any case, goodbye to his gun collection.
Having been a regular attendee at gun shows for many years, I have seen illegal things for sale on tables. (For example, carbines marked "M2.") The better part of wisdom is to keep your mouth shut and walk away quickly. As tempting as something like this might be, there's a good chance it's an ATF sting. This gentleman should have known that this was nothing but trouble. The amazing thing is that it took so many years to catch up to him.
Having been a regular attendee at gun shows for many years, I have seen illegal things for sale on tables. (For example, carbines marked "M2.") The better part of wisdom is to keep your mouth shut and walk away quickly. As tempting as something like this might be, there's a good chance it's an ATF sting. This gentleman should have known that this was nothing but trouble. The amazing thing is that it took so many years to catch up to him.
Last edited:
No parole in federal system. Abolished with the Sentencing Reform Act. Only possibility is presidential clemency.
Agreed. If this were just Joe Public, everyone would say how dumb he is and how he gives good gun owners a bad name, and he deserves his punishment.
Jim Watson
Member
I think seven years is tough. A year and a day and sufficient fine to reduce his standard of living when he got out would be my recommendation.
Why?
There were two cases here.
The closest approximation was the guy whose bitter soon-to-be-ex wife turned him in for "making bombs." BATF searched and found black powder, cannon fuse, and PVC tubing. They swallowed his story of "big firecrackers" and would have dropped the case.
But wait, what's this in the closet? Why, it's a STEN gun!
Remember when you could get a "parts kit" and from a different address a piece of tubing with a template glued to it?
He paid a fine, but did little if any time. Lost all his guns present and future, of course.
The other case was a gun show wheeler dealer who was by layman's observation, clearly in it for the money to supplement his pension.
I think the BATF knew it but it was kind of below the radar until he sold a gun to a minor from out of state. His parents squawked and the BATF landed on him. A non-defense of the poor old geezer, probably getting a little feeble minded, not requiring ID out of the late adolescent got him by with no jail, just loss of rights and guns. He was commonly seen at a crony's table at gun shows for the rest of his days.
Why?
There were two cases here.
The closest approximation was the guy whose bitter soon-to-be-ex wife turned him in for "making bombs." BATF searched and found black powder, cannon fuse, and PVC tubing. They swallowed his story of "big firecrackers" and would have dropped the case.
But wait, what's this in the closet? Why, it's a STEN gun!
Remember when you could get a "parts kit" and from a different address a piece of tubing with a template glued to it?
He paid a fine, but did little if any time. Lost all his guns present and future, of course.
The other case was a gun show wheeler dealer who was by layman's observation, clearly in it for the money to supplement his pension.
I think the BATF knew it but it was kind of below the radar until he sold a gun to a minor from out of state. His parents squawked and the BATF landed on him. A non-defense of the poor old geezer, probably getting a little feeble minded, not requiring ID out of the late adolescent got him by with no jail, just loss of rights and guns. He was commonly seen at a crony's table at gun shows for the rest of his days.
SSN Vet
Member
I'm not Silver Star combat veteran, but I was issued the M14 (actually, I did the issuing) during my time in the navy, and I have often desired to have one of my own.
One of these days, when my kids are no longer bleeding me dry, I'll by and M1A and call it good enough.
One of these days, when my kids are no longer bleeding me dry, I'll by and M1A and call it good enough.
Given my background, I could give a long tedious discussion of the purposes of our criminal justice system.
I'll just settle for these few observations
1) the Justice is blind refers to the actual trial procedure itself but not specifically sentencing.
2) According to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (P.L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1987) has four goals for federal sentencing of offenders: these factors are not necessarily harmonious in application.
rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and just deserts.
Rehabilitation refers to the individual, deterrence refers to the punishment of an individual as a warning to others, incapacitation refers to the fact that someone who is locked up is presumably not threatening society with new crimes, and just deserts means that the criminal is punished according to the severity of the crime and its effect on society. Philosophers have debated the role of the criminal justice system and which factor should be pre-eminent and how to achieve just punishment for millenia (see Draco's code for example which is where we get draconian from).
3) In this statute, there are a number of statutory provisions (and sentencing regulations from the USSC based on the law) that create permissible and impermissible factors to increase or decrease a sentence from the baseline. In addition, any firearms charge includes a mandatory minimum under the federal guidelines and the Armed Career Criminal Act adds more if other past charges have existed. Prior honorable service in the military can be one of the factors taken into account upon sentencing by the judge.
4) One of the criticisms by defense attorneys of the SRA of 1984, is that it gives pretty much absolute discretion to prosecutors to set the sentence for those pleading guilty as opposed to being sentenced at trial. As long as the prosecutors stay within the guidelines on sentencing, the sentence is presumed "reasonable" with few grounds for a judge to challenge.
5) It is usually useful wait and read the actual indictment of the case and related filings before actually commenting on a person's relative guilt or innocence. For example, the indictment apparently includes that Pick had both marijuana and cocaine present in the house. Those drugs plus a firearm possession mean a mandatory sentence applies under federal law regardless of whether allowed under state law.
6) It is generally not wise for anyone to assume that the federal (or state) finger of prosecution cannot be pointed at them. Read Harvey Silvergate's Three Felonies a Day if you want an appalling view of legal anarchy. Caselaw is replete with examples of people being charged and often convicted of violating laws that have little or nothing to do with the standards of justice as most assume. Even more so, many of these laws have vague wording such as the Armed Career Criminal act so that U.S. Supreme Court justices have difficulty in interpreting what the statute meant by "common burglary" or "use of a firearm in commission of a crime." We have also financed our criminal justice system increasingly through a system of fines and seizures that resemble the sort of thing that King John was forced to reform under the Magna Carta under sword point.
7) Justice does not automatically equal existing statutory law nor its enforcement. It requires discretion by nature but that discretion and wisdom is often lacking in a lawmakers and the criminal justice system.
I'll just settle for these few observations
1) the Justice is blind refers to the actual trial procedure itself but not specifically sentencing.
2) According to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (P.L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1987) has four goals for federal sentencing of offenders: these factors are not necessarily harmonious in application.
rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and just deserts.
Rehabilitation refers to the individual, deterrence refers to the punishment of an individual as a warning to others, incapacitation refers to the fact that someone who is locked up is presumably not threatening society with new crimes, and just deserts means that the criminal is punished according to the severity of the crime and its effect on society. Philosophers have debated the role of the criminal justice system and which factor should be pre-eminent and how to achieve just punishment for millenia (see Draco's code for example which is where we get draconian from).
3) In this statute, there are a number of statutory provisions (and sentencing regulations from the USSC based on the law) that create permissible and impermissible factors to increase or decrease a sentence from the baseline. In addition, any firearms charge includes a mandatory minimum under the federal guidelines and the Armed Career Criminal Act adds more if other past charges have existed. Prior honorable service in the military can be one of the factors taken into account upon sentencing by the judge.
4) One of the criticisms by defense attorneys of the SRA of 1984, is that it gives pretty much absolute discretion to prosecutors to set the sentence for those pleading guilty as opposed to being sentenced at trial. As long as the prosecutors stay within the guidelines on sentencing, the sentence is presumed "reasonable" with few grounds for a judge to challenge.
5) It is usually useful wait and read the actual indictment of the case and related filings before actually commenting on a person's relative guilt or innocence. For example, the indictment apparently includes that Pick had both marijuana and cocaine present in the house. Those drugs plus a firearm possession mean a mandatory sentence applies under federal law regardless of whether allowed under state law.
6) It is generally not wise for anyone to assume that the federal (or state) finger of prosecution cannot be pointed at them. Read Harvey Silvergate's Three Felonies a Day if you want an appalling view of legal anarchy. Caselaw is replete with examples of people being charged and often convicted of violating laws that have little or nothing to do with the standards of justice as most assume. Even more so, many of these laws have vague wording such as the Armed Career Criminal act so that U.S. Supreme Court justices have difficulty in interpreting what the statute meant by "common burglary" or "use of a firearm in commission of a crime." We have also financed our criminal justice system increasingly through a system of fines and seizures that resemble the sort of thing that King John was forced to reform under the Magna Carta under sword point.
7) Justice does not automatically equal existing statutory law nor its enforcement. It requires discretion by nature but that discretion and wisdom is often lacking in a lawmakers and the criminal justice system.
AlexanderA
Member
There is MUCH more to this story, including drug use (cocaine and marijuana), sexual abuse of his daughter, child pornography, and terroristic threats against hospital employees. The search of his house -- and discovery of the M14 -- was incidental to these other problems. There was also evidence that he didn't buy the M14 at a gun show, but stole it from the army himself. The "gun collection" consisted of 14 firearms.
http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=22569
http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=22569
Any evidence of any of this besides some semi-anonymous comments on a forum?
People post all kinds of stuff online pretending to have inside knowledge. Doesn't make it true.
AlexanderA
Member
The information comes from PACER, which is an official search engine for the U.S. courts. https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/index.jsf You have to be a registered user to log onto that site.
So basically no evidence.
I read the same accusations from the same poster on ARFdotcom. Nothing was forthcoming from him over there either.
A screenshot of the order of detention will do.
That will be real interesting if the media has portrayed him as an innocent victim, but he used it for a crime or the police were there for a crime and found it.
The media is the worst thing going in America today. It’s not the conservative or even the liberals. It’s the media, they have an agenda and have no honor.
I really have no problem with the guy having one. I think it’s unconstitutional to restrict him from it. But if he was doing anything bad with it or they found it while investigating something bad get him. I can only hope that if the liberals ever win out on gun restrictions that enough good old boys are willing to commit a felony.
The media is the worst thing going in America today. It’s not the conservative or even the liberals. It’s the media, they have an agenda and have no honor.
I really have no problem with the guy having one. I think it’s unconstitutional to restrict him from it. But if he was doing anything bad with it or they found it while investigating something bad get him. I can only hope that if the liberals ever win out on gun restrictions that enough good old boys are willing to commit a felony.
AlexanderA
Member
As far as advocacy for gun rights goes, this is not the hill to die on, with a tainted defendant.
The M14 would never have been discovered, were it not for his daughter's allegations of sexual abuse, and for his crazy behavior at the hospital where his wife died. Those are the things that led to the search of his home.
The larger takeaway here regards an insight on what would happen if gun-ban legislation was ever passed. Initially, a large percentage of owners would not comply. Over time, though, a number of things -- messy divorces, disgruntled children, run-ins with the law on other matters -- would expose them. And those that were caught would be made examples of with maximum publicity.
The M14 would never have been discovered, were it not for his daughter's allegations of sexual abuse, and for his crazy behavior at the hospital where his wife died. Those are the things that led to the search of his home.
The larger takeaway here regards an insight on what would happen if gun-ban legislation was ever passed. Initially, a large percentage of owners would not comply. Over time, though, a number of things -- messy divorces, disgruntled children, run-ins with the law on other matters -- would expose them. And those that were caught would be made examples of with maximum publicity.
AlexanderA
Member
It's a problem -- the NFA aside -- if, as alleged by a neighbor in whom he confided, he stole it from an army firing range and ground off the serial number. This is criminal behavior plain and simple.
AlexanderA
Member
Stop being obstinate. It's all in the official PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) system. I would cut and paste the relevant information, but you have to be a registered user of the system, and there is a fee. The poster on the other boards has done exactly that.
No, the indictment found on Pacer and perhaps his allocution which is where a grand jury of Texans found more likely than not that probable cause existed to charge him with these and other crimes. Since Pick pleaded guilty, he had to allocute (admit) to his crimes in open court that he was guilty of at least some of the charges in the indictment. My guess is that his federal agreement fends off additional state charges in Texas such as the terroristic threat and child abuse/etc/ charges. One of the neighbors apparently mentioned that he claimed to have stolen the rifle as well (damaged serial numbers sometimes can actually be recovered through some scientific voodoo).
I'm extremely thankful that 240-some years ago, a group of people in the 13 colonies did not agree with you.
No, you're guessing based on ... what?
He pled guilty to the gun charges. If they had enough they would have charged him. It's as simple as that.
Pretty much what I thought.
You haven't read it yourself and you're counting on someone else to tell the truth about what they may or may not have read.
Also, maybe the daughter did make those accusations to the police. She sure wasn't ready to stand up in court and make them. Ever hear that a large percentage of those making sexual abuse allegations are lying? I know that in the era of the #Metoo movement that we're supposed to believe everything that someone says about someone else, sorry ... I'm kind of old fashioned in that way. I require a bit of evidence.
Not to mention that people who never met you would try to insinuate all sorts of things online on gun forums.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
