N555
Member
This is the "is a picture of a machine gun a machine" case.
Things on trial:
Can the atf can say any drawing, picture, plans, papers, efile, photograph, wood cut, clay tablet, drawing on the beach, smoke signal, cloud in the sky is a machine gun if they want to be.
If the atf contacts you by email asking how to make a machine gun and you ignore the emails for lots of obvious reasons or just don't see the email, that's a crime.
Highlights.
Spent a day going on about company ownership of the company. The company was owned by individual Mr Irving he admitted he owned the company.
The agent in charge of the case I'll call "agent Hook" didn't seem to know specific details about his case. Gave a lot of "I don't know" and "I don't remember" answers when asked about numbers of agents involved and resources used.
Agent hook was forced to admit that out of the thousands of items sold by Mr Irving and eventually rounded up by aft, none were cut out. So that was a little embarrassing.
They key piece of evidence presented by the prosecutor was a series of emails sent by Agent Hook to Mr Irving about what to use and how to cut out the item in question, how to make it functional, ect. None of these emails were answered.
So their key piece of evidence appears to be failed attempts at entrapment?
Today they are bringing out another key piece of evidence, the postal inspector is set to testify that Mr Irving did in fact ship the items in question, which was never in question and Mr Irving admitted to.
I wouldn't say the prosecution has a strong or weak case, it doesn't look like they dont have a case at all.
Things on trial:
Can the atf can say any drawing, picture, plans, papers, efile, photograph, wood cut, clay tablet, drawing on the beach, smoke signal, cloud in the sky is a machine gun if they want to be.
If the atf contacts you by email asking how to make a machine gun and you ignore the emails for lots of obvious reasons or just don't see the email, that's a crime.
Highlights.
Spent a day going on about company ownership of the company. The company was owned by individual Mr Irving he admitted he owned the company.
The agent in charge of the case I'll call "agent Hook" didn't seem to know specific details about his case. Gave a lot of "I don't know" and "I don't remember" answers when asked about numbers of agents involved and resources used.
Agent hook was forced to admit that out of the thousands of items sold by Mr Irving and eventually rounded up by aft, none were cut out. So that was a little embarrassing.
They key piece of evidence presented by the prosecutor was a series of emails sent by Agent Hook to Mr Irving about what to use and how to cut out the item in question, how to make it functional, ect. None of these emails were answered.
So their key piece of evidence appears to be failed attempts at entrapment?
Today they are bringing out another key piece of evidence, the postal inspector is set to testify that Mr Irving did in fact ship the items in question, which was never in question and Mr Irving admitted to.
I wouldn't say the prosecution has a strong or weak case, it doesn't look like they dont have a case at all.