Can you identify this rifle?

Ok, so it might have been a scam, well I was 100% on this from the get go, but I never thought about it being a sting. Again, the ATF would not do that such a thing. They have enough on their plate as it is.

The link shows the picture of the same gun and bunch Korean stuff that makes it scam or am I missing something?

Again, the ATF would not do that such a thing. They have enough on their plate as it is.

Click to expand...

Whilst that may or may not haven been the case here. Never underestimate the ability of law enforcement to waste time and resources totally unimportant things.

Now I wonder what the "seller" had in mind for the OP when he showed up???????? I garentee they were looking to net more than $150

could have easily been a movie prop too. i do agree with earlier suggestions on it being a war trophy, not necessarily from vietnam. the arabs in the desert still use vietnam-era weapons. could have come from over there. could have been deactivated...

also, it seems a more plausable theory that it is a setup to shank a potential buyer and steal his truck more than an ATF sting. i cannot see the agency wasting time and assests just to arrest someone that may not have known any better, vice those who are openly seeking illegal firearms.

glad you didnt go. most things that seem too good to be true, are. and purchasing a car from a stranger is not like purchasing a firearm from a stranger

First off to end this whole argument, from what I know if you want to pay and can legally get a Class III Weapon's license then it is perfectly legal for you to own a fully auto. You have gone through all of the checks and political red tape and have been cleared. So, just by looking at some gun someone advertises in my mind does not make you guilty of any crime. Even if the ATF were to do some scam like this, which they would not, they would not necessarily know that you do not have the legal right (Class III license) to own one so if they did arrest you for such they would be breaking many laws and I don't see anyone doing such a thing. Then again you cannot exactly sue the ATF either for wrongdoing so I am not sure how that would end up. I am no expert on any of this by any means this is just solely based on what I know. I will ask a friend of mine that works for the ATF just to clarify this when I see her.

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a "Class III weapons license". Title II weapons (suppressors, machineguns, short-barreled rifles & shotguns, destructive devices, and AOWs) are individually registered to the owner, a tax is paid for the transfer along with filling out the required paperwork and getting BATFE approval. There is no instance where it is legal for a non-dealer to possess a title II firearm without having already had the transfer approved and paying the tax. Additionally, a legal machinegun would have to be already in the registry, registered to the current owner, meaning there is no way the original owner could have it and not know what it is or what it's worth. So a sting operation as described would work quite well.

And let's not forget that BATFE set up Randy Weaver by having a stooge badger him into cutting off a barrel 1/4" under the legal limit, then murdered his wife and son over it. So I really would not be saying what BATFE would and would not do to a gun owner.

so did you ever talk to the guy or look at it?

If you can be arrested for LOOKING at a machine gun, then many people I know should be rotting in prison. As many have said there is a lot of paranoia in this thread. The BATFE wouldn't waste time and money with something like this. If they really had 20 guys coming to buy it, that's 20 long, drawn out court cases that would cost over a million dollars. All that to have most if not all of the guys get off because of the obvious loopholes in such a lame sting like that?

Click to expand...

If you need convincing that the BATFE would spend incredible amounts of money, use dirty underhanded tactics to get a conviction, use the legal system and media to completely destroy a person, and are able to convict a person for possessing a machinegun without them actually possessing a machinegun, could always use the search function and type in the word 'Olafson.'

"paranioa"

see post 28

Click to expand...

krochus- you forgot to mention all of your other posts.
#20, 22, 24, 62, 67, 75, 81.
you know the ones where you tried to convince us it was a sting and he could go to jail for "looking" at a machine gun, even though it wasn't advertised as such.

"paranioa"

Click to expand...

Not paranoia, common sense. Unfortunately common sense also means taking into consideration that the government agency in charge of gun regulation has unchecked power, unlimited amounts of money to use for prosecutions, and suffer from a 'inferiority complex' as far as federal law enforcement agencies go.
Common sense keeps you alive and free of prison rape.

cracked butt-
although i'm not calling it paranoia, ignorance of how the laws work is hardly common sense.

mmkay then.

So the gun didn't even exist. Yet people are still arguing that going to look at it would have been a good idea? I can't think of any good reasons someone would advertise a gun they don't have.

If you don't believe that the BATFE operates without regard to entrapment lawsuits, go (try to) buy one of those "pre-86 drop in autosears" they advertise in SGN all the time. If this were all paranoia like some of you apparently believe, Randy Weaver would still be living happily with his wife and children at Caribou Ridge.

Any agency that employees humans is open to the failings of humans.

We recently had a case up here where the owners of an aviation company were charged with buying rocket pods for some L-39 training jets. The feds went to great lengths to prove, at trial no less, that the rocket launchers were war weapons.

The truth was that they had been de-milled and had already been inspected several times in the past. But the feds did their best to ruin the owners and the company. Which they did thru the press.
Including a bizzarre story about how they had a corporate jet with secert compartmenst for shipping illegal weapons to agencies in Iraq. I myself walked and crawled all over that plane and there were no secret hatches.

They even tried to charge the guy with possession of a supressor which turned out to be an airsoft toy from his kid.
They never printed a retraction.
They eventually found some totally unrelated money exchange stuff from the other owner and nailed him with it. Oddly enough the guy they nailed was a former prosecuter up here, who many of the feds believed was involved with the prosecution of one of the head feds years ago for a DWI and prostitution arrest..
They do tend to get rather juvenile at times..

expvideo: "Let's assume you are broke and stupid enough to show up for this "bargain"... You will not be able to afford a lawyer. You will be assigned an idiot public defender who is only concerned with getting you to accept a plea deal. You'll sit in jail until you do, because the bail will be rediculous. After all, you were trying to buy a machinegun. You will lose your job and so on. Eventually you will either lose the case, because your public defender is not that good, or you will get a great plea bargain. All the government wants you to do is accept the plea bargain."

Nearly every criminal case ends with some sort of agreed recommended disposition (usually a "plea bargain") submitted to the court by the prosecution and defense counsel. Perhaps one or two percent of cases, at most, actually go to trial. Simply wanting your day in court is not likely to get you much of a trial, as your attorney will counsel against it, the judge will confer with him and the DA, and at most you will get a few hours of a set piece yawner until the judge gets tired of you. The cases which really need to go to trial are understood as such by the attorneys and explained as such by them to the judge, and they are accorded some of the precious space on the trial docket. A guy who just doesn't want to negotiate and wants to "have his say" is more than an annoyance -- he is consuming scarce resources.

Except for those large cities in a few states which actually have an office of the public defender, most "public defenders" are experienced private criminal defense attorneys selected for their reliability, attitude and general competence as well as for their personality (they often have to enter holding areas and meet with and deliver bad news to multiple smelly, dangerous men in custody). As part of their caseload, the defenders agree to accept appointment by the court to represent indigent criminal defendants at court expense in certain courts, sometimes limited by their number or the type of case. If anything, they are higher in quality than the general population of attorneys, as they must have experience and a good reputation (or at least the right kind of reputation). Calling them idiots marks you as woefully uninformed, with a personal history of interaction with the criminal justice system, probably from a position of weakness and the sort of exaggerated sense of entitlement and self-righteousness which leads to criminal misconduct. I'm not picking on you in particular; it's a pretty common misconception that "public defenders" are somehow inferior -- after all, why else would they let themselves get stuck helping indigent accuseds?

I'm one of your "idiots," in case you haven't figured it out.

Maybe because there are very very very very few semi auto Chinese type 56's. And the ones that are around are over $3000. This is a machinegun probably a Vietnam bringback. Very cool and twice as illegal. This isn't something ordinary like an AK variant this is pretty unique and rare.

Click to expand...

It is a Chinese RPD clone, AKA Type 56-1. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPD_(weapon)

Good luck finding a semi-auto chinese RPD, as all of the semi-auto recievors have been pretty tightly controlled, and only sold as completed Hungarian, Bulgarian, and Russian kit built semi-autos. It's either a super rare homebuild from a parts kit that was never imported to the US in any quantity what so ever, or its a bringback from Korea or Vietnam and is illegal as all hell. There is also a possibilty that it is a pre-68 registered class 3 MG, but there is slim to no way that the seller would not be aware of the legal baggage not to mention accompanying paperwork and NFA transfer procedures, because they would have had to go through it all to legally own, posess or transport the gun.

Except that the picture came from a thread on a Korean message board in 2001. Proof that the seller didn't even have the gun.

I don't know that is proof.
I have seen a lot of Internet Posts of "I've got (or am looking at, etc.) a gun just like the one in this picture.

The seller claimed to not know what kind of gun it was. Yet he was able to look up a picture of it and still not know what it was? Nope he didn't have a gun.

Yeah. If he didn't know what kind of gun it is, how come he found a picture on a forum and how did he know it was firing 7.62x39?

When I go to buy imaginary guns I inform the "seller" that I'll be arriving in my Blastolene Special. The thief may want it but will know that he can't fence it.



I also let them know that I have Verizon wireless so if he messes with me, he'll have to deal with my network. Then there's my friend who will be coming along with me...



Seriously, why would a crook try to set you up when all they know about you is that you have $150. You may drive a POS for all he knows.

I could picture this being a gov't sting, and may yet have been. It doesn't seem that they had the gun though so how ironclad would their case be?

If the classified ad was free to the "seller", I'd say that he was just jerking potential buyers around.

Nearly every criminal case ends with some sort of agreed recommended disposition (usually a "plea bargain") submitted to the court by the prosecution and defense counsel. Perhaps one or two percent of cases, at most, actually go to trial. Simply wanting your day in court is not likely to get you much of a trial, as your attorney will counsel against it, the judge will confer with him and the DA, and at most you will get a few hours of a set piece yawner until the judge gets tired of you. The cases which really need to go to trial are understood as such by the attorneys and explained as such by them to the judge, and they are accorded some of the precious space on the trial docket. A guy who just doesn't want to negotiate and wants to "have his say" is more than an annoyance -- he is consuming scarce resources.

Except for those large cities in a few states which actually have an office of the public defender, most "public defenders" are experienced private criminal defense attorneys selected for their reliability, attitude and general competence as well as for their personality (they often have to enter holding areas and meet with and deliver bad news to multiple smelly, dangerous men in custody). As part of their caseload, the defenders agree to accept appointment by the court to represent indigent criminal defendants at court expense in certain courts, sometimes limited by their number or the type of case. If anything, they are higher in quality than the general population of attorneys, as they must have experience and a good reputation (or at least the right kind of reputation). Calling them idiots marks you as woefully uninformed, with a personal history of interaction with the criminal justice system, probably from a position of weakness and the sort of exaggerated sense of entitlement and self-righteousness which leads to criminal misconduct. I'm not picking on you in particular; it's a pretty common misconception that "public defenders" are somehow inferior -- after all, why else would they let themselves get stuck helping indigent accuseds?

I'm one of your "idiots," in case you haven't figured it out.

Click to expand...

Sadly the attitude that you have toward me is the same attitude that the entire criminal justice system has toward anyone who has been accused of a crime. which in turn is why most people that are accused of crimes feel the way I feel about the criminal justice system and in particular their public defenders. Now it is unfair for me to be making blanket statements, but you are doing the same thing to me. I was innocent of the crimes that were charged against me and I was advised strongly by my public defender to take the plea deal. It wasn't from my sense of entitlement or from feeling pushed into a corner to commit a crime. I didn't do what they said I did. Period. I was treated horribly by the criminal justice system and got to learn first hand about the realities of "innocent until proven guilty". That reality is that everyone in the court room, especially your public defender, believes that you are just another scumbag who is guilty and trying to cheat the system. I can even prove it. Look at your post. THere you go. I proved it. Your public defender thinks you're full of it and just as guilty as everyone else. Thank you for justifying my blanket statement.

I've personally been tossed 4 different public defenders, none of which even read my file before we were in court, on the same case. They were all unfamiliar with the wording of the law, or even what crime I was being accused of. They were only concerned with what my plea deal would be.

I have had a very bad experience with the criminal justice system, and it's not because I'm a scumbag who doesn't care about the law. I've had a prosecutor lie about me and use illegal evidence. I've had a judge accept illegal evidence. I've had a police officer lie under oath. I've had my constitutionally guaranteed appeal denied. None of it was legal, but I'm not rich enough to do anything about it.

Now to be fair to public defenders, they are not all the way you are and the way mine were. I had a friend who was charged with assault for accidentally shooting me. It was an accident and he was horrified. This guy gave me CPR until the ambulance arrived and saved my life. He's a hero in my eyes. Anyway, his public defender did get him a plea deal, but she fought really hard for him and you could tell that she cared a lot about the outcome. So there are some Public Defenders out there who do a good job and actually care about their clients, but most of them, from my experience, just assume that you wouldn't be there if you weren't guilty. Just like everyone else in the court room.

We should be fighting to overturn the NFA and the import ban. Fighting tooth and nail. There should be a national movement to do so and it should be well-funded and well-publicized. We're being held hostage and immobilized by stupid issues like ammo registration and the AWB and the .50-cal ban that are pushing us backwards - we should be bulldozing forward and overturning the socialist, evil, disgusting laws that prevent the easy establishment of real militias with modern weapons.

How can we accomplish this? Why isn't the NRA trying to do so?

Click to expand...

Because pushing the issue on gun laws and such can be a two edged sword -- great if we win, but potentially very costly if we lose. Where would things stand right now if one vote in the SCOTUS had gone the other direction on the Heller ruling? Agitating to change the NFA laws means putting those laws and the firearms associated with them on the media's radar, and we'll surely have investigative reporters swooping in to help the unaware public become aware that "the man next door might have a machinegun!" -- and, because they're trying to sell papers or get ratings or whatever, it'll be spun with the additional bit that, "and he might be a ticking timebomb of rage -- how to protect your family from crazed machinegun owners at 11:00."

Doesn't matter that you can fit all the "crazed (legal) machinegun owners" in the country's history inside a Prius and probably have room for their firearms collection to fit in there with them -- this is the American media we're discussing.

Media hype pretty quickly leads to politicians feeling like they have to appear to be acting, and the current political lineup doesn't favor this topic turning into a win for gun owners if the NRA or any other major organization starts making noise.

I'm all in favor of the 2nd Amendment and agree that it's current legal regulation is a subversion of the Framers' intent, but when we start talking about taking stuff to the courts, or the court of popular opinion, I'm also in favor of exercising extreme care in which fights we pick.

expvideo: "Sadly the attitude that you have toward me is the same attitude that the entire criminal justice system has toward anyone who has been accused of a crime. which in turn is why most people that are accused of crimes feel the way I feel about the criminal justice system and in particular their public defenders."

The Constitution guarantees you a right to counsel if you are at risk of jail. It does not guarantee you the right to the particular counsel of your choice, nor to counsel who will pursue the case as you might prefer. The main idea is to keep defendants from pleading guilty to charges for which they may have a valid defense. A secondary and largely unspoken consideration from an administrative standpoint is to counsel defendants without valid defenses into negotiated pleas, rather than trying every case and slowing the court pace from merely glacial to that of molasses in January.

If defenders seem summary or even conclusory, it's because we can and must quickly determine via a few critical questons whether the case is triable or not. We know what is relevant, what is probative, and what is persuasive. If things look "interesting," then we begin to question witnesses, examine more than the original report, conduct research, even investigate the scene and surrounding circumstances. I've done a lot of that, too. It can be a lot of fun. It can also be deadly dull. Try watching seven hours of poor-quality interrogation videos sometime!

Unlike on television, most criminal cases fit within a finite system of pattern recognition. The exceptional cases eventually make it onto a trial list, but even among those, the vast majority get pled out when the DA caves in whole or in part and a plea to lesser charges results. Some cases just get dismissed by agreement or on motion. Admittedly this can take persistence by the defender and defendant. If this starts to happen too often, the DA makes office policy changes on the type of charge leading to dismissals so as to avoid the wasted motion. I once earned the enduring wrath of an Assistant DA this way on a case which, after substantial investigation, research, review, analysis and argument, ultimately resulted in a dismissal of all charges for which the maximum penalty was thirty years (potentially consecutive with additional sentencing on several counts), and for which the DA originally sought that maximum penalty. Amazingly (and gratifyingly), that defendant has not appeared in court since.

I guess what I'm saying is that although many individual defendants like to feel uniquely persecuted by a system which isn't taking enough time on their cases, the reality is that the defender really has seen most of it before, many times, and quickly knows pretty much what will happen in discussions with the prosecutors and/or at trial and sentencing.

That said, some defenders do try to make a living off of appointed cases alone, and their volume of such cases can get too high. They can tend to devote too little time to individual cases. Interestingly, these attorneys become well-known around the courts and among defendants, as they try to compensate for their record by cultivating a reputation as "fighters", They often get requested by defendants who cannot know they are buying their way to the corral.

I guess what I'm saying is that the very ones you hate probably are the better and more honest ones, and so your ire is missplaced.