Harve Curry
Member
For the HIGHROAD folks to review. I did a search and couldn't find anything else on this email I recieved. I deleted the addresses and non essential names within this email to post it here at THR, it's being circulated among Civil War reenactors:
Subject : Cannon Court Case
Hello to All Concerned,
I don't know the details of Mark Evan's cannon, but as long as it is a muzzle
loader it doesn't violate federal law. Is there a new law in Sacramento?
Mark NEEDS a lawyer(s).
The NRA ( and ML organizations) should be interested and alerted to this case if
not already , then ASAP.
Sounds like this is going to far without a lawyer(s) and Mark Evan has to much
riding on this outcome for all concernd nation wide.
respt',
Bill
> I don?t know fellas, but it looks as though California is going to screw us
> all one way or another.
> Subject: RE: Cannon Court Case
>
> Artillery Brothers,
>
> All I can add is the fact of getting a lawyer. ?If you represent yourself
> you have a fool as a client?. Tony is correct that this type of case can
> set a court precedent for future enforcement action.
>
> Can anyone provide more detail as to what happened? Was he doing a school
> presentation, reenactment, etc.? What behaviors actually brought the
> charges? I would hate to think that traveling to an event that I could draw
> a SWAT Team and the ATF.
>
> We live in a time of overreaction and paranoia. 9/11 has truly changed our
> lives. Just last week, I attended a Diamond Back Game in Phoenix and was
> searched as I entered the game for weapons. So much for freedom of going to
> watch America?s past time.
> Subject: RE: Cannon Court Case
> Importance: High
>
> Tony:
>
> As a 24-year military policeman, I have observed some court cases similar
> to this (in nature, not offense-wise). A prosecutor can bring whatever
> charges they want. Regardless of what the Federal Law says, there is still
> the matter of state & local government and ordinaces. Federal Law does not
> always take precidence.
>
> What Mark needs is a DARN GOOD LAWYER. A good lawyer will argue the
> charges and hopefully convince a judge otherwise. On the other hand, if it
> is a misdemeanor offense, Mark himself may be able to argue his case to the
> judge AND WIN, if he does it correctly, however, I ALWAYS recommend someone
> use a lawyer. Plus, if he represents himself and loses, he cannot appeal,
> but with a lawyer-he can.
>
> From what I have read, he attempted to argue his case to the DA, which is
> futile if the DA is bound and determined to go forth in the legal system
> with it. He may as well be talking to a rock. The judge makes the ruling,
> not the DA, so he should concentrate his energy for the judge. But
> again,...I HIGHLY SUGGEST,...GET A LAWYER. If he cannot afford one, maybe
> we can all "pass the hat" or something. He has the right to an appointed
> counsel, but normally an appointed counsel will only try to settle--not
> fight.
>
> I took the liberty of looking up the Sacramento DA's Office online. I see
> you have some very versed folks on this list, so maybe some contact with
> them could help. The email address is: [email protected], and the
> DA's name is Jan Scully.
>
> In closing, I hope this information helps, but I cannot stress it
> enough,...HE NEEDS A GOOD LAWYER.
>
> Respectfully;
>
> -David
>
> > > Hi Ed,
> >
> > I understand you are aware of Mark Evon's situation with
> > his cannon in Sacramento. I spoke to him today and I am very concerned
> > with the situation. He is summoned to appear in court on misdemeanor
> > charges of possessing a destructive device on November 1, 2007 at 0900
> > hours, and at this time is not represented, or in my opinion, ready to
> > present an adequate defense. Don't get me wrong, we talked at length,
> > and Mark appears to be very sharp individual, however, he is not a
> lawyer,
> > and this is way too important to all of us. He told me that the DA's
> > office offered to drop the charges if he registers his cannon as a
> > destructive device, but I feel this is a very bad idea and could set a
> > precedent for other cannon owners. Same proposition if he fights and
> > loses. If it goes either way, Cannon ownership in this state will be
> > jeopardized big time.
> > I told Mark I would put the word out to all
> > California Cannon owners in hopes that somebody out there will know how
> to
> > best fight these bogus charges. I did some searching on-line, and came up
> > with the following so far:
> > Paragraph (16 of Subsection (a) Section
> > 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code
> > Section 479.11 of Title 27
> > of the Code of Federal Regulations
> > Office of Attorney General Bureau
> > of Firearms Section 12301 & 12088.8
> > To me (also a layman &
> > not an attorney) it seems quite clear that Civil War Cannons (and
> replicas
> > thereof) are NOT destructive devices and do not require permits or
> special
> > registration. However, Mark has already presented this opinion citing
> > these some of these same sections plus whatever you already provided him,
> > and they are still going moving forward with the charges.
> > What do
> > you recommend?
> > Thank you very much for your time~
Subject : Cannon Court Case
Hello to All Concerned,
I don't know the details of Mark Evan's cannon, but as long as it is a muzzle
loader it doesn't violate federal law. Is there a new law in Sacramento?
Mark NEEDS a lawyer(s).
The NRA ( and ML organizations) should be interested and alerted to this case if
not already , then ASAP.
Sounds like this is going to far without a lawyer(s) and Mark Evan has to much
riding on this outcome for all concernd nation wide.
respt',
Bill
> I don?t know fellas, but it looks as though California is going to screw us
> all one way or another.
> Subject: RE: Cannon Court Case
>
> Artillery Brothers,
>
> All I can add is the fact of getting a lawyer. ?If you represent yourself
> you have a fool as a client?. Tony is correct that this type of case can
> set a court precedent for future enforcement action.
>
> Can anyone provide more detail as to what happened? Was he doing a school
> presentation, reenactment, etc.? What behaviors actually brought the
> charges? I would hate to think that traveling to an event that I could draw
> a SWAT Team and the ATF.
>
> We live in a time of overreaction and paranoia. 9/11 has truly changed our
> lives. Just last week, I attended a Diamond Back Game in Phoenix and was
> searched as I entered the game for weapons. So much for freedom of going to
> watch America?s past time.
> Subject: RE: Cannon Court Case
> Importance: High
>
> Tony:
>
> As a 24-year military policeman, I have observed some court cases similar
> to this (in nature, not offense-wise). A prosecutor can bring whatever
> charges they want. Regardless of what the Federal Law says, there is still
> the matter of state & local government and ordinaces. Federal Law does not
> always take precidence.
>
> What Mark needs is a DARN GOOD LAWYER. A good lawyer will argue the
> charges and hopefully convince a judge otherwise. On the other hand, if it
> is a misdemeanor offense, Mark himself may be able to argue his case to the
> judge AND WIN, if he does it correctly, however, I ALWAYS recommend someone
> use a lawyer. Plus, if he represents himself and loses, he cannot appeal,
> but with a lawyer-he can.
>
> From what I have read, he attempted to argue his case to the DA, which is
> futile if the DA is bound and determined to go forth in the legal system
> with it. He may as well be talking to a rock. The judge makes the ruling,
> not the DA, so he should concentrate his energy for the judge. But
> again,...I HIGHLY SUGGEST,...GET A LAWYER. If he cannot afford one, maybe
> we can all "pass the hat" or something. He has the right to an appointed
> counsel, but normally an appointed counsel will only try to settle--not
> fight.
>
> I took the liberty of looking up the Sacramento DA's Office online. I see
> you have some very versed folks on this list, so maybe some contact with
> them could help. The email address is: [email protected], and the
> DA's name is Jan Scully.
>
> In closing, I hope this information helps, but I cannot stress it
> enough,...HE NEEDS A GOOD LAWYER.
>
> Respectfully;
>
> -David
>
> > > Hi Ed,
> >
> > I understand you are aware of Mark Evon's situation with
> > his cannon in Sacramento. I spoke to him today and I am very concerned
> > with the situation. He is summoned to appear in court on misdemeanor
> > charges of possessing a destructive device on November 1, 2007 at 0900
> > hours, and at this time is not represented, or in my opinion, ready to
> > present an adequate defense. Don't get me wrong, we talked at length,
> > and Mark appears to be very sharp individual, however, he is not a
> lawyer,
> > and this is way too important to all of us. He told me that the DA's
> > office offered to drop the charges if he registers his cannon as a
> > destructive device, but I feel this is a very bad idea and could set a
> > precedent for other cannon owners. Same proposition if he fights and
> > loses. If it goes either way, Cannon ownership in this state will be
> > jeopardized big time.
> > I told Mark I would put the word out to all
> > California Cannon owners in hopes that somebody out there will know how
> to
> > best fight these bogus charges. I did some searching on-line, and came up
> > with the following so far:
> > Paragraph (16 of Subsection (a) Section
> > 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code
> > Section 479.11 of Title 27
> > of the Code of Federal Regulations
> > Office of Attorney General Bureau
> > of Firearms Section 12301 & 12088.8
> > To me (also a layman &
> > not an attorney) it seems quite clear that Civil War Cannons (and
> replicas
> > thereof) are NOT destructive devices and do not require permits or
> special
> > registration. However, Mark has already presented this opinion citing
> > these some of these same sections plus whatever you already provided him,
> > and they are still going moving forward with the charges.
> > What do
> > you recommend?
> > Thank you very much for your time~
