Class 3 dealer and importer convicted in California.

Status
Not open for further replies.

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
Calaveras County Safe Again

By Jeff Knox

(Manassas, VA, April 27) The people of Calaveras County - the remote
central California mining region made famous by the gold rush of 1849
and the jumping frogs of Mark Twain - can breath easier now that Richard
Wilmshurst has been brought to justice. Wilmshurst was convicted last
month of illegal possession of a machinegun and illegal possession of
"Assault Weapons" in California. The judge sentenced Wilmshurst to three
years probation and ordered that he dispose of his "arsenal".

Wilmshurst, by the way, is a car dealer and land speculator with a law
degree, a federal firearms import license, and a class 3 license.

This could be the Second Amendment case we've been waiting for or it
could be another case of a white-hat taking a fall because white-hats
are easier targets than black-hats.

Wilmshurst's troubles began in January of 2003 when an ATF agent
performing a routine inspection of his import inventory mentioned that a
couple of the guns were not legal for Californians to own. Wilmshurst
wasn't worried; the guns were within the umbrella of his import business
and were intended for distribution outside the state of California for
sale to law enforcement.

In February, officers from the California Department of Justice Firearms
Enforcement Division, using information obtained from ATF, staged raids
on Wilmshurst's home and Angel Camp car dealership. The raids were
conducted in full "storm-trooper" fashion with black "ninja" suits,
heavy body armor, and true assault weapons. This being "people friendly"
California, the assault force included a medic to monitor 69-year old,
stroke survivor, Wilmshurst's blood pressure as they dumped the contents
of his safe and confiscated every gun he or his businesses owned.

Even though it is a violation of federal law for information obtained
from records generated in compliance with import license regulations to
be used directly or indirectly as evidence against the licensee, the
judge refused to hear arguments that the warrants were illegal and that
all evidence seized was inadmissible. Instead, he barred any mention of
federal law in the courtroom and instructed the jury that if the
prosecutor proved that Wilmshurst was in possession of the firearms in
question (something that Wilmshurst never denied), that the jury must
return a guilty verdict.

The guilty verdict was summarily returned and last week, Wilmshurst was
sentenced to three years probation and, as a convicted felon, ordered to
dispose of all of his firearms.

The judge in the case - who happens to be the same judge that ruled
against Wilmshurst in a property case currently on appeal - expressed
dismay that Wilmshurst is showing no remorse for his crimes.

Wilmshurst is planning to appeal the conviction and has filed suit
against the Attorney General of California for violating federal law in
conducting the raid and for violating Wilmshurst's civil rights under
the Second Amendment.

The Firearms Coalition is bringing the Wilmshurst case to the attention
of Second Amendment scholars and firearms civil rights organizations in
hopes of generating "friend of the court" briefs and perhaps getting Mr.
Wilmshurst the specialized legal assistance this case clearly deserves.

We will keep you posted as the case develops.

In the meantime, let this be a reminder: Your white hat is no defense
against aggressive police, prosecutors, and judges. There are many
things that Richard Wilmshurst would rather be doing with his time,
money and midnight oil. Cross your T's and dot your i's.

Yours for the Second Amendment,

Jeff

Jeff Knox
Director of Operations
The Firearms Coalition
 
So where in the hell are all of the Californina JBT's going to buy all of their true assault weapons from if they keep this crap up!? :cuss:
 
The judge refused to allow federal law to be considered? This idiot (judge) needs to be prosecuted himself! Or does he think that California is a sovereign nation?
What was that thread about judicial activism?

The really sad part, is that by the time this is overturned on appeal (probably), the guns will already be destroyed (ooops! sorry, procedural mistake!) :cuss:
 
Profanity fails me. I am amazed by the behavior of everyone involved. That man deserves an apology RIGHT NOW.
 
That man doesn't deserve an apology. He deserves a big FAT check from the State of California and the satisfaction of seeing that activist (*^%*^%#!! judge get his rearend thrown in the slammer for violating the law. :cuss:
 
quote:

"Wilmshurst wasn't worried; the guns were within the umbrella of his import business and were intended for distribution outside the state of California for sale to law enforcement."

Is this legal under the state law of California? Apparently nobody on THR has referenced CA to see if he as a dealer is exempt from these laws?

just wondering before everyone speculates he is going to get a check from the State of California? According to the 12020 sections of the Penal Code it appears that he has to be engaged in the business of selling these firearms to law enforcement or other qualified persons. that may be the reason he was convicted, if his books showed all kinds of acquisitions but no dispositions.
 
Even though it is a violation of federal law for information obtained from records generated in compliance with import license regulations to be used directly or indirectly as evidence against the licensee, the judge refused to hear arguments that the warrants were illegal and that all evidence seized was inadmissible.

The term "law" has no definite meaning in the People's Republic of California.
 
Instead, he barred any mention of
federal law in the courtroom and instructed the jury that if the
prosecutor proved that Wilmshurst was in possession of the firearms in
question (something that Wilmshurst never denied), that the jury must
return a guilty verdict.

So, *** is the point of having a jury at all? :cuss:
 
When I read articles like this, I can't help but wonder if there's some kind of extenuating circumstance--some reason--why the DOJ in any state would feel compelled to do something like this. Did the guy get on the bad side of the DOJ some way we don't know about? Or was he breaking the law in other ways and they decided to use weapons possession to take him down?

Not saying it's nececessarily right if of course they were somehow in violation of federal law. But I highly doubt this article gives all of the material facts about the case.
 
RavenVT100 said:
When I read articles like this, I can't help but wonder if there's some kind of extenuating circumstance--some reason--why the DOJ in any state would feel compelled to do something like this.

The California DOJ has a reason, it's called the Attorney General.

If I didn't know a helluva lot of good people in that state, I'd suggest that Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon build walls and post guards to keep the Kalifornians in. Quarantine the place until the infection runs it's course.

S/F

Farnham
 
California firearms laws are so convoluted that it would take a team of lawyers and their paralegals a year to figure them out.

It's too late to put up a fence to keep all the low-life & cretins out of California. It should have been done 40 years ago. I can only hope that the rest of the country learns from this nonsense.

Gotta hand it to Wilmhurst for having the courage of his convictions. I hope this gets appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court. Not only for the publicity but also to show how out of touch the Calif. DOJ really is.
 
Sitting here doing a little googling...

"Wilmshurst said he had the guns at home because he and his longtime friend, who died in Wyoming, were going to go into business together, selling the guns to law enforcement and airport security crews.

His friend died in 2002, the year before the weapons were found."

It looks to me from what I've been reading like he has an import license, but never set up an import business and got around to selling guns. He just bought them and kept them.

John
 
if that is correct, he may have been charged with a state felony. meaning, he had a federal license to import, but for some reason, didn't have the state permits required.

CA is a very difficult place to be an FFL. one guy posted that he needed 7 permits to operate in CA (including the FFL). that's just to be a dealer. imagine having to be set up as an importer and then possibly of weapons restricted to LE/gov. use. there is probably a dozen or so permits to keep up with then.

if he was charged with a state felony, i.e., not having the required permits, then i can see how the judge could restrict the introduction into evidence of having a federal permit to import, when the issue at hand is the violation of a state law that prohibits the weapons unless the necessary state permits are obtained.

i dont know if he had them and they expired, or if he had ever applied for them. either way, if he had possession of the weapons without a valid state permit(s) then that could be the legal issue.
 
i dont know if he had them and they expired, or if he had ever applied for them. either way, if he had possession of the weapons without a valid state permit(s) then that could be the legal issue.
It probably is. But that's not the biggest point - the DoJ issued illegal search warrants, since they were based on information obtained from properly-filed and mandated federal paperwork. I believe this puts them under the umbrella of the fifth amendment.

Even if it doesn't, the judge has no right whatsoever to ban discussion of the validity of the warrants from the courtroom or the jury's consideration.
 
i dont think it is a 5th Amendment issue. if it was there would have been a 1538 hearing (Motion to Suppress Evidence) before the premliminary hearing and well before trial, in a lower court (municipal court). also, the 5th Amendment defense would have been introduced and slapped down in two lower courts before even making the trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top