Cops Arrest Home Invasion Crew / Gang Members

[DMF]

Home invasion? Robbery?

You mean to tell me you want the federal government to go around enforcing state laws? I'm surprised to see you guys want that, but I guess you never really know about some folks.

I on the other hand, am against the feds enforcing state laws, except in the very specific and very rare case of a state crime being committed on property of exclusive federal jurisdiction, but within the boundaries of a particular state, and then being prosecuted under the Assimilative Crimes Act. I for one will continue to support the concept of separate sovereigns, aka state's rights, rather than expect the federal government to interfere with the sovereign states as you two are advocating.

As has been discussed many times before, if the feds and the locals are investigating crimes, the locals will charge offenses under state and local law, and the feds will charge offenses under federal law. I don't know why this seems unusual to anyone.

However I can think of many offenses in Title 18 and Title 21 of the USC code that COULD be part of the charges. However, I am not SAC McMahon, or USA Suddaby, and therefore I would only be speculating on what specific sections of the US Code are part of the indictment. Again, call the ATF NY Field Division, or the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of NY, to inquire about the details.

Now cropcirclewalker, with regard to this question:

Weapons Violations? 2nd Amendment? Please reconcile.

There is nothing in the portions of Title 18 or Title 26, which deal with firearms, that are un-Constitutional. Hold the battle cries until you read the rest please.

You may not like it, but keep in mind those parts of Title 18 and Title 26 that deal with firearms have been passed by the legislature, in accordance with Article I of the Constitution, were signed into law and are enforced by the Executive, in accordance with Article II of the Constitution, and have been contested and ruled on by the judiciary, in accordance with Article III of the Constitution.

Now, I know there will be cries of, "those laws are unconstitutional," "the sniveling congress critters are wrong," "the president is weak and wrong," and "the courts have twisted the Constitution and their decisions are wrong." The problem with all of those cries is our Constitution created a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, not a direct democracy. Therefore by design the individual citizens do not have a direct say in those matters. Rather the people we elect as our representatives, and those appointed by the people we elect, all as specified in the Constitution, have a direct say in what is or is not Constitutional. We elected those congressman, and presidents, who in turn appointed and confirmed the judges.

If you don't like the people representing you, be sure to vote. If changing who is making the decisions, by voting, isn't good enough for you, and you want changes in the system itself, I refer you to Article V, of the Constitution.

Now if you profess to know, and support, the Constitution, then all this should be clear to you already.

 

[beerslurpy]

Why were they all arrested on weapons and narcotics violations, and not, say, home invasion?

A question that occurred to me as well. I am not sure that I applaud the ATF for arresting these dangerous criminals if they cant even be arrested for real crimes instead of what are essentially paperwork crimes.

I am sure they are very unsavory characters, but given sufficient effort Im sure I could be made out to be the devil incarnate. All you have to do is mention a few things that are true:
"jim was found with thousands of rounds of ammo and many guns"
"he said something bad about the government"
with a few things that arent true:
"he ate a baby"
"he was plotting to blow up the atf building in bumfoek, alabama"
and arrest me so I will be conveniently unavailable to say anything in my defense...
And you get a situation that may very well not get me any jail time or convictions, but it will certainly cost me a lot of money and make a few ATF agents look very good until long after this is all forgotten by the media.

Imagine how much harder a situation like this is for someone who exists on the fringes of society and really is a small time criminal. I guess I just dont like people being arrested for dubious crimes and convicted with inuendo, which is what thise background information really is. Until you convict them of such, they ARENT home invaders or robbers.

 

[Waitone]

No doubt 99.9% of bATFE types do their job right and proper.

That still doesn't explain why the organization exists. Seems to me it is a vestage of a bygone era. Is there anything bATFE does that is not duplicated somewhere else?

 

[ravinraven]

"I'd be doing the same kind of stuff. Would that make me a bad guy?"

Only if you did it to me. hehhehheh


rr

 

[DRZinn]

You mean to tell me you want the federal government to go around enforcing state laws?

Don't be asinine. At no point did ccw or I assert or infer that it would be preferable for these people to have been arrested by the ATF for home invasion. Only that it would be nice if these unconstitutional laws (I'll get back to that in a second; don't get your panties in a wad.) would not be further legitimized by using them against true criminals. Imagine if they started prosecuting rapists for having zippers on their pants instead of buttons because it facilitated the commission of the crime. Then after a while they want to prosecute you for having a zipper instead of buttons. "But I'm not a rapist!"
"Maybe not, but you have that evil zipper that's designed only for quick access."

passed by the legislature, in accordance with Article I of the Constitution, were signed into law and are enforced by the Executive, in accordance with Article II of the Constitution, and have been contested and ruled on by the judiciary, in accordance with Article III of the Constitution.

And here we get back to the idea that because it was all done in acordance with established procedure, that it must be constitutional. That's so asinine that I almost don't want to even address it, but if I must, I must. Hmmm... the slave codes. Jim Crow laws. Need I say more?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

You mean to tell me you want the federal government to go around enforcing state laws?

I don't think you quite got my drift.

I would like the federal government to NOT go around enforcing state laws. I would like .gov to enforce the laws for which they are authorized like stamping out piracy, issuing letters of marque and keeping the militia in order (when actually called into service of the US)

"Weapons Violations", if there are any (but I can't think of one), belong properly to the state. ATF needs to go away along with the helium reserve and most other useless agencies.

Just because congress or the supremes declare ketchup to be a vegatable does not make it so.

 

[tyme]

Let's start with a simple question: How exactly does a 22-month investigation into a home invasion crew result in an indictment lacking a single robbery or burglary charge?

Ah yes, robbery and burglary are not federal crimes.

Where are the local police in all of this? Two of the suspects are in state prison. Perhaps they were the ones committing the actual burglaries?

 

[Art Eatman]

How do we know that no state charges are pending? We've seen a press release from the feds. Who knows? Maybe there will be one from the state guys, later on.

I do know that a lot of times the feds are "given" some bad guys because of budget issues. Staties are happy to let the feds foot the bill when both state and federal laws are broken.

As far as the Constitution and BOR and all that, remember that the Second Amendment was NOT intended as an unlimited right. At least, that's what was said about it by those who proposed and wrote the BOR. (I won't try to make any argument that our more modern-times legislators haven't gone beyond the intent of the writers.)

Art

 

[thorn726]

It is pretty obvious why they just give them the firearms charges=
EASiest to convict on, LONG LONG sentences-
i applaud the courts not wasting more time and money on the rest of the charges= probably 80% chance it will end in plea, and regardless with this much charges, whats the extra gonna equal? nothing. more time running concurrently.
State charges have weird work/time credit.
fed prisoners do 85% no parole.

why would the state bother to spend money on something the feds are gonna pay for??

i really dont like guys like this, robbing dealers. UGH. it just makes the drug war seem justified

got to love this sentiment, there is a lot of truth here

Oh, I see the problem.
These guys were bustin' down drug dealers doors, threatening them, and taking away their drugs and/or money.
Clearly they were on the feds turf.
That's what they do, right?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Again, call the ATF NY Field Division, or the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of NY, to inquire about the details.

I thought about following that advice, Mr. DMF.

Then the advice of my Ol' granpappy came wafting back through. He used to say, "Don't go pokin' no sleepin' bears with no sharp sticks."

Not a good idea to become an "Inconvience".

I think I will just do some googling and if I have no luck, probably just continue to whine and question their adroitly placed succintness in my misguided and misinformed attitudes that these "Weapons Charges" are just piling on of the unconstitutional infringement of the 2a.

Till we get those mundane laws removed, they will forever be an Albacore around our necks.

 

[dustind]

thorn726: But what about the bad guys that are not gun owners? Shouldn't we just give the feds the power to lock people up for a really long time for being "bad guys." Proving it is too hard and takes to much work so we should just skip the whole court process. If we did that we would have twenty times the prison population that we have now, oh wouldn't that be great.