Gryffydd
Member
Actually, I believe you're OK to even put them on a gun...just so long as you never fire it with it on
Grenade launchers, machine guns, C-4, weapons cache stuns agents
- Thread starter Skykomish
- Start date
- Status
expvideo
Member
Machineguns are outlawed under Washington state law, unless you are an on-duty police officer.
Silencers are legal to own and to attach to firearms, but they are illegal to fire bullets through. This has never been challenged in court, and every case that has ever resulted in an arrest was thrown out. There is no exception for law enforcement, yet many Washington State police departments use them, even at public ranges. The state doesn't want to open that can of worms, which is why they haven't pursued charges against anyone yet. That being said, I wouldn't want to be the test case.
As for explosives and grenade launchers, I don't know how regulated, if at all, they are by WA law. It is highly unlikely that they were obtained legally.
zminer
Member
RP88 said:
Keep in mind this quote was attributed to unnamed law enforcement sources. It could have been an offhand quote from anyone, or even something someone said as a joke that the reporter felt sounded good in the story. Or, who knows, maybe it's something associated with the anti-government material they found. It really isn't clear.
That said, it sounds like law enforcement did the right thing. If machine guns are illegal and he owned them ... well, then he was doing something illegal and deserved to be arrested for it. Doesn't matter what he intended to do with them (unless they can prove it was for nefarious purposes) - he broke the law. It's pretty simple, really.
Plus if he *was* stealing stuff from the military - or someone else was stealing it and selling/giving it to him - I'd be pretty mad about that. I'd kind of rather that the military equipment my tax dollars pays for stays on military bases until it's needed, and doesn't get diverted to sheds somewhere for random dudes to stare at.
expvideo
Member
I can't believe that some of you guys are siding with him on this one. That is just nuts.
divemedic
Member
When assault weapons are banned next year, and a man is caught with some, where will your sympathies lie?
expvideo
Member
This guy either stole illegal machine guns and explosives from the government, or he bought ones that were stolen in an illegal purchase. This is not someone who has been taken advantage of by law enforcement. This is a bad guy. I don't care how old he is.
He didn't have unbanned assault weapons. He had machine guns, grenade launchers and c4. I don't think they should be illegal either, but they are.
Tell me why you think I should sympathize with a criminal.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Stolen property is stolen property regardless of how you feel about the NFA.
Titan6
member
Maybe, maybe not. Don't forget nobody knows how many unregistered machine guns there are wandering around in private hands that did not get on the registry. The ATF did not say that the guns were stolen, merely that they believed that they were stolen. How hard is it to run a trace back to the manufacturer for the serial number for the ATF? One would think not that hard. If the guns were sold to the military or police that would show.
expvideo
Member
It is the people who side with this guy who are losing us the battle against the antis. You guys make us all look crazy.
Titan6
member
Crazy is as crazy does. This is not so much a question of taking sides but not condemning someone until all the facts are in. Certainly with all the other lies and bad information put out in that press release that alone would be enough reasonable doubt to drive a truck through.
If you are willing to accept everything the media prints at face value than you are the one who is leading us down the path to absolute failure and enslavement.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Except the guy didn't have just guns. He had grenades that are only manufactured and sold to military, hence the only way he could have gotten them is if they were stolen.
Quiet
Member
GE-Mini-Gun said:
Except in WA.
Civilian possession of machineguns and destructive devices are prohibited in WA.
Only NFA firearms you can own in WA are any-other weapons and noise suppressors.
However, you can not legally install a noise suppressor onto a firearm in WA (you can own them, but can't use them).
JImbothefiveth
Member
+1, I pay enough taxes already.
When there is no legal sources the source will be illegal. Whether they are stolen or smuggled from "corrupt" sources, or stolen by another party.
Personaly I think the story is rather fair. The guy commited crimes by mere possession, but they acknowledge he merely owned them for "armageddon".
That is essentialy saying he was just harmlessly stockpiling them just in case, and had no intention of harming anyone short of a major SHTF scenario.
Sure beats them exagerating he was some terrorist intent on major harm when he wasn't.
The analogy to banned "Assault weapons" is accurate though. Such items were once legal, and then they were outlawed. Enough time and generations passed that now such things being outlawed seems like "common sense".
After 10 years of the AWB it seemed like "common sense" to many as well, and exceedingly dangerous to let it lapse.
In 1968 people were limited to .50 and less bore diameter, FFLs become required for the first time, and prohibited persons came to pass.
"Destructive devices" like the grenade launcher came to exist.
Now it is "common sense" that such restrictions exist, yet they didn't for most of our nation's history.
The government and paramilitary "police" that will be used against the people if necessary can possess many things that are illegal for the average citizen. A double standard inconsistant with the intention of the 2nd.
"Anti government" material could mean anything. Just believing the government could be the bad guys during a SHTF situation (like during Katrina) would be "anti government".
A person could have a whole library of books, but in such a situation they will take those suitable to the prosecution in the collection out of context by only mentioning and displaying those alongside the weapons. It is all about creating an image, whether it is true or not.
I know many people with books on things they don't believe. It is after all thier first Amendment right. How many non-Communists have a copy of the Communist Manifesto? I think I have a Koran somewhere, though I am not a Muslim. I guess that means if found with an "arsenal" (of legal items) I could be labeled a "muslim extremist."
A person with stockpiles to get through something like Katrina, or the "big one" predicted to hit, or even a lengthy blizzard who also happens to own firearms would be considered an "extremist, survivalist," etc Being able to be self reliant for any length of time makes someone abnormal.
Combine that with a large number of firearms, especialy any illegal and they become assumed or reported as a total unstable wacko just by association, and people readily believe it.
I choose not to break the current law (many genocide policies were "the law" or supported by "the law" too) myself, but I have a hard time condemning others who choose to excercise the 2nd as was legal less than 50 years ago.
Of course he didn't "legaly" buy them at the corner store or through a mail order catalog, that was made illegal in 1968.
I guess that makes me like the German not quite willing to stand up and hide the Jews myself because I am "law abiding" and unwilling to put myself and family at risk, but not willing to tell on others for doing so.
Of course what is that qoute?
All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Sounds like this man is an "unpitied sacrifice" to me.
Personaly I think the story is rather fair. The guy commited crimes by mere possession, but they acknowledge he merely owned them for "armageddon".
That is essentialy saying he was just harmlessly stockpiling them just in case, and had no intention of harming anyone short of a major SHTF scenario.
Sure beats them exagerating he was some terrorist intent on major harm when he wasn't.
The analogy to banned "Assault weapons" is accurate though. Such items were once legal, and then they were outlawed. Enough time and generations passed that now such things being outlawed seems like "common sense".
After 10 years of the AWB it seemed like "common sense" to many as well, and exceedingly dangerous to let it lapse.
In 1968 people were limited to .50 and less bore diameter, FFLs become required for the first time, and prohibited persons came to pass.
"Destructive devices" like the grenade launcher came to exist.
Now it is "common sense" that such restrictions exist, yet they didn't for most of our nation's history.
The government and paramilitary "police" that will be used against the people if necessary can possess many things that are illegal for the average citizen. A double standard inconsistant with the intention of the 2nd.
"Anti government" material could mean anything. Just believing the government could be the bad guys during a SHTF situation (like during Katrina) would be "anti government".
A person could have a whole library of books, but in such a situation they will take those suitable to the prosecution in the collection out of context by only mentioning and displaying those alongside the weapons. It is all about creating an image, whether it is true or not.
I know many people with books on things they don't believe. It is after all thier first Amendment right. How many non-Communists have a copy of the Communist Manifesto? I think I have a Koran somewhere, though I am not a Muslim. I guess that means if found with an "arsenal" (of legal items) I could be labeled a "muslim extremist."
A person with stockpiles to get through something like Katrina, or the "big one" predicted to hit, or even a lengthy blizzard who also happens to own firearms would be considered an "extremist, survivalist," etc Being able to be self reliant for any length of time makes someone abnormal.
Combine that with a large number of firearms, especialy any illegal and they become assumed or reported as a total unstable wacko just by association, and people readily believe it.
I choose not to break the current law (many genocide policies were "the law" or supported by "the law" too) myself, but I have a hard time condemning others who choose to excercise the 2nd as was legal less than 50 years ago.
Of course he didn't "legaly" buy them at the corner store or through a mail order catalog, that was made illegal in 1968.
I agree. I may choose not to be involved in the illegal activity myself, but I certainly won't be an active participant in enforcing anti 2nd Amendment policies.
I guess that makes me like the German not quite willing to stand up and hide the Jews myself because I am "law abiding" and unwilling to put myself and family at risk, but not willing to tell on others for doing so.
Of course what is that qoute?
All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Sounds like this man is an "unpitied sacrifice" to me.
Last edited:
Titan6
member
Again these are several assumptions on your part. That they were:
1. Grenades
2. Manufactured and sold to the military
3. Stolen
Not saying that it didn't happen that way. Not saying that the ATF isn't a great bastion of truth. Just saying you can't really tell all of that from the article.
Seriously?
He had over four dozen of these:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m406.htm
Not exactly something you can pick up at your local Wal*Mart.
---
well, you can get an INERT one on GunBroker... if you don't mind the $850 +s/h price tag
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=121037474
Hoplophile
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 238
While I usually side with a fellow gun nut, let's not forget that it seems likely that this guy was taking guns out of the hands of our soldiers.
IF he didn't steal them, IF they were never stolen in the first place (maybe he somehow ordered them, I don't know), THEN I don't have an ethical issue with it. However, he had quite a bit of explosives. His intentions seemed to be good (just in case, like we can't empathize), but still, that many explosions? One ND into the wrong corner of that shed and you can say goodbye to anyone else in the area.
Plus, it would destroy all those beautiful machine guns.
He endangered his GUNS, people! Won't someone please think of the firearms?!?!
Anyway, he broke laws. He probably had stolen property. I don't sympathize, even though NFA sucks.
IF he didn't steal them, IF they were never stolen in the first place (maybe he somehow ordered them, I don't know), THEN I don't have an ethical issue with it. However, he had quite a bit of explosives. His intentions seemed to be good (just in case, like we can't empathize), but still, that many explosions? One ND into the wrong corner of that shed and you can say goodbye to anyone else in the area.
Plus, it would destroy all those beautiful machine guns.
He endangered his GUNS, people! Won't someone please think of the firearms?!?!
Anyway, he broke laws. He probably had stolen property. I don't sympathize, even though NFA sucks.
TeamPrecisionIT
Member
That would be hilarious if its all airsoft!, lol. I didn't even think of that til you mentioned it.
Damian
Damian
sturmgewehr667
member
won't someone please think of how siding with the fascist ATF is destroying our rights?
guns are much easier to replace than constitutional rights
Titan6
member
I have seen them a lot cheaper than $850.
That is not my only point but you are headed the right way. It is the same with all the "condemn the police and organize a swing party" for them based on half cocked witness report that are so popular around here. If you don't know, you don't know.
average_shooter
Member
Some folks seem to be working on the assumption that everything in the article is true. This notion is always being proven false here on THR.
Let's keep in mind that the media can't tell the difference between live and inert munitions and the ATF can't tell between shoestrings and machine guns.
Knowing this you choose to believe the article is completely factual? Or at all factual?
I think this is definitely one I've got to reserve judgment on.
Let's keep in mind that the media can't tell the difference between live and inert munitions and the ATF can't tell between shoestrings and machine guns.
Knowing this you choose to believe the article is completely factual? Or at all factual?
I think this is definitely one I've got to reserve judgment on.
GlowinPontiac
Member
How much you want to bet some of those grenade launchers were the cup type ones that mount on the end of a rifle.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked