Hughes Workaround

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sambo82

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
136
Location
Ar
I know, I know; another wackey idea for getting around the FOPA ban.

My County Sheriff is of the Constitutional, Oath Keepers type of persuasion. I'm not sure if he knows the background of the Hughes Amendment, but I was planning to present a power-point type of presentation to him about it, with the conclusion being that he should offer to deputize citizens of his county so that they could purchase select fire weapons through his department.

I know it might be a longhot, but if I present the FOPA ban as a usurpation of his authority, and the possibility that it may a popular program and ensure his re-elction in our rabidly pro gun community, I figure it has a chance. From my understanding, Sheriffs can stipulate the authority that accompanies deputizing citizens, so he could deputize without granting any actual law enforcement capabilities to those citizens. There is of course no reason why he should deputize characters of low repute. He may choose only citizens with clean crimial records etc. If the department also takes, say 15% of the purchase price of the weapon as a processing fee, it might also be a useful source of revenue for the county.

What do you guys think? Are there any legal considerations that I'm not factoring in here? I'm sure the BATFE will not find it amusing, but is there any legal reason why they could shut this effort down?
 
You would have to be a reserve to be a deputy in Arkansas. That requires going through the training to be a certified LEO in Arkansas.

I have never heard of a county sheriff in Arkansas just swearing someone in who is not a reserve.
 
This is what I would call a LONG-SHOT. :)
Do cops get to take their MG home with them or do they have to lock them up at the station? I would expect they would leave them at the station so those on-duty can check them out when needed.
 
Do cops get to take their MG home with them or do they have to lock them up at the station? I would expect they would leave them at the station so those on-duty can check them out when needed.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it has to stay at the station. Isn't the wording of the law something like "in connection with their official duties" WRT post-'86 MGs?
 
Turtle, I'm not sure about keeping Mg's when off duty, but I've had local police officers show up at a friends farm to investigate when we were bumpfiring. They weren't on duty and I assume they just walked over directly from their houses nearby. They were carring select fire weapons at the time.
 
Regardless of where they were kept, the MG's would be owned by the Sheriff's Department. Would you really want to spend money on such an arrangement knowing that they could be repossessed at any time on the whim of the Sheriff, or the Sheriff that succeeds him? You would be out money and end up with nothing in return.

I can't imagine any CLEO in the country -- even the most pro-gun one -- going along with this arrangement. There's just too much downside for him.
 
with the conclusion being that he should offer to deputize citizens of his county so that they could purchase select fire weapons through his department.
Click to expand...
AlexanderA's right.

THEY still couldn't purchase post-sample machine guns. Their department could, and could then issue them as needed.

However, it would be a real shame for you to come off as wasting your Sheriff's time by trying to get him to deputize you for some frivilous non-duty reason. Most chief LEOs take their duties and responsibilities more seriously than that.

Kind of like asking your bank manager to hire you part time so you can roll around in the vault on a pile of money.
 
It would be easier for you to buy 1,000 acres of adjoining land, start your own town ship, declare yourself mayor and police chief and buy your guns that way.

No Sheriff would deputize a citizen so they could use department letterhead for their own use, especially when it comes to a controlled item. Most law enforcement agencies keep the automatic weapons in arms rooms unless they are needed, bigger departments will issue weapons that certain officers may keep in their patrol vehicles, such as shift commander, or SWAT/SOT/STAR team member, or your state police/highway patrol agency. But the average patrol officer does not carry select fire or automatic weapons.

If your wanting to shoot machine guns this bad, get a FFL and pay your SOT, and then you can buy machine guns or build them, depending on what license you get.
 
I understand that the MG's would still be county property, but that's no necessary blockade to citizen deputies keeping and using them themselves. If the Sheriff agreed to refund the purchase price of the firearm if it was ever required to be returned to the County, I wouldn't hesitate to sign up for a program such as that. I would expect and suggest to my Sheriff that the Country of course keep a registry and update it regularly. I'd assume he'd also want to run a background check and maybe carry out training or qualifications, again another possible source of revenue. I don't think that a fear of people using these weapons to commit crime is a realistic expectation, considering how few crimes have been committed with Federally registered MG's, and considering how few (if any) people with malicious intent are willing register a firearm and undergo a background check in order to use that weapon to commit a crime.

As for the suggestion that no Sheriff would consider this, that may be true, it probably is a long shot. But if a Sheriff takes the Constitution seriously, like many do, I would expect that he would see the regulations against select fire ownership as essentially illegal, as per the Second Amendment. If he's (or she's) pro gun, he also understands the aforementioned point that people with criminal intent do not register their firearms. So essentially it's a morality question, would the Sheriff do what's right, or would he choose to not buck the system? I don't know, but I would go for it if I were Sheriff. I suspect that with over 3000 counties in the U.S. that there might be at least one Sheriff with a similar mindset somewhere.

Anyway I knew when I suggested this that there would be a lot of reasons offered why folks think it won't work. I should have been more specific. Can anyone give me an actual legal reason why this might not be possible, such as a legal code or court case?
 
Last edited:
Sorry dude, but all my experience as both a LEO (not currently) and a MG owner tell me that your idea is miles from possible :(

As far as the department owned MG's, different departments have different policies. The last agency I worked for assign M16's to their patrolmen and those patrolmen are responsible for the secure/safe storage of said weapons (they take em home). However, they are owned BY the agency. I have personally received letterhead to buy personal weapons (hicaps during the 94-04 ban) and do not believe there is any way for an individual officer to buy a post 86 based on his position. If there was, I would've done it, my Chief gave me letter head whenever I asked. I ordered pistols to the office instead of my FFL :)

I completely agree with the bank manager comparison - you're asking the CLEO to do something for reasons totally inconsistent with what his intentions should be, deputizing folks to better their collection. Furthermore, his agency would be responsible for a bunch of MG's that are floating around town carried by folks who are technically cops but know nothing about LE other than it comes with a cool gun.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is - IF he would do it, he shouldn't be in the position he's in :(
 
Zero, As a MG owner I don't understand why you would have a problem with this. If the department kept a registry and background checked the participants, all this would effectively do is reopen the registry of new MG's at the county level. "deputizing folks to better their collection" ??? I'm not talking about "bettering their collection", I'm talking about restoring the RKBA to the citizens of his county. I'm talking about loyalty to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

Back to the question at hand, I was just wondering if anyone had any information, like a legal code or court case that would make this idea an impossibility. Zero said that he did in fact take department select fire weapons home, so it does seem possible from that point. Is there a legal reason why a Sheriff couldn't deputize (without granting official law enforcement capacities) citizens and let them purchase firearms through his department, if he so chose to?
 
So essentially it's a morality question, would the Sheriff do what's right, or would he choose to not buck the system?
Click to expand...
Do what's right? You're actually saying, would he abuse his position and do things that are outside his sworn duties in order to further his political beliefs?

His job as Sheriff is NOT to arm the population, cool as the idea might be. His job is NOT to use his position to make broad political statements via his official actions, even though that might be of benefit to "our" side. He should be as apolitical and neutral and strictly focused on the job he was hired/elected to do as humanly possible.

Those things would be abuses of his position just as much as would hiring his family members unfairly or selectively enforcing laws to harm businesses he doesn't like or who are in competition with his family's interests, etc.

He's given the ability to deputize to fill certain needs, under certain conditions, and with rules and responsibilities attending that function. "Jim Smith wants to play with a machine gun," is NOT a legitimate governmental function that the Sheriff is authorized to act on. :scrutiny:

Personally, if I was a Sheriff, I'd find the request insulting, though I'd be very polite in turning it down.
 
Sam, I know you know, but let's go over once again what the FOPA "machine gun ban" is. First off, it's not a ban, because that might be considered unconstitutional. It's simply a tax, levied under Congress' power to raise taxes. A tax that the Federal Government simply refuses to collect. So there is no ban; the federal government is simply taxing a product, but not accepting that tax.

So please forgive me if I find a lecture about abuse of power a little ironic. I'm simply asking, that if a Sheriff wants to restore the Constitutional rights of firearm ownership to his citizens, is there a legal reason why he couldn't. Notice I said legal, because if the Federal Government is using a legal loophole to deny firearm rights to it's citizens, I say it's fair game to find a loophole to get them back.

I'm a little awestruck at the hostility I'm getting from this question on a forum that supports the RKBA. If 1: The deputies in question aren't granted law enforcement capabilities 2: Background checks are performed 3: And a registry is maintained of these weapons, what's the big deal? Once again, I would like a legal reason, if someone has one, why this couldn't be done. Opinions are fine and good, but if no one can give me a concrete legal reason then I'm going to my Sheriff and taking 10 minutes of his time in an effort to at least try and wrestle some firearm rights back. I don't understand the hostility to that.
 
I'm simply asking, that if a Sheriff wants to restore the Constitutional rights of firearm ownership to his citizens, is there a legal reason why he couldn't. Notice I said legal, because if the Federal Government is using a legal loophole to deny firearm rights to it's citizens, I say it's fair game to find a loophole to get them back.
Click to expand...
Yes. Because even if he deputized every person in his county and handed them ALL machine guns, he would not have changed their ability to own one. At all. They would be acting as agents of the government, possessing government property, just as though they'd joined the Marine Corps, or the BATFE itself.
 
I'm a little awestruck at the hostility I'm getting from this question on a forum that supports the RKBA. ... what's the big deal?
Click to expand...
While this is a firearms forum, there are a lot of people here who have studied government and history fairly extensively. FAR too much harm has been done through "little white" abuses of power for us to accept that we should use such tactics to promote our ends -- especially when the tactic really DOESN'T support our ends in any way.

Look, I can head down to my local Sheriff tomorrow and volunteer to be a depute. He seems like a nice guy, he might even take me on -- and might even let me play with an assault rifle if there's some reason. But so what? I don't own that gun. He's not given me ANY power whatsoever that I didn't have already -- just a duty to enact his department's policies using the department's tools.

I don't care for government waste and lying and GRAFT, which is precisely what's being suggested. Using (or borrowing) influence inappropriately for personal gains. Even if it's "OUR" graft, it is still repulsive.
 
I shouldn't have said "ownership". I should have said "keep". It would still be Sheriff Department property under this theoretical program, but even so I still can't help but see it as a step to invalidating the authority of the NFA. It doesn't restore our rights, but I see it as a step in the right direction.

It seems that you're asking me if I'm willing to twist the law for my "own personal gains". If the definition of my "own gains" is the right to exercise those liberties granted to me in the Constitution, then yes, I will absolutely twist, or ignore, and probably even break those laws, preferably in that order. If these "laws" are passed in an underhanded way that conflicts with the Constitution, then sure.

Some will say that my view of the Constitution doesn't matter. Only the laws currently in affect matter. Even if that's so I'm still proposing a legal, albeit imperfect remedy. I think it's a little unfair to say that finding a loophole to a law that was passed as a loophole, is amoral. And how is it "waste and lying and graft"? Is it honestly "repulsive" that I want my right to keep a select fire weapon restored to me? It seems like for some reason that you're turning this into an emotional issue. I simply would like a legal explanation as to why this couldn't work, provided the Sheriff decided to implement it.
 
It would still be Sheriff Department property under this theoretical program, but even so I still can't help but see it as a step to invalidating the authority of the NFA. It doesn't restore our rights, but I see it as a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Ok...so the Sheriffs do this NOW. (Just in more specific ways and smaller numbers.) Has it invalidated the authority of the NFA to any degree at all?

And how is it "waste and lying and graft"?
Click to expand...
It is a waste of department time. It is lying in that the Sheriff is claiming to be exercising his authority to serve his duty and mandate, and yet he is not. It is graft, as I pointed out, in that it is misusing someone's authority to get some perceived private gain.

Is it honestly "repulsive" that I want my right to keep a select fire weapon restored to me?
Click to expand...
No! Of course not! I'm all for that!

It is repulsive that a public official might abuse his authority on your (or my, or anyone's) behalf.

I simply would like a legal explanation as to why this couldn't work, provided the Sheriff decided to implement it.
Click to expand...
This would depend primarily on each state's laws regarding the duties and powers of the Sheriffs, and their power to deputize, and what the requirements are for deputizing. It may be perfectly legal for a Sheriff to deputize anyone he wants for however long he says, and provide them with arms. Of course, where the money comes from to do this will always be under scrutiny. If guns are provided, someone has to pay for them. Were a private citizen to reimburse a government official or department for some item that comes to them, that raises big red flags.

There was a real big unpleasantness down in NC a while back when a Sheriff's department was accused of participating in something like this for Blackwater -- buying or "owning" machine guns for the private corporation's trainers and such to play with.
 
...yes, I will absolutely twist, or ignore, and probably even break those laws, preferably in that order. If these "laws" are passed in an underhanded way that conflicts with the Constitution, then sure.
Click to expand...
That's your decision. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not reasonable, moral or ethical to try to get a local law enforcement official to abuse the powers of his office to attempt to circumvent a federal law.

He has a job and a set of responsibilities and none of them has anything to do with getting you a machinegun to shoot.
Zero said that he did in fact take department select fire weapons home, so it does seem possible from that point.
Click to expand...
No, it's not possible because you wouldn't really be a deputy. The sheriff doesn't get to randomly deputize people for indefinite time periods, and emergency deputies don't have the same responsibilities and privileges as real deputies.
I simply would like a legal explanation as to why this couldn't work, provided the Sheriff decided to implement it.
Click to expand...
No, what you want is affirmation. You've already been told that it's not legal, that it won't work, why it won't work, why it wouldn't be right for the sheriff to do it and why it's a bad idea, on several levels.

If all you wanted was to know whether or not it could work and why you'd already be done with this thread and this idea.
 
"You've already been told that it's not legal, that it won't work, why it won't work" No, actually I haven't. Has anyone cited a legal statute or case law? That was what I came here for. Sam DID say prior to your post that "This would depend primarily on each state's laws regarding the duties and powers of the Sheriffs", so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm not looking for affirmation; I'm going to go into my Sheriff's office to make the case to him provided someone doesn't enlighten me to why this wouldn't be possible. Thanks for your constructive input though and your opinion on why circumventing an anti-constitutional law is unethical.

In any event it seems that what most folks are throwing at me are knee jerk reactions as to why it shouldn't be done, why they don't agree with it, etc. I understand that, and I respectfully disagree, and I hope my Sheriff shares my sentiment on it. That being said I am pleased that my idea wasn't immediately shot down by someone citing actual case history or legal statute, so yes, I'll go to my Sheriff with this. Do I expect him to adopt it? Probably not. But who knows, there's 3,000 counties in this nation. Maybe someone will get something like it in place after picking it up in a google search someday. Can't hurt trying.
 
what the FOPA "machine gun ban" is. First off, it's not a ban, because that might be considered unconstitutional. It's simply a tax, levied under Congress' power to raise taxes. A tax that the Federal Government simply refuses to collect. So there is no ban; the federal government is simply taxing a product, but not accepting that tax.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, Hughes is a ban. Closing the Registry is a ban.
NFA was to be a ban on all handguns. A political compromise was reached, where the camel would put its nose upon less than 1% of the arms out there and "tax" them out of the commonweals' ability to pay (at the time).
Further, there's no "civilian" language in Hughes (or NFA). Hughes just makes ownership only legal by Agencies. FFL are 'agents' in this way, too. They cannot own post '86 unless they have paper saying that the post '86 is a potential sales sample for some other Agency.

So please forgive me if I find a lecture about abuse of power a little ironic. I'm simply asking, that if a Sheriff wants to restore the Constitutional rights of firearm ownership to his citizens, is there a legal reason why he couldn't. Notice I said legal, because if the Federal Government is using a legal loophole to deny firearm rights to it's citizens, I say it's fair game to find a loophole to get them back.
Click to expand...

It is not in the purview of becoming a Sheriff to adjudge which portions of the Laws that are to be enforced.

I'm a little awestruck at the hostility I'm getting from this question on a forum that supports the RKBA.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be. We cannot allow CLEO to "wink and nod" at this, that, or any regulation, law or ordinance just because we feel it ought to be that way. If we insist on this, how could we protest if the same leniency is granted the other way?

If it were legal for a given Sheriff to grant some of his citizenry the right to cart about the Sheriff's property; then it is just as legal for another Sheriff to demand that his citizens give up their property, too.

If 1: The deputies in question aren't granted law enforcement capabilities
Click to expand...
Then, they are not LEO nor Deputies. QED.

2: Background checks are performed
Click to expand...
Non sequituer.

3: And a registry is maintained of these weapons, what's the big deal?
Click to expand...
Already is a Registry.
It's Closed.
No "king's X" to ask to glom on to another's list, either.

Once again, I would like a legal reason, if someone has one, why this couldn't be done.
Click to expand...
Violates NFA, and FOPA. Willful violations of Federal Laws pretty much preclude LE work. They should be disqualifying actions for those elected, or wishing to be elected as Sheriff. QED

Opinions are fine and good, but if no one can give me a concrete legal reason then I'm going to my Sheriff and taking 10 minutes of his time in an effort to at least try and wrestle some firearm rights back. I don't understand the hostility to that.
Click to expand...

What if a Sheriff thought that warrant-less searched were ok, as long as they were only used against criminals? What if a Sheriff thought that the 21st Amendment was a mistake? You cannot have LEO, especially CLEO, deciding what metes enforcement ans what does not.

We, the electorate ought to--especially given the blizzard of laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances we are expected to know and obey (and that our LEO also equally know, understand, and obey). Hughes and Lautenberg are both bad law; and applied and piled upon worse laws--but, they are the law.

If we go back to the running bank example, what you are suggesting is that a banker put aside some of the money in his vault. Then you, and some of your buddies, be allowed to spend that money however you see fit. In fact, you want the banker to let you take piles of that money home with you, or drive around with it in your car. And the banker is to take your word for it that you'll not spend it on either strippers or evangelists or any other way that embarrasses the bank. Even though the banker knows he has to answer to both internal and external audits.
 
Could buy them for the department so title goes with the department and then get to use them at the department range.

Trouble is when the sheriff changes, the new sheriff says no toys for you.
 
So... no case law or statutes, then?

I keep hearing that it's amoral to violate "the law", but no law is being violated. And CapnMac, if your analogy with the warrantless searches was reversed, it would be applicable. If a Sheriff came up a with a local, perfectly legal workaround that protected his citizens from warrantless searches and seizures by federal agents, I suppose you'd oppose that, too? Guess what, that's been happening. Sheriffs around the country have been stepping up to the Federal Government concerning perceived slights to their citizens Constitutional rights, and the Federal Government has been quietly stepping down. As this article explains "Sheriff Tony DeMeo of Nye County, Nev., recounted how he had to threaten to bring out his SWAT team to go up against a federal government SWAT team when federal agents were seizing cattle from a local rancher". Here's the story; http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19946455/

My point to that is that many County Sheriff's are waking up to the fact that they are a real and legitimate counter balance to inappropriate federal law enforcement efforts within their counties. Many understand that they have an oath to the Constitution, and that trumps any federal law. That's why I feel like it's reasonable to expect a Sheriff of that caliber to back a program like this.

Also, your bank analogy is a terrible one. Who's money am I spending? What rights am I trespassing on by trying to find a legal loophole to greater exercise my rights? Maybe you should stay away from analogies all together.

I don't understand why supposed pro 2A folks are against at the very least trying this, unless of course it's a threat to their investments. I suppose that's understandable. In any event I was hoping for an actual conversation concerning the legality of a Sheriff doing this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top