ISP trooper pleads guilty

[cordex]

The spirit of the NFA can't be to make ownership of machine guns illegal, because that would be against the 2nd amendment.

Wrong - you're confusing letter and spirit. The letter of the NFA was to enact taxes in order to raise revenue. The spirit was to prohibit certain classes of firearms. The law continues to exist because the letter of the law is legal. The obvious intent and spirit are a different matter altogether.

The spirit of the NFA must be to protect the public by imposing minor inconveniences. Isn't that the ultimate goal of gun control?

Not at all. The ultimate goal of gun control is simply control. Perhaps not for every proponent, but at the level the laws are passed, they are about incremental increase in control. Gun control is just one symptom of the overall statist affliction.

The average yearly pay for the time was considerably less than $2,000. A $200 tax was more than a month's pay for the average person. That wasn't for the whole gun, that was just the tax.

The $200 tax applied if your shotgun was a little too short, or if you'd cut the stock on your carbine down for your kid so the overall length was too short or if you had stuck a length of muffler on the end of your .22 - more than a month's pay for each and every item. What is the spirit behind that? Are those "minor inconveniences" that promote public safety or a backdoor method to effectively ban whole classes of firearms by making them ?

That's your "spirit" of the law.

Also, as others mentioned the NFA originally would have included all handguns chambered for calibers larger than .22 rimfire. Considering that many criminal shootings use handguns, if this law was so harmless and helpful, why weren't handguns included in the final draft?

It would be very interesting to read the transcripts of Congressional debate when the NFA was debated. How many members of Congress said outright they want guns banned, and how many gave speeches about public saftey? My guess is the "spirit" of the law was to keep people safe. That's why I said I do not believe these police officers violated the spirit of the law.

You can guess all you want. Whatever the intent of their law, the 73rd congress decided effectively ban a whole class of weapons through the use of an improbably large tax. Imagine paying $50,000 vehicle tax whether you were buying a $450 junker or $75,000 luxury car. Would cars be technically banned? No. Would they be effectively prohibited? For most people, yes.

If the spirit of the law was different, and Congress acknowledged it, then I believe the NFA would have been struck down.

You're getting spirit and letter confused again. The letter of the law (revenue generation, law regulating interstate commerce) is considered legal despite the fact that it neither raises enough revenue to even support itself nor is applied only to interstate commerce. The spirit of the law is to prohibit ownership of those weapons. Due to inflation, $200 doesn't go so far to prohibit as it once did, but if you're going to talk about spirit and intent, go back and read the law in the context of when it was passed.

This offense amounts to failing to file some paperwork and pay $200 in taxes. It should be punished equally with other crimes that amount to failure to file a tax form and pay $200 in taxes.

Agreed. At worst this should be a situation that can be settled with $200 and some late fees. Sadly, as you well know the NFA isn't about the taxes and the US government is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and human lives on $200 tax issues when they're NFA violations.

 

[Derby FALs]

Quote:
This offense amounts to failing to file some paperwork and pay $200 in taxes. It should be punished equally with other crimes that amount to failure to file a tax form and pay $200 in taxes.

Agreed. At worst this should be a situation that can be settled with $200 and some late fees. Sadly, as you well know the NFA isn't about the taxes and the US government is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and human lives on $200 tax issues when they're NFA violations.

They had a chance to register during the amnesty period except they couldn't even legally own them because of state laws. After that they were clearly breaking the both Federal and State law and should have known it. Federal Sentencing Guidelines have room for a little leeway in this case but the fact they are law enforcement should actually be held against them, IMHO. If showing leniency will help aid the defense of a non-leo down the road then I am all for leniency but I doubt that will be the case...

 

[DMF]

The original says he had a Class III and could buy and sell; there is nothing about manufacturing or registering.

Nor was he licensed to buy or sell. Howell was not licensed by ATF to deal in any shape or fashion in either NFA or GCA firearms. Further, as stated earlier he had no NFA weapons registered to him either as Vernon Howell, or David Koresh.

As to the convictions of Fatta and Craddock, that was not changing the subject at all. Howell, and others were involved in those crimes with Fatta and Craddock, however Howell and the others killed each other and killed themselves, by arson and gunfire before they could stand trial.

I'm not changing the subjet at all, or making straw man arguments, I was directly addressing the lies posted.

 

[suemarkp]

Something else to consider about the punishment. They guys will be convicted felons. That's a job stopper for many decent jobs, especially law enforcement. So even if they do no jail time at all, they're in for a career change and they'll never have a good one again unless they become self employed. I do agree though that they should be treated just like everyone else and perhaps worse since they should have known better.

Secondly, their ability to own any firearms again will be lost forever. A federal felony conviction can't be erased and they can't have their firearms rights restored because congress won't fund the group that processes these applications.

That seems like punishment enough. The whole felony conviction thing is bad because you may be shocked to see what constitutes a felony conviction. Here in Washington, there is are two felony level malicious mischief crimes. It was written so long ago that the dollar threshold is rather low, $250 for 2nd degree (class C felony). It doesn't take much to do that kind of damage anymore. Get a little irritated one day and break a window or spray paint something, and you're a convicted felon.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Ferrari308, if you're going to be sarcastic on the internets, it has to be more obvious than that. It doesn't come across to others reading words on a screen unless you make a conscious effort.

"Why should the NRA take their case? These men had the same opportunity to pay the $200 transfer tax as the rest of us. If you want to do something positive, work for the repeal of 18 USC 922(o)"

"This offense amounts to failing to file some paperwork and pay $200 in taxes. It should be punished equally with other crimes that amount to failure to file a tax form and pay $200 in taxes."

A lot of folks are not paying attention. These men had NO legal opportunity to do that, and neither do I. THEY DID NOT MERELY NEGLECT A PAPERWORK MATTER.
The federal government will not issue the stamps or even look at your NFA paperwork if you're from Illinois. Period. The state does not allow private ownership of machine guns and the feds know that.

It is impossible for a private citizen to file that paperwork and pay that $200 fee and have a legal machine gun transfer.

THESE GUYS KNEW THAT. They chose to flaunt the law anyway. And like you, I hate the idea of enforcing such a dumb law.

HOWEVER, these guys flaunted the law and got away with it for years precisely because as law enforcement officers they and everyone around them presumed that they were above the law. This is not cop-bashing; this is a simple statement of the established facts of this case. The guy pled guilty. We KNOW this for a fact now.

Enforcing the NFA? Not high on my priority list.

Enforcing the principle that a police officer can't commit felonies and get away with it just because he's a state trooper? That's worth doing any day of the week!

 

[Deanimator]

That seems like punishment enough. The whole felony conviction thing is bad because you may be shocked to see what constitutes a felony conviction. Here in Washington, there is are two felony level malicious mischief crimes. It was written so long ago that the dollar threshold is rather low, $250 for 2nd degree (class C felony). It doesn't take much to do that kind of damage anymore. Get a little irritated one day and break a window or spray paint something, and you're a convicted felon.

WHY does it seem like punishment enough?

My mother lives in Chicago. She's never committed any crime more serious than speeding. If SHE were found to be in illegal possession of a machinegun, should SHE get off without jail time? How about ME? Should *I*? Are my mother and I innately inferior somehow to Illinois State Troopers, and more deserving of incarceration for the SAME offense? Don't they swear an oath to uphold the law? Does that oath hold them to a LOWER standard than the general public?

Why should these individuals be treated leniently, when anyone ELSE without a criminal record would get hard time? Can you explain that to me?

 

[Ferrari308]

WHY does it seem like punishment enough?

My mother lives in Chicago. She's never committed any crime more serious than speeding. If SHE were found to be in illegal possession of a machinegun, should SHE get off without jail time? How about ME? Should *I*?

If you lost all your guns, and were fined money, would you think you were punished? There is no way I would send you to jail. As long as you did not use the guns to harm people, I would not want you in jail!

 

[Deanimator]

If you lost all your guns, and were fined money, would you think you were punished? There is no way I would send you to jail. As long as you did not use the guns to harm people, I would not want you in jail!

That's a nice sentiment, but I'm from Chicago. I've got friends who've recently practiced criminal law in Chicago. I'm virtually guaranteed a prison sentence for merely owning a handgun in Chicago. I ABSOLUTELY know that were I to be found in possession of an automatic weapon in Illinois, I would do hard time and a lot of it, period. KNOWING this to a certainty, I simply cannot muster one iota of sympathy for someone who would if the tables were turned, enforce the law against me without mercy or compassion of any sort. Were that trooper and I in those respective positions, he would undoubtedly tell me he "had no choice". Well, neither do I.

 

[Ferrari308]

I'm virtually guaranteed a prison sentence for merely owning a handgun in Chicago.

If you're on the jury, and you believe in the 2nd amendment, how could you vote to convict anyone? Do you believe the constitution is more important than any state or local law?

Secondly, I think it's dangerous to lose sympathy just because you believe the other person would not extend the same courtesy back. We're civilized people, that is how others learn to be civilized. Think about the reverse, when a police officer acts like a complete asshat to you and how it makes you feel. Imagine if you were treated with respect, how that would make you feel. Goodwill breeds goodwill.

 

[orangelo]

Goodwill has nothing to do with it. They broke the law they swore to uphold. End of story.

If they don't like it maybe they should call their congressman and get that dreadful NFA repealed.

Otherwise they should take their lumps just like any other US citizen caught with an unregistered MG.

Unless you think just because they wear a badge and a blue uniform they are somehow entitled to commit free federal felonies.

 

[ilbob]

Private ownership of machine guns in Illinois is generally illegal - LEOs included.

It should not be that way, but it is, and everyone should play by the same rules.

They certainly knew this when they acquired these firearms some years ago. I am curious just how they got them. Purportedly they got them through a legal dealer which should mean there is paperwork somewhere. At least one news report seemed to indicate that one of them may have falsified paperwork to make it look like the police agency was acquiring the gun when it was actually for his own use, although the story was so badly written it was tough to make any sense of it at all.

I have read and re-read the stories and I can't make heads or tails out of what the various attorneys are claiming. I get a headache trying to sort out the various claims and counterclaims.

I do feel sympathy for their families who will pay the heaviest price for their criminal behavior, but they need to do some serious time. More than any non-LEO would do for the same offense, being as LEOs have a higher duty to obey the law.

I also have to believe some kind of deal was made to get this guilty plea. that might prove interesting.

OTOH, purportedly there were some Illinois residents in the area that were caught converting SA Stens to FA a few years ago that got fairly light sentences.

 

[ilbob]

Unless you think just because they wear a badge and a blue uniform they are somehow incapable of doing anything wrong.

ISP wear blue uniforms now?

 

[Ferrari308]

ISP wear blue uniforms now?

Tan to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Deanimator]

If you're on the jury, and you believe in the 2nd amendment, how could you vote to convict anyone? Do you believe the constitution is more important than any state or local law?

Secondly, I think it's dangerous to lose sympathy just because you believe the other person would not extend the same courtesy back. We're civilized people, that is how others learn to be civilized. Think about the reverse, when a police officer acts like a complete asshat to you and how it makes you feel. Imagine if you were treated with respect, how that would make you feel. Goodwill breeds goodwill.

1. If the prosecution thinks I believe in the 2nd amendment, I'm not going to be ON a jury. If you don't know what the term "preremptory challenge" means, look it up.

2. The jurors who make it through voir dire are unlikely to know the 2nd Amendment from the 5th Dimension. Those who DO, are likely to be unremittingly hostile to it, at least if I'm tried in Chicago, or anywhere nearby. Those jurors are unlikely to care one whit for the constitution. They're going to want to "get guns off the street", period.

3. I believe it's perfectly reasonable, and very intelligent to not cut someone a break whom you know to a certainty wouldn't return the favor. I've got a friend (a retired Chicago PD Deputy Commander) who survived the Pacific Theater in WWII by not turning the other cheek to people eager to put an Arisaka bayonet through it. Goodwill towards good people breeds goodwill. Goodwill towards the arrogant with a sense of superiority and entitlement breeds contempt, and the sort of behavior which inevitably springs therefrom.

I'm sure the ISP has a "zero tolerance" policy when it comes to illegal machineguns. Me too.

 

[Ferrari308]

Goodwill towards good people breeds goodwill. Goodwill towards the arrogant with a sense of superiority and entitlement breeds contempt, and the sort of behavior which inevitably springs therefrom.

Then what is the solution? We can't elect enough people to both houses of congress to change gun laws. We have a republican majority in both houses right now and very little is getting done.

If the prosecution thinks I believe in the 2nd amendment, I'm not going to be ON a jury. If you don't know what the term "preremptory challenge" means, look it up.

I understand. But that does not mean if I was questioned I would say "Heck, the 2nd amendment gives anyone the right to firearms". I would be reserved. Why get myself thrown off a good jury? I'd play my part and act dumb, until I got the chance to vote.

 

[yhtomit]

Schadenfreude v. Justice

I don't want the police (or anyone else) to be like samurai -- that is, able to flout unjust rules that the rest of us have to live under, escaping wink-and-nod style from the same laws they could surely applied (and in the aggregate, *have* surely applied) to others. In that sense, Yes, I'd like to see these policemen treated to the full glare of the law. Some comments above have said they should float, that they did no harm by their violation of the NFA. That last part's true -- I don't think that police here did anything objectively worse than speeding on an empty desert highway or shooting fireworks (responsibly) in a state which bans them; but human or not, people whose job it is to enforce the law should be called to scrupulously follow it as well. I doubt that many people would favor a "no big harm to anyone" defense for an IRS auditor who cheats just a little on his tax return on the rational basis that he'd likely get away with it, or a policeman who speeds with impunity on his days off.

I don't relish the thought of people I don't know and can't presume to be tyrants as individuals being sacrificed to idiotic laws. But I'd rather the police support for these officers go toward *all* citizens rather than to these cops as some sort of special case; if these guys weren't harming anyone by their peacable possession or use of certain "revenue assault" weapons, than neither mostly likely is anyone else in the same situation.

timothy

 

[Deanimator]

I understand. But that does not mean if I was questioned I would say "Heck, the 2nd amendment gives anyone the right to firearms". I would be reserved. Why get myself thrown off a good jury? I'd play my part and act dumb, until I got the chance to vote.

"Juror, do you believe that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects an individual right?"

"Yes, I do."

<boot>

 

[ilbob]

"Juror, do you believe that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects an individual right?"

"Yes, I do."

I'm not sure that is a proper question that a judge would allow to be asked of a prospective juror.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm not sure that is a proper question that a judge would allow to be asked of a prospective juror.

I'm not sure what would be improper about it, at least as far as any black & white rule goes. Feel free to ask a lawyer. If I get the chance, I'll do the same.

 

[Ferrari308]

"Juror, do you believe that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects an individual right?"

"Yes, I do."

<boot>

If the prosecutor can ask the question, so can the defense attorney.

You would end up with nobody to sit on the jury.

 

[Deanimator]

You would end up with nobody to sit on the jury.

No, you typically end up with nobody with any sort of mental apparatus on the jury. There's a subtle difference.

 

[ilbob]

The sad part is, most of the people you would want on a jury are the very people who want to get out of jury duty and that neither side wants on a jury anyway.

Both sides want lemmings that won't think for themselves.

 

[ilbob]

What I always want to know are the following- "Was anyone injured, did anyone suffer because of an act"? So far, I don't see one victim. Not one!

Do you feel that way about all the other more or less victimless crimes?

 

[Michael Courtney]

They had a chance to register during the amnesty period except they couldn't even legally own them because of state laws. After that they were clearly breaking the both Federal and State law and should have known it.

The violation of Federal law amounts to nothing more than failing to file some paperwork and pay $200 in taxes. Therefore, the penalty imposed by a federal court should be proportional to the federal crime.

If there is a violation of state law that constitutes a more serious offense, then the accused should be tried, convicted, and sentenced by a state court.

The assertion that Federal bureaucrats should be enforcing state laws is absurd, especially when the underlying state law is probably unconstitutional.

Are law enforcement officers somehow more obligated to obey unconstitutional laws than other citizens?

Michael Courtney

 

[Ferrari308]

Do you feel that way about all the other more or less victimless crimes?

It depends on the crime, but as a general rule I don't think a crime is really bad unless you have a victim. For example, if you mention drugs, I believe there are victims (the person using and his lack of ability to consent to using, his family, society that pays for his health care). Would I throw a drug user in jail as punishment? No, I would look at what is the most cost effective way to solve the problem. I'm not saying that because I'm a sweatheart, I'm saying that because I don't want to pay the taxes for a program that does not work.

When it comes to guns, I think you punish the bad act. If someone uses a gun in an illegal way, then punish them. But don't punish someone just for owning a gun.

I believe that without guns, we really aren't free. Look at the history of the world. How many governments have been overthrown by dictators or tyrants? Imagine if FDR lived for example, and said after his 4th election as president: "We don't need elections anymore, the people have spoken enough, I'll assume office for life". In 16 years in office, I'm sure just about every general serving in the armed forces would be a general he appointed. It is one of the reasons I believe presidents are now limited to only two terms in office.

But the best defense for liberty is an armed society. Not because we want to fight, but because we don't want to fight. No politician in his right mind will try to overthrow a population where every family has a fully automatic M-16 in the house, along with a .50 calibur sniper rifle.