Quantcast

KT Ordnance / Richard Celata: Charges defined.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by GigaBuist, Dec 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GigaBuist

    GigaBuist Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,261
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI
    About 6 months ago there were a couple of threads on the orignal KT Ordnance raid. Here's the one with the most info.

    A couple of days ago Rick notified some folks that he got word he was being officially charged. I've been keeping track of the progress on this thread over at The Claire Files board.

    According to that thread Rick has been informed of the following (his words):
    On the first charge, illegal posession of a machine gun, I cannot help but mention that it would be quite easy for the BATFE to come up with a charge of "constructive posession" given Rick's machinery and supplies on hand.

    On the second, illegal manufacture, if this is related to the two 1911 pattern .45s he made for himself I'm really confused. In my dealings with Rick he seems to be a stickler for the law. If making those pistols was illegal I really doubt he would have put them front and center on the "Showcase" page of his website. He's never made any bones about making them himself. In fact they were the only two guns he mentioned missing when the BATFE took his property during the raid.

    Just my thoughts.

    Figured some of y'all might be intersted. The original threads on the KT Ordnance raid garnered a bit of attention.
     
  2. Warren

    Warren Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,454
    Location:
    Northern California
    I wonder if the date given will actualy be later than the actual date he needs to report. Nah...things like that NEVER happen.
     
  3. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Hmmmmm.

    It would be fairly easy for the BATFE to take any 1911 pattern gun and convert it themselves to "stupid full auto" - in other words, pull the trigger and it dumps the entire magazine no matter what you do.

    Any number of basic semi-auto weapons can be rigged to do this. What you have then technically violates NFA1934 BUT it's complete idiocy and nobody would deliberately want to own such a thing. It is tactically dumb to get what amounts to a "one shot" weapon of any type - and in the case of a handgun, one that is just not controllable at all.

    The proper term for any handgun that behaved this way would be "broken".

    Setting up a true full auto weapon that STOPS firing when you let go of the trigger is more difficult. You need a separate linkage that trips on the forward motion of the trigger to disconnect the firing mechanism.

    If, as I suspect, the BATFE simply broke his guns to make them behave "stupidly full auto" and they're allowed to get away with it, then one HELL of a lot of people are at risk...basically any semi-auto with a single action trigger.
     
  4. DMF

    DMF Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    These discussion are always both amusing and frustrating. You have completely misconstrued the legal meaning of constructive possession. The term has absolutely nothing to do with being able to physically manufacture something, and therefore the machinery has nothing to with whether or not someone possesses a machinegun. The "supplies" would only be a factor if they actually are objects that meet the legal definition of a machinegun as defined in the US Code. Further, there is no "charge" of constructive possession. A person can be charged for possessing certain items, but it is not relevant whether they constructively possess the item or actually have direct physical control of the item.

    Here is a little education on the legal realities of constructive possession (which I've posted here before) and you will see it has nothing to do with being able to physically construct the object:

    Black's Law definition of constructive is; "That which is established by the mind of the law in its act of construing facts, conduct, circumstances, or instruments. That which has not the character assigned to it in its own essential nature, but acquires such character in consequence of the way in which it is regarded by a rule or policy of law; hence, inferred, implied, or made out by legal interpretation; the word "legal" being sometimes used here in lieu of "constructive.""

    Which leads you to Black's Law definition of constructive possession; "A person has constructive possession of property if he has power to control and intent to control such an item." Com. v. Stephens, 231 Pa.Super.481, 331 A.2d 719, 723. Being in a position to exercise control over a thing. US v. DiNovo, C.A.Ind., 523 F.2d 197, 201.

    If you would like a real world example of a gun case where the defendant was found to be in constructive possession of a firearm, read the 7th Circuit decision in US v. Gill (1995). You can find it on findlaw.com

    The definition of constructive possession from an earlier 7th Circuit court decision (US v. Garrett, 1990) is; ". . . a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others."

    I'll give you an example most people can relate to. When your car keys are in hand you physically possess those keys. If you set those keys down on the coffee table, you do not physically possess those keys, but you still possess them because have the intent to exercise dominion and control over those keys and therefore you are in constructive possession of those keys.
     
  5. Soybomb

    Soybomb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,959
    I'm eager to hear more details of this one.
     
  6. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    I thought you could make guns for yourself?
     
  7. hammer4nc

    hammer4nc Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    977
    People have been jacked up for constructive possession, for having a collection of parts which "might be" assembled in an unlawful manner. One example; the Thompson Contender case, which went before the supreme court in 1992. Link: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html. It's not unreasonable to think F-troop would make this assertion in the KT Ordnance fiasco. Either that, or the "Readily convertible" witchhunt, which they now interpret as dremel mods or substitution of government supplied trigger groups... :uhoh:

    So possession of parts is highly relevent to potential constuctive possession charges, vis. NFA violations, for example.

    DMF, rather than parsing a sentence containing "manufacturing", and then launching into a tortured explanation of same, how about contributing something to the discussion, with your big brain? I noticed you made ZERO comments on the actual topic (KT Ordnance). You're always bragging about your intimate connections with the ATF; how about using that connection to get some actual inside information, on these specific cases, from the horses...mouth? Now THAT would be a useful contribution! Consider this a challenge!

    And I don't mean spamming the thread with unrelated links from the ATF or DOJ propaganda website, as you're fond of doing...we all know that these sites never have articles on the really controversial gun cases that we're interested in discussing.
     
  8. DMF

    DMF Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    h4nc,

    You too are misusing the term constructive possession, and confusing it with the legal definition of a machinegun which includes; combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled."

    Again, constructive possession refers to exercising dominion and control over something, but not actually having it in your physical possession. So if you have all the parts for a MG in your toolbox you in your garage you are in constructive possession of the MG. If you have all the parts in a backpack and you're wearing it, then you physically possess the MG.

    As to your challenge I would not ask anyone I know at ATF to provide information on an ongoing investigation. It wouldn't be fair to the subject of the investigation, and most likely would violate privacy laws, and DOJ/agency policy. Nice try at baiting me with that nonsense though.

    However, I will continue to contribute on the truth concerning legal topics, such as pointing out the incorrect use of the term constructive possession such you and the OP have done on this thread.

    Further, my links to USAO and ATF links are not spamming, and have always been relevant to the discussions. You don't like them, because they disprove some of the lies told about the ATF, but they are always relevant to the topic at hand.
     
  9. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    DMF, you're absolutely right regarding what "constructive possession" means.

    That doesn't mean the definition you gave is anything remotely like what the BATFE has been trying to do lately.
     
  10. cropcirclewalker

    cropcirclewalker member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Location:
    In the Woods close to Arkansas
    Art should probably lock this one down for now, till we actually see the charges brought by ATF. Not enough information. When the real charges become public we can start to howl.

    But.....

    As I understand it, Mr. DMF did a good job of 'splaining constructive possession.

    Now, Mr. DMF, could you be so kind as to 'splain how ATF looks at the phrase, "Readily Converted" and how having a machine shop (or a dremel) and lots of experience would apply here.

    Thanking you in advance, I remain....Cropcernicus C. Walker
     
  11. Nio

    Nio Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Messages:
    221
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Does anyone know what the State charge might be? Does NH have a law against manufacture of firearms?

    Nio
     
  12. Zedicus

    Zedicus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Idaho
    Now the cryptic e-mail I got from Ric yesterday is starting to make more sence.

    Exact Quote:
    I sure hope this works out in Ric's favor and to the BATFE's Downfall...:cuss:
     
  13. GigaBuist

    GigaBuist Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,261
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Not much point bothering with the machine gun posession issue at this point it seems.

    People are picking up on the case and SayUncle has some info up, like a link to the... well, I'm not sure what the name of these documents are: US vs. 1911. The full name of the defendant(s) are:

    Model 1911 .45 Caliber Pistol, Unknown Manufacturer, Serial Number KTO 03041002

    Model AR15 .223 Caliber Firearm, Unknown Manufacturer, No Serial Number

    Model 1911 .45 Caliber Pistol, Unknown Manufacturer, Serial Number KTO 03041001

    Rifle, No Caliber, Unknown Manufacturer, No Serial Number.

    Long story short, the ATF has been looking at Rick Celata since August 2003 and determined (by December 31st 2003) that the frames were too complete as they could be "finished into a complete firearm in approximately 2 hours." for the 1911 frame. The AR15 frame took approximately 44 minutes for Officer Curtis to: "performed certain drilling operations, including drilling a selector hole, hammer and sear pin holes, and a pivot take down hole. He then threaded the buffer tube hole, installed various parts, and successfully test fired the firearm."

    I wish I was that handy. Took me that long just to get the trigger into an AR the first time I tried it. :D

    Carry on.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2006
  14. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    So he is being busted for selling his not finished pieces of metal?
     
  15. GigaBuist

    GigaBuist Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,261
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI
    At this point, yes, it seems that way. The BATFE says that Celata never submitted any of the frames for review and was handing out a letter from them that wasn't based on a review of a KTO frame.
     
  16. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    If that was the case (and reading your links it seems so) then maybe he did deserve investigating.
     
  17. Zedicus

    Zedicus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Idaho
  18. Zedicus

    Zedicus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Idaho
    Why would the BATFE need to review a hunk of metal that requires a good deal of machining to be usable for anything?
    It's like the BATFE investigating you for having a ton of old tire weights in your garage, & accusing you of illegal manufacture of AP ammo.:scrutiny:

    I am not sure I understand what reason you think he may have "Deserved" Investigation by the BATFE....
     
  19. Zedicus

    Zedicus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Idaho
  20. Zedicus

    Zedicus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Idaho
    *Bump*
     
  21. Nio

    Nio Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Messages:
    221
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Having read the complaint, even if he's completely legal, he has some ethical issues with lying to customers. If he never submitted his frames, and said that he did, then that's a breach of trust at least. In the end, I hope he doesn't fry, but it doesn't look good. I'll be following this one very close for sure.

    Nio
     
  22. Zedicus

    Zedicus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Idaho
    And if the BATFE "Missplaced" any reccords of his Submitting them?:scrutiny:
    (Has happened on Countless Occations)
     
  23. treebeard

    treebeard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    775
    Location:
    LFOD in NH
    Dang, I live about 20 minutes from Wakefield, NH. How come I didn't hear about this? I must have been at the range!:uhoh: :uhoh:
    Thanks for the link to the complaint. It was interesting to read.
     
  24. Deavis

    Deavis Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,424
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Wow, then just about everyone with some gardening and cleaning chemicals is in constructive possession of a bomb. Everyone with a drill press is in constructive possession of a MG! Heck, everyone with a stick is in constructive possession of a deadly weapon. Damn criminal intent, lock them up now. They are all going to be criminals, I just know it!

    Once again, reason and logic has no bearing. You are guilty for what you could do, rather than what you actually do. Sure, it will never be applied to normal people, only those few bad apples. :rolleyes:
     
  25. strambo

    strambo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,961
    Location:
    Oregon
    Don't worry folks. I'm sure the BATFE realizes it has limited resources and therefore, only goes after the most heinous, violent offenders who pose a threat to the rights of the citizens such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.":rolleyes:

    I am eager to see the outcome of this waste of my tax dollars. Aren't there some "right wing militia:rolleyes: " with real illegally converted MG's they can go after intead?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice