Randy Weaver's shotgun(s)

[oobray]

HonorsDaddy,
No, you have misunderstood my statements. There is a very large difference between non violent protest such as the examples you have given, and what I stated were " explitives and mal contents" which are nothing but words without reason nor action.
I would definately support someone who would picket D.C in order to reform the gun control laws of this country or any othe similar action. However, for someone to sit on an internet forum, and merely complain about an agency which is enforcing laws created legally by legislatures of this country is neither patriotic nor helpful for the cause.

 

[buzz_knox]

However, for someone to sit on an internet forum, and merely complain about an agency which is enforcing laws created legally by legislatures of this country is neither patriotic nor helpful for the cause.

What happens when said agency engages in illegal conduct (entrapment is illegal after all) and other agencies engage in unconstitutional conduct (the "shoot any adult" and the killing of Mrs. Weaver both being held to be illegal and unconstitutional)?

 

[oobray]

Buzz_knox,
I'm not sure what you mean by "what happens". But, if you are very upset by these actions (as many justifiably are) then you should take action to correct such conduct.
As pertaining to the entrapement case against Mr.Weaver, it is my understanding that the charges stemming from that informant's testimony were correctly either thrown out by the prosecutor or the judge I'm not sure which. Also please see my posts about the legal concept of affirmitive defense. Of which, entrapement is an affirmitive defense.

I believe though what most believe to be the problem with the ATF's conduct in the Weaver case as well as at Waco, is the way in which these laws were enforced. I have a very hard time with this. There were definate violations in both cases, and I believe that violations should be enforced to the best of the abilities of the authorities. If the conduct of the authorities is believed or seen to be in violation of civil rights then someone who was victimized should definately bring grievance against the governemnt for such a violation. Then, the government should adapt policies according to the courts decisions.
However, I am also very weary about putting too many constraints (beyond the constraints present in the bill of rights) on the ways in which LEO's can perform theiry duties. The officers in the case of weavery (based upon my limited recollection believed that Mrs. Weaver posed some sort of threat, or was carrying a weapon or something to that affect. To which they reacted.
And in the case of Waco, the reason that the assault was affected the way it was, is because the ATF had an undercover agent inside the compound whom they had reason to believe was in danger. In both cases I beleive that the actions were appropriate. Now, that being said, that does NOT prohibit someone from bringing suit against the government for those actions.

Does that answer your question?

 

[unspellable]

The Supreme Court

Where in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court gets to call the shots on what's constitutional and what's not? As I recall the Court more or less took it upon itself to do so early in the history of this country and no one has called them on it.

 

[buzz_knox]

Does that answer your question?

Yes, it does. Your proposed actions are those who are aggrieved should seek redress, while those not directly involved should remain silent and supportive of the agencies.

However, I am also very weary about putting too many constraints (beyond the constraints present in the bill of rights) on the ways in which LEO's can perform theiry duties.

The Bill of Rights includes the right to question how LEOs peform their duties or to protest when they do so inappropriately, correct?

The officers in the case of weavery (based upon my limited recollection believed that Mrs. Weaver posed some sort of threat, or was carrying a weapon or something to that affect. To which they reacted.

Your recollection is incorrect. In the Weaver case, Horiuchi had received orders to shoot any adult who exposed themselves, regardless of whether they were armed or posing a danger. That order was later held to be illegal. He asserted that he was aiming at one person and missed, striking Mrs. Weaver. His after action report, however, had a hand drawn diagram showing his crosshairs on her head.

 

[Browning]

glummer : I know the general scenario - I am interested in the OFFICIAL claim behind the charges. Was it actually as silly as 1/4"-3/8"? Was he actually charged at the trial on that "evidence"?

From what I've read in three different books, yes.

That's what led to the whole mess.

Of course it was basically because they wanted to turn him into an informant.

When he said "No" then they arrested him on the two shotgun charges and prosecuted him.

He didn't show up for the trial and then.....well you know the rest.


These are basically the best books out there on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Every-Knee-Shall-Bow-Tragedy/dp/0061011312/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/105-5701153-6301204?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187900858&sr=1-3

http://www.amazon.com/Ambush-Ruby-Ridge-Government-Agents/dp/0788151762/ref=sr_1_5/105-5701153-6301204?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187900923&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Siege-At-Ruby-Ridge/dp/0966433408/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-5701153-6301204?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187901033&sr=1-1

The government comes up with a law and even 1/32 of an inch under what standard they happen to set is still illegal, which just goes to show you the stupidity of alot of firearms laws. It's basically the end of common sense. We can be trusted as citizens with a shotgun that's 26 and 1/2 inches and there isn't a cop in America that would be able to arrest you. But God forbid that it's 25 and 1/2 inches, then it would be considered extremely bad and you could possibly end up in prison for up to 10 years and get a 100,000 dollar fine for just merely having it.

Mainsail : Well, let’s see. I’m retired military and have been around guns all of my adult life. I own several as well, including a shotgun.

Q: What is the minimum legal overall length of a shotgun?
A: I don’t know.
Q: What is the minimum barrel length for shotguns?
A: I don’t know.
Q: How is barrel length determined, or, from what point to what point do you measure?
A: I don’t know.

I have no idea what the overall length is supposed to be. I think the min barrel length is 18”, but I’m not sure. None of that matters since I don’t know how to properly measure the barrel length anyway. If I measure from the business end, do I stop at the end of the barrel or do I stop at the end of the chamber?

From the ATFE's website 18 inches is the minumum barrel length and 26 inches is the minumum overall length.

Here's something that tries to spell it out in plain English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun

ATFE Site.
http://www.atf.treas.gov/

I think ¾” would be a tough sell to me if I were on a jury.

That's why jurors are often questioned about how much experience they have with firearms when it's a weapons related charge, they wouldn't want the armed and uppity peasants to get wild ideas about turning people free if they've only gone less than an inch under the legal limit for a $100 shotgun.

 

[4sooth]

Randy Weaver

FWIW Randy Weaver was at a local gun show before Katrina.I bought a copy of his book,had it autograped and along with others had a chance to chat informally with him.

The way he explained it to us was that he did shorten the barrels. But he never put the barrels and/or the rest of the guns together.He gave the shortened barrels to the owner and that person assembled the two.

The ATF'S position was that this constituted "constructive" possession and was treated the same as actually shortening the barrel and reinstalling it on the gun.

 

[Andrewsky]

FWIW Randy Weaver was at a local gun show before Katrina.I bought a copy of his book,had it autograped and along with others had a chance to chat informally with him.

The way he explained it to us was that he did shorten the barrels. But he never put the barrels and/or the rest of the guns together.He gave the shortened barrels to the owner and that person assembled the two.

The ATF'S position was that this constituted "constructive" possession and was treated the same as actually shortening the barrel and reinstalling it on the gun.

That's the worst defense for a SBS I've ever heard. Wow.

It's not a short barreled shotgun because he didn't give me the shotgun to shorten, he gave me the barrel which I shortened and gave back to him.

Wow.

Not that I think the NFA is legitimate though.

 

[rosco22]

Weaver was set up .
His wife was MURDERED .
His son was MURDERED .
The ATF LIED like pond scum .
The .gov review of the ATF and Marshels service said so .


These are FACTS .

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Well, let’s see. I’m retired military and have been around guns all of my adult life. I own several as well, including a shotgun.

Q: What is the minimum legal overall length of a shotgun?
A: I don’t know.
Q: What is the minimum barrel length for shotguns?
A: I don’t know.
Q: How is barrel length determined, or, from what point to what point do you measure?
A: I don’t know.

I have no idea what the overall length is supposed to be. I think the min barrel length is 18”, but I’m not sure. None of that matters since I don’t know how to properly measure the barrel length anyway. If I measure from the business end, do I stop at the end of the barrel or do I stop at the end of the chamber?

I think ¾” would be a tough sell to me if I were on a jury.
__________________

Sorry, but as stupid as it sounds, ignorance does not raise one above the law.

 

[oobray]

Unspellable,

In Article III of the Constitution it states...

...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

In those appellate decisions it is therefore up to the Supreme Court to decide what is and is not protected under the Constitution.

Buzz_knox,

Yes, it does. Your proposed actions are those who are aggrieved should seek redress, while those not directly involved should remain silent and supportive of the agencies.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that lashing out irrationally against an entire agencies for the actions of a few of it's agents is not helpful. Discussing the issues, where mistakes may have been made and then discussing possible solutions is how we further the cause which we all claim to follow which is that of personal and civil liberty.

The Bill of Rights includes the right to question how LEOs peform their duties or to protest when they do so inappropriately, correct?

Um, not exactly. The Constitution does NOT give people the right to directly question LEO's about thier conduct. That is where trial and court comes in to play. But you are correct in that we definately have the right to protest actions of LEO's which are extensions of government. However, going on long rants about the big bad ATF again is not helpful. However, as previously stated, if you want to go to the activism forum and get a group of people together to picket the ATF headquaters in D.C I would definately contribute something to the cause.

Horiuchi had received orders to shoot any adult who exposed themselves, regardless of whether they were armed or posing a danger.

If that is in fact true, and could be proven then I would definately support any prosecutor that might bring about charges against not only the agents, but the supervisor who instigated such an order.

I think ¾” would be a tough sell to me if I were on a jury.

This statement is absolutely obserd. If the Congress creates a law stating that the barrell of a shotgun may be no shorter than 18", that does NOT mean 17.75". It definately means that the minimum is 18". And .00000001" is still a violation!!!! Just as a 35 mph speed limit sign DOES NOT mean 40 mph is acceptable.
Please understand that I am not supporting the NFA, nor the SBS law. I'm only stating that the ATF agents cannot be logically blamed for enforcing those laws which are on the books regardless of how you feel about them. Grievences against laws should be brought against those who create them i.e state, local or federal government, NOT the agencies charged with enforcing those laws. Just as you would not punch your mail man for delivering a letter containing bad news.

 

[Don Gwinn]

All right, that's enough.

AGAIN, this is the LEGAL forum. This is not L&P. L&P disappeared because the ranting, moaning and DRAMA made it more trouble than it was worth. Please don't do the same thing to the legal forum.

This is a forum for legal questions. What was Randy Weaver originally charged with doing? Asked and answered: he shortened a shotgun barrel, and BATFE alleged that he shortened it below the legal limit.