Does anyone KNOW what the original charge against Weaver was? I mean, the specific description(s) of the 'illegal' shotgun(s) barrel length? I have read the Justice Dept report on the Ruby Ridge affair, but it doesn't go into that detail.
Randy Weaver's shotgun(s)
- Thread starter glummer
- Start date
- Status
rocket lad
Member
The extent of my knowledge is that someone asked him if he could cut the barrel length of their shotgun, and he did. Seems like it was around 12-14" or so, though it's been a while since I really looked into it.
Similarly, there are a handful of Ruby Ridge-related videos on the internet you might find interesting, a couple of which spend great length speaking with Randy and his daughter.
Similarly, there are a handful of Ruby Ridge-related videos on the internet you might find interesting, a couple of which spend great length speaking with Randy and his daughter.
joab
Member
I have the book and I'll check later to verify, but the lad is basically correct
The somebody was undercover or somehow working with ATF on a sting
Weaver was targeted because of his association with White Supremest groups
It was later determined to be entrapment because he initially refused but they kept after him to do it
The somebody was undercover or somehow working with ATF on a sting
Weaver was targeted because of his association with White Supremest groups
It was later determined to be entrapment because he initially refused but they kept after him to do it
rocket lad
Member
Of course it was entrapment - it was the ATF. They're not on my top-ten list of government agencies that have honor (not that such an agency exists, but still).
Few events of the 90s get my blood boiling as much as the Ruby Ridge siege.
Few events of the 90s get my blood boiling as much as the Ruby Ridge siege.
deadin
Member
He originally refused because, as he said, he couldn't afford to buy the guns. Not because it was illegal to cut them off shorter than 18". I really don't see the entrapment defense.
Bubbles
Member
Fixed it for you. There is a difference, though most folks don't care about the details.
FWIW does anyone else find it abhorrent that Weaver was targeted and his wife killed for essentially failing to pay the $200 excise tax on a SBS?
Thumper
Member
Wait a minute...I dont have a current reference, but I thought the barrels were of legal length, but that he had cut the stock below legal overall length?
deadin,
It is most definately entrapement. Entrapement is anytime a government agent, or an agent working therefore, instigates criminal activity on the part of the defendant. And it also does not matter why the defendant refused to shorten the weapons, if the defendant refuses that's a refusal.
Now, as far as going after him for the SBS that was 1/4" too short... Ok, so lets make a law that says you're not allowed to have SBS's. But we will only enforce it if they are really short! That doesn't make sense now does it? I agree, the SBS law doesn't really prevent crime/violence. But if congress creates laws, they need to be enforced, END OF STORY!!!
It is most definately entrapement. Entrapement is anytime a government agent, or an agent working therefore, instigates criminal activity on the part of the defendant. And it also does not matter why the defendant refused to shorten the weapons, if the defendant refuses that's a refusal.
Now, as far as going after him for the SBS that was 1/4" too short... Ok, so lets make a law that says you're not allowed to have SBS's. But we will only enforce it if they are really short! That doesn't make sense now does it? I agree, the SBS law doesn't really prevent crime/violence. But if congress creates laws, they need to be enforced, END OF STORY!!!
Last edited:
HonorsDaddy
Member
oobray:
You said: "if Congress creates laws they need to be enforced, END OF STORY!".
Now tell me, how does one legally enforce a law which, by its very existence, violates another law?
I am of course referring to the painful fact that gun control laws violate the 2nd Amendment, as well as laws against murder, entrapment, and a whole host of others violated by that very government you suggest we should obey.
Legislation passed by Congress is not superior to the Constitution.
You said: "if Congress creates laws they need to be enforced, END OF STORY!".
Now tell me, how does one legally enforce a law which, by its very existence, violates another law?
I am of course referring to the painful fact that gun control laws violate the 2nd Amendment, as well as laws against murder, entrapment, and a whole host of others violated by that very government you suggest we should obey.
Legislation passed by Congress is not superior to the Constitution.
Mainsail
Member
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.
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.
The gov't initiated the criminal conspiracy and got Weaver involved, which was the traditional basis for an entrapment defense. After too many criminals got off due to the defense (mainly because the gov't really was entrapping them), it was changed to 1) the gov't had to initiate the conspiracy and 2) the defendant's history had to show that but for the gov't's actions, he wouldn't have violated the law.
deadin
Member
So if I go to a drug dealer and offer to buy some crack, he can sell it to me because he didn't initiate the transaction?
elrod
Member
rocket lad
Didn't think there were enough of those to make a list of ten!
Didn't think there were enough of those to make a list of ten!
armedandsafe
Member
MainSail, close the breach/bolt on an empty chamber. Drop a rod down the barrel to rest against the breech/bolt face. Mark the rod at the muzzle and then measure.
Pops
Pops
A) There are plenty of laws NOT being enforced (the 2A, for one.)
B) There are many possible ways to enforce laws. Ruby Ridge & Waco were wildly over the line on the scale of appropriate force application.
The JBT's CHOSE to enforce the law in a particular way, and that is what makes their actions unacceptable..
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
No, because he's already dealing drugs.
Here's an entrapment scenario:
You are a law-abiding person who doesn't do or sell drugs.
DEA knows you are in some financial difficulty, so they have an undercover agent befriend you and talk you into selling drugs they provide you with.
They then arrest you for selling drugs.
That would be ruled entrapment, because if the DEA hadn't approached you and convinced you to break the law, you would not have done so.
Blackfork
Member
Uninforced Laws
The Feds are currently not enforcing a whole file of Border Security Laws.
They don't enforce many laws when broken by commissioned officers or political office holders. Prosecutors at all levels have wide discretion on what to prosecute or not prosecute.
They call this: Good Government, but it's gotten so good it's hardly functioning.
The Feds are currently not enforcing a whole file of Border Security Laws.
They don't enforce many laws when broken by commissioned officers or political office holders. Prosecutors at all levels have wide discretion on what to prosecute or not prosecute.
They call this: Good Government, but it's gotten so good it's hardly functioning.
rocket lad
Member
yeah, I can't really come up with any either
they're all wastes of taxpayer money IMHO
ec-10
Member
Remember that while Randy was convicted of failing to appear in court he was not convicted of anything that came out of the Ruby Ridge incident. Kevin Harris was not convicted of anything. Also remember that the Weaver family was given an out of court settlement to make the whole thing go away.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html
I met Randy once he's a nice guy he kept me from getting killed by one of his entourage. I made a comment to someone else about Weaver's situation that was taken in the wrong way. Within 2 seconds I was called a draft dodger UnAmerican as well as several other not nice things. Randy stepped in and heard what I said, saw my point and called off the dogs.
Law enforcement (of any level, local, state and federal) has been recognized as unable to enforce all laws, all the time. For example, local cops could not possibly enforce all traffic laws all the time. This would be insane. So, yes the Feds DEFINATELY enforce laws at thier discretion. This is necessary and appropriate.
Yes, you and I (and most on this forum) believe that the portion of the second amendment reading...shall not be infringed means that ANY firearms laws are a direct violation. However, the fifth amendment reads
And technically by creating a law, giving the public notice of the law and having the law reviewed by the supreme court meets the defintition of " due process ".
So, the only way in which to find these laws in violation of the 2nd am. is to have a supreme court decision support that idea. So the only way in which to possibly change supreme court precedent is to make sure you help to elect policitical officials who will appoint justices that will vote consistently with your views.
If you believe in the constitution of this country, what I have previously stated is the way in which one should look at this. Throwing explitives and mal contents against the agency which has been tasked with enforcing laws created by the power invested in Congress is both unintelligent and inconsistent with the constitution you speak to be so in love with.
Yes, you and I (and most on this forum) believe that the portion of the second amendment reading...shall not be infringed means that ANY firearms laws are a direct violation. However, the fifth amendment reads
And technically by creating a law, giving the public notice of the law and having the law reviewed by the supreme court meets the defintition of " due process ".
So, the only way in which to find these laws in violation of the 2nd am. is to have a supreme court decision support that idea. So the only way in which to possibly change supreme court precedent is to make sure you help to elect policitical officials who will appoint justices that will vote consistently with your views.
If you believe in the constitution of this country, what I have previously stated is the way in which one should look at this. Throwing explitives and mal contents against the agency which has been tasked with enforcing laws created by the power invested in Congress is both unintelligent and inconsistent with the constitution you speak to be so in love with.
Last edited:
HonorsDaddy
Member
Oobray
Based upon this:
is it correct to conclude you have a problem with such things as, oh, the Boston Tea Party, the Declaration of Independence, Rosa Parks, or any form of dissent against government actions?
Based upon this:
,
is it correct to conclude you have a problem with such things as, oh, the Boston Tea Party, the Declaration of Independence, Rosa Parks, or any form of dissent against government actions?
- Status
