(PA) FBI arrests area man on illegal-weapons charges

Status
Not open for further replies.
"And when there is a law against all private ownership of firearms then what will you do?"

Vote 'em out. Then change the law. It's the American way.

JT

JBT, you won't "vote them out" or change the law if the majority of the public agrees with them. A majority of our fellow Virginians favored slavery,eugenics programs and various other nefarious concepts at one time in history.
A vote by a majority or an elected representative does not make a law or decision right, it only makes it legal. Two very different, and ever disassociating concepts.
 
"There isn't any constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of non-citizens to enter the country, Roper. There IS a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms."

The RKBA has nothing to do with the power given by the Constitution to congress to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." While there is no Constitutionally recognized right of non-citizens to enter the country, "prevent[ing] the population of these States" was one of the grievances the colonists had against George III.
 
Wait.

Folks here are defending the criminal because they don't like the cops. Reminds me of the folks out here that were willing to give Saddam a pass becuase they didn't like Bush. The logic is asinine.

This guy did commit a crime.

1) Felon in possession of a firearm.
I don't care if it was a paperwork crime or not. I haven't seen the circumstances or the original police report. But whatever it was, it wasn't plead down to a misdemeanor - they kept it as a felony. Maybe it was more serious than just having an unregistered gun in his house...? The article said he was
convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon and various other charges in New Jersey
. What were the other charges? Probably not an expired parking meter.

2) Illegal possession of machinegun parts. I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't read the NFA lately, but I seem to remember that owning ANY machinegun parts is a felony.

From ATF's website:
Some examples of the types of firearms that must be registered are:
Machineguns;
The frames or receivers of machineguns;
Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting weapons into machineguns;
Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machinegun;
Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
Silencers and any part designed and intended for fabricating a silencer;


Instead of standing up for this dope, you should applaud the government for grabbing him. God forbid he, or someone he sold a gun to, does something stupid that gets the perp and the gun on national TV and starts the media hacks ranting about the need for more restrictions on gun ownership.
 
Cordex et al......

So kids have a right to vote, own, property, and dress as they see fit?.......
No.....Parents regulate(and hold the "trust fund of the childs rights") what they do till they become adults when the Constitiution takes over for protecting their rights......

Seperation of church and state says government can not say anything to ANyONE about where to go to churh.....
Kids already,in many areas, have dress codes in school.....
Kids can not say what they want in public school anymore than I can scream;"fire" in a crowded movie......
Random drug testing of extra curricular activities/and lockers is the norm in many schools now(search and seizure be damned)......I believe zero tolerance progrms are "cruel and unusual punishment" .......Kids can be forced to open their cars on campus without lawyers present or anything other than a suspicion of something wrong not even facts.......

So where have you guys been the last few years. :confused: ? Kids have no rights in school or at home until they turn 18......Oh my god i just agreed with the Rabbi, I feel so dirty :uhoh:
 
"I guess the F., the B., and the I. have finished rounding up and deporting all the millions upon millions of illegal aliens that used to infest our nation like a cancer, and now has time to chase down individuals who like fully automatic firearms."

I find this remark incredibly ironic. Importing firearms illegally is ok, but importing people illegally is not?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right to parasite off of your fellow man. There is however several instances in the main BOR as well as the writings of the founders that refer to the right to keep and bear arms.
Let he who does not work also not eat-Jesus
Pretty sure the forefathers would've agreed

This guy did commit a crime.

1) Felon in possession of a firearm.
I don't care if it was a paperwork crime or not. I haven't seen the circumstances or the original police report. But whatever it was, it wasn't plead down to a misdemeanor - they kept it as a felony. Maybe it was more serious than just having an unregistered gun in his house...? The article said he was

The founding fathers and most of thier friends family and associates were felons.

In four years you and I may become felons under the Patriot act, after the liberals get into power and declare THR a Domestic Terrorist group.

Osama bin Oleg??

The Point is what this guy was doing was not inherently wrong, had this gentleman hurt someone with these weapons that would've been wrong. But a guy with a couple of counts of Marijuana possession, having a pollitically incorrect firearm or 1000 is a non crime.
 
AF_INT1N0,

The founding fathers and most of thier (sic) friends family and associates were felons.


So, by extension, you are arguing that a commission and conviction of a felony SHOULDN'T be used to abridge civil rights? Civil rights are sacrosanct and are unlimited?

The exclusion of felons from the body politic derived from the concept of "civil death" that had its origins in Roman and European law, both as a form of retribution and a general deterrent. Such a designation meant that a lawbreaker had no legal status. The concept was brought to North America by the English in the Colonial period.

The founding father argument is absurd and a red herring.

HAD the founding fathers considered that their sedition was a felonious offense, they would have specifically precluded it in the Constitution. Instead, they gave that right to the states (9th and 10th amendments).


It is popular in the RKBA community to claim that there are NO LIMITS on the rights enumerated in the BOR - but it isn't true. The 1st Amendment has restrictions - fighting words, fire in a theater etc. So does the 2nd. And all those rights are contingent on good and responsible citizenship.

Do you really think that Chuck Manson, if ever released from jail should retain his right to own a firearm? How about those jolly folks in the Weather Underground or the Symbionese Liberation Army?


The Point is what this guy was doing was not inherently wrong

How do you figure? Manufacturing a prohibited weapon is a crime. Just like making home-made Vicodin is a crime. :banghead:

The prosecution of this nimrod has nothing to do with political correctness. What he was doing was not a 'technical' violation of the law.

Giving this bozo a pass is like excusing a meth dealer because he is simply an unlicensed pharmacist.
 
Bottom line......

Govenrnment should and does have the power to regulate poeple in an industry(read as: making products for sale and profit)....By selling arms illicit or otherwise he placed himself into the industry......

If this sphyncter(read as: ????) had not been selling weapons then I would not have a problem with simple "possession"(other than the fact he was a previous Felon) ;because if possession inevitably leads to crime then all the pharmicists with access to drugs will one day start sellin oxycontin(or something) "under the table".....All the H&K employees will one day start selling "black market" g3s and g11s and ALL the government employed "soldiers"(read as: Fed agents with MG) will one day flip out and go "Rambo" on the public :uhoh:
 
Perhaps this is a more informative article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/nyregion/16arms.html?th

Arms Network Is Broken Up, Officials Say
By JULIA PRESTON

Published: March 16, 2005


Law enforcement authorities have broken up a network of international arms smugglers who sold black-market assault rifles in the United States and were plotting to import military weapons - including anti-aircraft missiles and antitank guns - from Eastern Europe, federal and New York City officials announced yesterday.

The arms dealers sold the weapons to a confidential informer working with the F.B.I. who told them he was buying the arms for Al Qaeda, said David N. Kelley, the United States attorney in Manhattan, at a news conference. Mr. Kelley said the dealers were not associated with any terrorist organization but were selling the weapons to make money.

The officials charged that the arms ring was led by Artur Solomonyan, an Armenian, and Christiaan Dewet Spies, a South African, who have been living illegally in New York. In cellphone conversations secretly recorded by the F.B.I., the men said they intended to buy the more sophisticated weapons primarily from the Russian military but also from sellers linked to the armed forces in Ukraine and Georgia, Mr. Kelley said.

Although no terrorists were directly involved, the officials said the case represented a sobering warning that there were dealers in the illegal international arms market capable of importing battlefield weapons to the United States and ready to sell them to terrorists.

"These defendants may not have been terrorists themselves, but they've shown a transparent willingness to do anything with anybody so long as it generates income for their organization," said Andrew Arena, a special agent in charge of the Criminal Division of the F.B.I. in New York.

Mr. Kelley unsealed a federal criminal complaint for weapons trafficking yesterday against 18 people he said participated in the arms network. The two accused ringleaders and 15 other defendants were arrested by the F.B.I. and the local police Monday night and yesterday morning in roundups in New York City, Los Angeles and Miami, the officials said. The remaining defendant, identified as Armand Abramian, 27, was being sought in California.

Mr. Solomonyan, 26, protested that he was not guilty as he was escorted yesterday into Federal District Court in Manhattan. "I was trapped in this thing," he said. "I don't know what's going on." Also named in the complaint was his brother, Levon, 24.

The arrests came after a yearlong investigation in which the confidential informer secretly recorded hours of conversations with the defendants, and the F.B.I. taped more than 15,000 calls on seven telephones, officials said. During the year, they said, the arms ring sold the informer eight illegal weapons, mostly military assault rifles, including two AK-47's and an Israeli-made Uzi. The dealers delivered three of the guns in New York City, three in Los Angeles and two in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in transactions that were monitored by the F.B.I.

In recent weeks, the defendants made a $2.2 million deal to sell the informer more powerful, mainly Russian-made weapons, Mr. Kelley said. They gave the informer photographs of the weapons, which they said they were holding somewhere in Eastern Europe and were ready to import by ship to the United States.

The photos, which officials displayed yesterday, included images of two SA-7b Strella surface-to-air heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles and a Russian AT-4 Spigot antitank guided missile and launcher.

Early in their discussions, Artur Solomonyan told the informer he could obtain enriched uranium that could be "used in the subway," Mr. Kelley said. But he said the subject was "never followed up," and there was no evidence that the arms ring ever trafficked in nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. "It never happened," Mr. Kelley said.

Mr. Spies, 33, told the informer that he had ties to the Russian mafia, the complaint says. But none of the defendants are Russian; they include people from Georgia, Italy and France, as well as several Americans. Mr. Kelley said that officials suspected they were buying arms from "rogue folks within Eastern European military circles" but that it was still not clear whether they were members of the military or black marketeers.

According to the complaint, the F.B.I. informer began meeting a year ago with Mr. Spies, whom he had known for several years, and Mr. Solomonyan. The informer, who does not speak Russian, had provided information to American authorities in a separate case three years ago, the officials said.

The first meeting between the informer and the two accused of leading the weapons ring took place in the sauna and then the hot tub at a day spa in Brooklyn, the complaint says.

Mr. Solomonyan told the informer that his contacts were former officials of the K.G.B., the Soviet intelligence service, the complaint says; he said he hoped to acquire weapons from military operations in Chechnya, where Russian forces have been fighting a separatist insurgency.

In one secretly recorded cellular phone conversation, Mr. Solomonyan said he had never made an arms deal before and worried that the informer, who he thought was an arms broker, would think he was too young, according to the complaint.

The arrests began Monday night, when Mr. Solomonyan and Mr. Spies went to a meeting with the informer in Manhattan, where they had been told he would give them false immigration green cards so they could leave the United States to pick up the promised weapons. Instead, they were met by F.B.I. and New York police agents.

Mr. Arena, the F.B.I. official, said the case showed that it was shortsighted to contend that that agency should focus exclusively on combating terrorism and turn its attention away from international organized crime.

The defendants' "knowledge of smuggling routes, their access to weapons and their facility with financial trickery are the things terrorists need to turn a deadly dream into deadly reality," he said.
 
It is popular in the RKBA community to claim that there are NO LIMITS on the rights enumerated in the BOR - but it isn't true. The 1st Amendment has restrictions - fighting words, fire in a theater etc. So does the 2nd. And all those rights are contingent on good and responsible citizenship.

Do they now? I thought those were juducial interpretations subject to change at the whim of the court. If the SCOTUS decides you have no right to defend yourself, or your family, do you?
 
If the SCOTUS decides you have no right to defend yourself, or your family, do you?

Not sure if I understand the question.

Are you interested in Federal or State law. ALL jurisdictions claim that you have an absolute right to self defense. This is common law. HOWEVER, you might get in trouble if your methods are not kosher. Currently, Congress is trying to rectify that (i.e. excusing an unregistered gun if used in self defense).

Some jurisdictions require 'reasonable' retreat. Some require proportionality in the response.

Derby, your concern that the Supreme Court is going to start making judgments about peoples rights to be secure in their persons is unfounded. According to the Constitution and the political philosophies upon which it was founded, the right to life is pretty sacrosanct and can only be denied by government in the gravest of conditions.

I'm also not sure what
subject to change at the whim of the court
means. The Supreme Court doesn't overrule itself often. Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe 4 times. 4 times in 200+ years and LOTS of cases, really isn't that much and IMHO Plessy and Bowers needed to be overruled because they were bad law.

Part of what makes government successful is faith in those that govern. A healthy distrust works too, but if it just culminates in griping and fears of conspiracy, you lose the ability to enjoy what is right and beautiful about our form of government....
 
According to the Constitution and the political philosophies upon which it was founded, the right to life is pretty sacrosanct and can only be denied by government in the gravest of conditions.

But if the SCOTUS decided self defense was illegal, would you still have the right to do it?

I'm also not sure what means. The Supreme Court doesn't overrule itself often. Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe 4 times. 4 times in 200+ years and LOTS of cases, really isn't that much and IMHO Plessy and Bowers needed to be overruled because they were bad law.

But it could happen. Isn't everyone here afraid of the Democrats loading up the SCOTUS with Liberal judges? If you are older than 30 you should know how fast the government is turning into an avalanche on personal freedoms.
 
But if the SCOTUS decided self defense was illegal, would you still have the right to do it?
Yes. Certain rights are inalienable.


But it could happen. Isn't everyone here afraid of the Democrats loading up the SCOTUS with Liberal judges? If you are older than 30 you should know how fast the government is turning into an avalanche on personal freedoms.

I am. And I don't agree.

I think that the '86 machinegun ban sucked and should be repealed.
I think that Brady is a crock.
I think that the AWB was stupid.
The gun laws in Kali are ridiculous.

But I also see some great strides in civil rights, i.e. the overruling of Bowers.

And I STILL think that RKBA folks shouldn't be defending some idiot that was trying to smuggle and manufacture illegal weapons in the US.

You can defend Patrick Purdy's right to own an AK all you like, but....... :scrutiny:
 
Yes. Certain rights are inalienable.

I agree but you would go to jail because it was against the "law". Same thing here, isn't it? In restoring these weapons to their orignal functions, did he trod on any mans rights? Or did he only break the "law"?

I think that the '86 machinegun ban sucked and should be repealed.
I think that Brady is a crock.
I think that the AWB was stupid.
The gun laws in Kali are ridiculous.

Those examples are but the tip of the iceberg.
 
Derby FALs,

so you don't think there should be any laws? Do what you will as long as it doesn't hurt anyone?
 
"A majority of our fellow Virginians favored slavery,eugenics programs and various other nefarious concepts at one time in history."

Our fellow Virginians? Were you alive back then? :) I wasn't, although my dad's side of the family was in the Charlottesville area before Mr. Jefferson and farther back in the mountains than the Waltons. FWIW, my dad worked with Earl Hamner one day back in the '30s - I think they were loading peaches.

Meanwhile, most of those nefarious concepts were dealt with at the ballot box. I think you're proving my point.

John
 
fbi arrests man

The way I read the article the confidential witness agreed to and performed machine work of questionable legality for the guy. That seems like entrapment by the gunsmith for the feds.
 
Derby FALs,

so you don't think there should be any laws? Do what you will as long as it doesn't hurt anyone?

And the problem with that would be? There could be laws as long as they don't infinge on rights.:)
 
What if you have already shown that you don't have respect for others?

Do what you will as long as it doesn't hurt anyone?

Let's keep in mind that the guy was already a felon. That shows that he couldn't be trusted to "not hurt anyone." Felonies, by definition, imply harm to another. Through credit card fraud, robbery, murder---

So, the guy causes harm to another and is punished. Part of the punishment is "civil death".

The exclusion of felons from the body politic derived from the concept of "civil death" that had its origins in Roman and European law, both as a form of retribution and a general deterrent. Such a designation meant that a lawbreaker had no legal status. The concept was brought to North America by the English in the Colonial period.

Because of the "civil death" he loses his right to posess a firearm.

As a felon, he again breaks the law by possessing firearms and again breaks it by illegally manufacturing machineguns without paying the proper taxes/notifying authorities...

Derby - how is it that you are defending this guy?
 
Derby - how is it that you are defending this guy?

I believe he was guilty of cruelty to animals and paid the price for that. I don't believe him later being in possession of firearms or manufacturing full autos should be against the law. Scuzz bucket or not...
 
Derby,

Where did you get the "cruelty to animals" thing. And, supposing that this info is correct - usually that is a misdemeanor - unless the guy was an unusually sick bastard...and then, to me he is lower than LOW :fire:
 
Derby,

Where did you get the "cruelty to animals" thing.

Case Report

An area dog breeder charged with animal cruelty was fined Jan. 12 on similar charges in a nine-year-old case in New Jersey. John C. Tanis III, a dog breeder with a string of charges of animal cruelty and neglect in two states, was given a suspended 60-day prison sentence and ordered to pay $11,080 in accumulated fines.

He appeared in a hearing before Monmouth County Judge Joel Kreisman on Jan., 2003 New Jersey officials had been looking for Tanis since 1996, after he was found guilty of multiple charges of animal abuse and failure to provide proper shelter in Ocean Township.

Officials said he was running "a backyard breeding operation" there.

He was also convicted on Feb. 1, 1996, of possession of assault weapons in Hunterdon County, N.J. Due to his conviction, he was not allowed to possess any weapons. He subsequently fled the state, moving back to Pennsylvania.

New Jersey police finally caught up with Tanis on Dec. 24, 2003, during a traffic stop in Old Bridge Township, Middlesex County. He was allegedly delivering several puppies to buyers for Christmas gifts. Tanis posted $8,500 bail and was released.

He was scheduled to appear in Wyoming County Court on Wednesday, January 2003 in connection with more animal cruelty charges, but the hearing was postponed. No new date has been set.

The charges in New Jersey won't affect the outcome of his latest case here, said Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick. In March 2002, Tanis moved his kennel from a Lackawanna County location to Mehoopany, then later to Eaton Township.

On May 21, 2003, 46 dogs and two cats were rescued from an unlicensed kennel that he operated. The dogs suffered from anemia, malnutrition, internal and external parasites and two types of mange.

Tanis attempted to leave with puppies before hopping a plane to Russia, but wasn't allowed to take the pups with him because they were considered evidence in the case.

Tanis is no stranger to the Pennsylvania legal system. In August 2003, he was found guilty after a hearing in Wyoming County on 29 counts filed by dog law officers of failing to have a dog three months of age or older vaccinated against rabies; seven counts of failing to license a dog over three months of age, and one count of not having a kennel license.

In September 2003, after being found guilty of an additional 21 civil counts of cruelty to animals in Wyoming County, Tanis faced fines of more than $15,000 and possible prison time. Five puppies died while in custody and at least three more dogs would later have to be put down due to their condition. He was fined the maximum of $750 per count and 90 days in jail for each and forfeiture of the dogs.

He had previously been arrested in Lackawanna County in March 1996 after investigators found 46 dogs and two cats living in filthy conditions, 209 weapons - including a fully automatic submachine gun - and 94 lbs. of gunpowder. He faced 209 charges related to the animals.

In November 1996, he was arrested in another dog case in Scranton. He was charged with theft by deception and charged with 13 misdemeanor and seven summary counts relatedto the condition in which he kept his dogs.

Tanis spent almost a year in jail in 1996 and 1997 while waiting for the charges in both cases to move through the courts. He pleaded guilty to the dog law violations. The weapons charges ultimately were dismissed after the guns were found to belong to his mother, Eleanor.

In July 2000, he was found guilty after failing to appear for a hearing in Lackawanna County on 13 dog law citations in September 1999 and March 2000. He was fined a maximum of $300 plus costs.
 
Derby-
I respect your opinion. We will have to agree to disagree.

As far as I'm concerned, the lowest ring of hell is too good for this guy :fire:
 
S Roper said:
The RKBA has nothing to do with the power given by the Constitution to congress to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." While there is no Constitutionally recognized right of non-citizens to enter the country, "prevent[ing] the population of these States" was one of the grievances the colonists had against George III.
And just like "regulate" in the 2nd amendment, it is an abuse of that power to ban things from coming into the country when those same things could legally be constructed within the country... or at least when those things should be legal to construct within the country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top