Recent Federal Case (Merged with " Rifle malfunction= prosecution?")

Status
Not open for further replies.
Teddy, you obviously don't know the history of ATF. They've always have a good reputation among other state, local, and fed LE agencies. They were NOT about to "close down" in the 60s, because ATF wasn't an agency until 1972. There was some worry that the agency might be shut down and the agents moved to other agencies in the early 80s, because various lobbying groups (primarily the NRA) were pushing hard to shut them down. However, when it was decided that if ATF were shut down the majority of the agents, and the responsibility for the laws ATF enforced would be switched to the USSS those same lobbying groups (again primarily the NRA) actually started lobbying to keep ATF around. All those lobbyists decided it was easier to spread BS propaganda about ATF than it was about the USSS.

Now if you want a decent history of ATF read the book "Very Special Agents" by James Moore. Now he does grind his axe against the NRA and the FBI to the point it gets a little tiresome, but if you look beyond that it's a good history of the agency. He does not spare any criticism of certain people within the agency either.
 
Should be up on CNN in the next week or so on Lou Dobbs, and the Knox report is running an updated story shortly. It will also be available in shotgun news the 3rd week of February.


G. Gordon Liddy podcast that covers this case.
http://hosts.radioamerica.org/podcas...7-01-08_H1.mp3
Articles

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/0...rd-guards.html

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=59650

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/


JPFO Podcast

http://www.jpfo.org/media-sound/len-savage-01-10-08.mp3



JPFO Transcripts

http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/LenSavage011008.pdf


Link to the smoking gun in this case

www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATFmemoTaxInfo6103.pdf

"Except for section 6103 (o)(1), which authorizes the discloser of tax information to Federal Employee whose official duties require such information"

Would the Honorable Judge Clevert have proceeded if he found out that ATF at the same time, in another part of the country declared an AR-15 with M-16 parts [including bolt carrier] was NOT a machine gun, and was removed from the National Machine gun Registry?

I doubt it. I also doubt the jury would have bought the ATF fictional display on the stand if they had access to it. I also believe it would never have gone to court if they knew they had to disclose it and the jury would see it.
 
Should be up on CNN in the next week or so on Lou Dobbs, and the Knox report is running an updated story shortly. It will also be available in shotgun news the 3rd week of February.


G. Gordon Liddy podcast that covers this case.
http://hosts.radioamerica.org/podcas...7-01-08_H1.mp3
Articles

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/0...rd-guards.html

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=59650

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/


JPFO Podcast

http://www.jpfo.org/media-sound/len-savage-01-10-08.mp3



JPFO Transcripts

http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/LenSavage011008.pdf


Link to the smoking gun in this case

www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATFmemoTaxInfo6103.pdf

"Except for section 6103 (o)(1), which authorizes the discloser of tax information to Federal Employee whose official duties require such information"

Would the Honorable Judge Clevert have proceeded if he found out that ATF at the same time, in another part of the country declared an AR-15 with M-16 parts [including bolt carrier] was NOT a machine gun, and was removed from the National Machine gun Registry?

I doubt it. I also doubt the jury would have bought the ATF fictional display on the stand if they had access to it. I also believe it would never have gone to court if they knew they had to disclose it and the jury would see it.
 
This is not new. There have been numerous such cases.

Suffice to say: if the BATFE can make a gun "double" just once, then by strict legal definition it is a machinegun ... and they know how to make any semi-automatic double just once.

They know how to gum up the works, break stuff, load it with ammo featuring ultra-rare super-sensitive primers, etc. and have the patience & money to repeat things thousands of times until they can get the gun to fire twice with one trigger pull. They have admitted to doing this, they have testified that they do it, they admit to no control or monitoring of the process, and AFAIK _every_ time they have tested "is it a machinegun" the answer has _always_ been YES. Courts simply take their word for it, the jury never sees the absurd contortions and time spent persuading a gun to malfunction predictably, the jury never even hears evidence to differentiate between a deliberate malfunction vs. designed intent.

Yes, it's stupid. It also works.
The BATFE needs to be called on it.

If you EVER have a gun "tested" for FA ability by the BATFE, at minimum make sure they videotape the entire process, and make it clear your lawyer will go ballistic if they don't. Force the jury to watch & understand the entire process (goop up works, load two, fire, load two, fire, load two, ... until it doubles a single time), then explain the difference between "malfunction" and "design".
 
Yeah, I'm sure they'll videotape the whole thing because you tell them to. This is an out of control agency that does what it wants with absolutely no repercussions. If we had only asked the British to stay away and not burden us with those pesky taxes 200 years ago we wouldn't have had to fight a war.
 
Link to the smoking gun in this case

www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATFmemoTaxInfo6103.pdf

"Except for section 6103 (o)(1), which authorizes the discloser of tax information to Federal Employee whose official duties require such information"
Click to expand...
Have you ever even read Title 26, Section 6103, and bothered to try to understand what it says? Have you even bothered to read that letter in it's entirety, AFTER reading 26USC6103?

Also, trying to claim a letter from 1980 is a "smoking gun" in a case from more than a quarter century later is ridiculous.

:banghead:
 
Link to the smoking gun in this case

www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATFmemoTaxInfo6103.pdf

"Except for section 6103 (o)(1), which authorizes the discloser of tax information to Federal Employee whose official duties require such information"
Click to expand...
As I said on the other thread:

Have you ever even read Title 26, Section 6103, and bothered to try to understand what it says? Have you even bothered to read that letter in it's entirety, AFTER reading 26USC6103?

Also, trying to claim a letter from 1980 is a "smoking gun" in a case from more than a quarter century later is ridiculous.

:banghead:
 
The document clearly shows the ATF's position, and the law, is contrary to what they told the judge in this case; and that they have held that position for a long time. In my opinion they clearly lied to the judge and knew what they were doing. To say that the document is not relevant because of some arbitrary age limit is like saying the SC ruling on miller is no longer in effect because it is more than 25 years old.
 
The document clearly shows the ATF's position, and the law, is contrary to what they told the judge in this case; and that they have held that position for a long time. In my opinion they clearly lied to the judge and knew what they were doing. To say that the document is not relevant because of some arbitrary age limit is like saying the SC ruling on miller is no longer in effect because it is more than 25 years old.
 
It's a pity that the Judge won't simply find all in the ATF involved in contempt, and hold them in jail until such time that they turn over all the documents.
 
It may not be out of the question. Time will tell us what he decides to do about it. Next few months will tell us all a lot about how much crap this particular judge will put up with in his court.
 
I had a thought today. He should deffinately appeal that. And fire his current lawyer. The M16 is U.S. government property. Therefore he was just using it. The government was in possession of an illegal machine gun and loaned it to him. He doesn't own it, the government does. Therefore he's not the one responsible for the legal reprocussions for the gun illegally being a machine gun, the government is.
 
I belive it was a personaly owned Olympic arms CAR-AR that was mearly made with some M16 components.
 
Oh. Then in that case that's a totally different story. Forget what I said then. I'll shut up now.
 
League City man is held on moonshine, arms counts
Authorities discover stills, confiscate two Tommy guns

By HARVEY RICE
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

GALVESTON — A League City man was charged in federal court Friday with operating two moonshine stills and possessing four automatic weapons, including two Tommy guns.

The five-count indictment against Chris Coulter Hinkley, 54, was read to him by U.S. Magistrate Judge John Froeschner.

Hinkley is charged with two counts of distilling spirits at a dwelling and three counts of possessing an unregistered firearm.

An Aug. 3 raid by federal and state agents and League City police on Hinkley's home discovered a still, boiler and equipment for making moonshine, according to the indictment.

Authorities also confiscated an Olympic Arms Commando model .223-caliber machine gun; a DoubleStar, Star-15 .223-caliber machine gun, and two 1928-type Thompson .45-caliber machine guns, the indictment said.

Hinkley was indicted by a federal grand jury Jan. 23 and arrested at his home Thursday, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Hinkley is represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office.

His attorney could not be reached for comment late Friday.
Click to expand...

I saw this in the newspaper yesterday. It makes me wonder if they are using the "if it looks like a duck, it must be a duck" test.
 
If he gets a smart lawyer, he'll repeat Miller - and this time show that the MGs at issue are unquestionably "militia suitable".

BTW...why the heck is distilling illegal? I can make beer/wine/meade/etc., why can't I remove the water from the result without a paid ATF agent present?
 
Heard the transcrips got released today. Ought to be interesting when we can see them posted.
Click to expand...

Well, I got emailed the transcript w/ Mr. Savage's testimony. I won't copy it all here; it's way too long. I did love this excerpt though, which occurred during a "sidebar" (Mr. Haanstad is the prosecutor, Mr. Fahl is the defense attorney):

Begin Excerpt

MR. HAANSTAD: (Interrupting) First of all, I'm not
sure if I understand why that's relevant, the hammer follow. I
mean, there's no indication that that's what was going on with
respect to this particular gun. And there's no indication that
it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the
trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what
the cause it's a machine gun.

MR. FAHL: And that's where I think we have some
issues. The Staples case, footnote one Justice Thomas said you
have to -- you know, it has to go without stopping -- until then
-- and that was adopted by the 7th Circuit.
And under that jury instruction, if that one goes
through, you know, we'll have an issue about the hammer follow
and what happened with the three rounds and then stopping.
It definitely will go to knowledge.

MR. HAANSTAD: I kind of wonder if we should resolve
that before we sort of risk confusing the jury on an issue
that's not going to be of any significance in the case.
I mean, I've read Staples and I'm familiar with
footnote 1.

End Excerpt

For those of you who don't understand significance, the USSC's Decision in Staples, Footnote 1 basically states that a malfunctioning semi-auto is not a machine gun; Haanstad is stating otherwise in court.
 
BATFE lying ? Gosharootie boys and girls.....we all know our government wouldn't lie......

Is there anyone shooting selfloaders, (i.e. semi-autos) that hasn't had a "double" or "runaway" ? They're machines and subject to problems causing these sorts of problems. Most of us just "find'em and fix'em" . But we don't generally have a couple of "supercops" next to us on the range, either..... IMO there's more to this story than whe're hearing about. Kindal like Topsey - it just grew...... >MW
 
From another post. Thought it was interesting. Made me wonder if the guns were really converted or if the ATF was just trying another wild BS claim about the weapons. Although if he had a still they will most likely have him.

Quote:
League City man is held on moonshine, arms counts
Authorities discover stills, confiscate two Tommy guns

By HARVEY RICE
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

GALVESTON — A League City man was charged in federal court Friday with operating two moonshine stills and possessing four automatic weapons, including two Tommy guns.

The five-count indictment against Chris Coulter Hinkley, 54, was read to him by U.S. Magistrate Judge John Froeschner.

Hinkley is charged with two counts of distilling spirits at a dwelling and three counts of possessing an unregistered firearm.

An Aug. 3 raid by federal and state agents and League City police on Hinkley's home discovered a still, boiler and equipment for making moonshine, according to the indictment.

Authorities also confiscated an Olympic Arms Commando model .223-caliber machine gun; a DoubleStar, Star-15 .223-caliber machine gun, and two 1928-type Thompson .45-caliber machine guns, the indictment said.

Hinkley was indicted by a federal grand jury Jan. 23 and arrested at his home Thursday, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Hinkley is represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office.

His attorney could not be reached for comment late Friday.
I saw this in the newspaper yesterday. It makes me wonder if they are using the "if it looks like a duck, it must be a duck" test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Owner of broken rifle surrenders for 30-month sentence
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
211
Views
10K
Don Gwinn
D
F
  • Locked
30 months in jail for broken gun!
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
5K
cassandrasdaddy
C
Z
  • Locked
US v Olofson - Cliff Notes Version
2 3
Replies
64
Views
10K
DenaliPark
D
B
  • Locked
USSC appeal needs gunsmith as expert witness - NOW
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
PTK
P
D
  • Locked
My 1187 Double Shot..now I'm A FELON
Replies
1
Views
655
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top