Nemo Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 See the News Report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbo23 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 WOW........ That is a little scary. I hope that some one is able to get them to see the light on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murkish Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 See the News Report This prosecution is certainly questionable and scary. The sad thing is that a fellow gun owner must have dropped the dime on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I would hope that common sense prevails The most amazing thing in my eyes is that CNN carried the story. Hats off to Lou Dobbs!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p99shooter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Wow. Certainly sounds like it was just a slam fire. I've seen plenty of slam fires from AR-15s. Prosecution for having a few slam fires? Keep your rifles clean folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 That is a travesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I would hope that common sense prevailsThe most amazing thing in my eyes is that CNN carried the story. Hats off to Lou Dobbs!!!! Lou seems to be a pretty strait guy. Not all caught up in the politics for the most part as they relate to issues. As far as common sense, it seems too late for that. If someone dropped a dime on him, shame on them. What goes around comes around and we all know what Karma is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagus Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/...r.govt.guns.cnn Don't think I need to explain why I put this in the things I hate category Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 duplicate post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagus Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 duplicate post I still hate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagus Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 See the News Report This prosecution is certainly questionable and scary. The sad thing is that a fellow gun owner must have dropped the dime on him. The public ranges around me have full time DNR guys there now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Major BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
want2race Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Think about having your home forcably raided, by masked thugs, while your 3 children are asleep in their beds. I bet it was a "no-knock" entry. Nice job Fed's. You certainly got yourself a die hard criminal there. Unbelievable. No, it is believable. Idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Prosecution for having a few slam fires? If some of the other reports are true: ... in an AR with several M16 parts, a selector switch that would move into the position used for full auto, owned by someone with a history of selling full auto conversion books at gun shows and of suing the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Prosecution for having a few slam fires? If some of the other reports are true: ... in an AR with several M16 parts, a selector switch that would move into the position used for full auto, owned by someone with a history of selling full auto conversion books at gun shows and of suing the police. That starts to sound like a conversion, not a malfunction. However, to convert to select fire full auto using M-16 parts would require some pretty deliberate action, including drilling a hole in the lower receiver for the auto sear. The vid made it sound like the gun had some wear/poor trigger job issues and was in the midst of dumping the whole mag when it jammed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miranda Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 details and facts before all else. I do not know how to make an automatic. I recall reading that it is possible to make any semi-auto go full auto. lets say that is true for a moment... and we also assume the prosecution was not looking for an easy conviction... now look at what got him convicted of a felony ...transfering an automatic weapon.... how does one prove one had a properly operating weapon before it was 'transfered'? Why was he not convicted of any violations related to creating the automatic? Now did he modify the AR to make it an full auto? miranda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear23 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 See the News Report This prosecution is certainly questionable and scary. The sad thing is that a fellow gun owner must have dropped the dime on him. The truth is the local LE was there at the indoor range he was shooting at while the incident occurred. You would think and expert would have examined the AR15 and determined it was not converted to FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flatland Shooter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Prosecution for having a few slam fires? If some of the other reports are true: ... in an AR with several M16 parts, a selector switch that would move into the position used for full auto, owned by someone with a history of selling full auto conversion books at gun shows and of suing the police. I oppose any and all restrictions on gun ownership. If you want to own a 50 BMG or high capacity magazines anywhere in the US, I feel you have that right. I feel the same about Class 3 firearms. If you have the money and the desire, you can own one but the government has the ability (not the right) to restrict and tax ownership. I do not agree with it, but it is the law (and I will not violate it). That said, the government holds all the cards. If I remember correctly, the installation of certain M-16 parts in an AR-15 is illegal and installation of even one of the restricted parts make this a machine gun in the eyes of the BATF. (re: BATF Memorandum circulated about 16 years ago that identified the parts not to be used also included a diagram indicating how to identify an AR-15 bolt from a M-16 bolt) If the gun was intentionally modified to full auto fire, he is guilty. If the gun was modified but not with the intent of making it full auto, under the eyes of the govt he is still guilty. There are a few people that have put "cheap" M-16 bolts in their guns to save a few bucks with no intention of breaking the law. But in the eyes of the law, they are also guilty. Either of the above may explain the NRA's absence. Selling the books and suing the police should not be actionable, however, it will not endear the gentleman to local law enforcement. But if the gun was not modified (all stock AR-15) parts, then this conviction is a travesty. The legal system should have an element of common sense included. If the guy installed one or two parts to save a few bucks but had no intention of making it full auto, allow him to fix the gun, do not make him a felon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Carlin Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 You would think and (SIC) expert would have examined the AR15 and determined it was not converted to FA. The governments position is not that complicated. Conversion is not necessary for prosecution. Did it fire more than one shot on a single function of the trigger? Yes! Then a violation has occurred. It if fires more than one shot per trigger pull it is a machinegun. Whether it is a good reliable one is moot. From their narrow view of the definition they can get the widest range of prosecution. And it is their position that this is proper. Why? Because it is only their job to make arrests under the law as they read it. The courts are supposed to use cases like this one to clarify the legislature's intent. Unfortunately the court has erred and left this broadest of interpretations as the standard. We can only hope that a higher court will determine that this is not proper. But, criminal intent does not seem to be a required ingredient for conviction. The court's decision will probably stand. I wish it were not so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I merged the two open threads into this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now