Investigators said an Uzi 9mm caliber rifle was located on the back seat of the vehicle.
Ryan Presley, 30, was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of certain short-barreled firearms. Police said the short barrel on the gun makes it illegal.
Isn't a Uzi a pistol so short barrel not a issue?
Yea im confused
Police said Presley legally purchased the gun, but did not have a concealed weapons permit.
Many (most? all?) UZI rifle that had the 16-inch barrel also had a false 'normal length' display barrel as well. If Mr. Presley had the 'fake' barrel installed then there is no violation of Federal law. Additionally, I would hazard a guess that the police, based upon the story which says he exited a business and placed the firearm in the back of his vehicle, lacked an reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.
Some conflicting statements:
"Police said the short barrel on the gun makes it illegal."
"Police said Presley legally purchased the gun, but did not have a concealed weapons permit."
How can a gun be "legally purchased" but "illegal to own"?
I think the only thing they Might have, is a concealed weapons charge (depending upon state law, of course.) In Georgia for instance, no license is required to carry a long arm provided that it's carried openly. If you wish to conceal a long arm, you require a weapons permit.
The laws in his state likely differ of course.
"On the back seat" doesn't sound concealed. Plus, if they saw him carry it out to his car, it was OC.
There's a lot missing here.
166.250 is "unlawful possession"
but unless they tagged him for the opening story line of carrying it into the shop "in his coat".....which wasn't observed by officers and would require testimony from the reporting party/witness........there shouldn't be a violation of 166.250. If the cops observed him come out of the shop concealing the weapon then they could charge him with 166.250 without a witness to him going in with it. However, it seems it might be a bit dicey to justify their detention of him if they didn't see the weapon concealed.....which is a big catch 22. Didn't see it, what's the justification to stop him. Did see it, well then it wasn't concealed. The suppression hearing could be interesting.
166.272 covers short barreled rifles but if the previous poster was right about the "fake barrel" it's possible, from looking at the photo, that this is indeed what was on it. See the long cylinder at the top that looks like a legal length barrel and the short one installed on the weapon?
If he indeed bought the gun legally and the barrel is a fake (which I don't get but am going from the prior post on that subject) then the only legit charge might be 166.250 unlawful possession for concealing it. If the officers observed him concealing it (oooops, observed concealed?).
Of course for all we know, he bought a short barrel and put it on the weapon without the proper tax stamp.
As with most early reports, MORE INFO needed.
"The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
"Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.
Only quoting for context, not because I have any disagreement with We The People in the lease....
Here are a few links where the matter is mentioned.
There was an Arsenal AK sold a few years ago with the same 'compromise'; all the 'short barrel' features such as the front sight mounted on the gas block, but with a long barrel to satisfy ATF barrel length restrictions. The only thing one had to do was get it tax-stamped and cut down.
Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-30-2013 at 11:31 AM.