UPDATE 4 men thought to be illegally dealing firearms at Western Washington gun shows

Dave_pro2a said:

AFAIk there is a technically correct way of rendering it into a unrestorable condition. At least I always seem them destroyed in the same fashion when imported as kits.

It involves detroying the receiver.

Click to expand...

The "ATF" publishes information on the accepted methods of destroying a machine gun. From their site:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/machinegun-destruction.html

Approved destruction methods always call for destruction of the SAME part starting with the receiver. Also requires specific "cuts" with a cutting torch at specified areas to insure it is never welded together again in an operable condition. When the Anniston Army Depot "Demil's" any full auto weapons, not only the receiver is destroyed but key parts from fire control groups as well.

The problem with "looking only at the intent" when it comes to a rusty old relic, the precedent gets set. The next time the "relic" may be a little less rusty. Eventually, it may only have a little rust on it. Pretty soon, the law becomes unenforceable because all of the "slack" that was cut previously. I believe that the government will ask that the letter of the law be followed. The weapon could have been properly deactivated for display and there would have been no issue, even with the rust.

For all of you who are saying "we need to enforce the laws we have now," I would encourage you to re-read the Second Amendment. Just what, exactly, do you think "shall not be infringed" means.

ALL laws related to firearms possession, ownership, use, transfer, sale, etc. are prima facie unconstitutional. Selling a firearm should no more be regulated by the government than selling an old appliance at a garage sale. It is property, to be disposed of according to the wishes of its owner, and no other.

It really disturbs me to see people who claim to be pro-2A jumping on the "punishment" bandwagon against a couple of guys who committed no genuine crime against persons or property. Disobeying unconstitutional laws is to be celebrated, not disdained.

ManInBlack said:

For all of you who are saying "we need to enforce the laws we have now," I would encourage you to re-read the Second Amendment. Just what, exactly, do you think "shall not be infringed" means.

ALL laws related to firearms possession, ownership, use, transfer, sale, etc. are prima facie unconstitutional. Selling a firearm should no more be regulated by the government than selling an old appliance at a garage sale. It is property, to be disposed of according to the wishes of its owner, and no other.

It really disturbs me to see people who claim to be pro-2A jumping on the "punishment" bandwagon against a couple of guys who committed no genuine crime against persons or property. Disobeying unconstitutional laws is to be celebrated, not disdained.

Click to expand...

Uhhhhh...... Have you read any SCOTUS cases recently?

joeroket said:

Uhhhhh...... Have you read any SCOTUS cases recently?

Click to expand...

9 idiots who wear dresses to work can't change the black-letter text of the Constitution, which plainly prohibits the federal government from infringing the right. A state could ban guns, as well as do many other idiotic things that are prohibited for the federal government, as Madison pointed out, like establishing an official religion.

I understand that the ideal of the Constitution and the regime that we currently live under are two different things, but we should not throw our moral support behind the fed. gov.'s persecution of people who have DONE NOTHING WRONG under a natural law perspective.

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: LEO Bashing

Disobeying unconstitutional laws is to be celebrated, not disdained.

Click to expand...

Yep, lots of us in Washington celebrating the arrest of a guy who apparently knew, yet did not care, that he was selling firearms to convicted felons, persons ineligible to own guns due to domestic violence convictions, etc. -- and we're all celebrating the linking of our excellent organization, Washington Arms Collectors, to numerous alleged violations of federal laws that will, in all likelihood, draw more scrutiny to all WA law-abiding gun owners, lead to attempts to shut down gunshows and additional regulation and end up having private sales banned for good here ...

Get real.

Of course, that's the difference between the "peace officers" we used to have in this country, and the cancerous "law enforcement officers" who afflict the national body today.

Click to expand...

Sigh. Guess it was only a matter of time before someone started blaming cops when the real issue is citizens that should know better not obeying the law ...

Bo said:

Yep, lots of us in Washington celebrating the arrest of a guy who apparently knew, yet did not care, that he was selling firearms to convicted felons, persons ineligible to own guns due to domestic violence convictions, etc.

Click to expand...

That is, according to the fed. gov., of course...

-- and we're all celebrating the linking of our excellent organization, Washington Arms Collectors, to numerous alleged violations of federal laws that will, in all likelihood, draw more scrutiny to all WA law-abiding gun owners, lead to attempts to shut down gunshows and additional regulation and end up having private sales banned for good here ...

Click to expand...

There are many adjectives that I would use to describe your organization, but "excellent" certainly would not be among them. If your petty monopoly on gun shows in Washington is shut down, I will be popping a bottle of champagne, not crying. Your policies regarding attending a show and purchasing are assinine and backwards (to put it very politely) and are completely out of step with the gun show scene in other gun-friendly states. No, sir, I don't see any threat to gun shows, let alone private sales, if your little organization followed the dodo along its natural evolutionary path. In fact, things could only get better.

Get real.

Click to expand...

Get a grip on the Constitution.

Sigh. Guess it was only a matter of time before someone started blaming cops when the real issue is citizens that should know better not obeying the law ...

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry, you must be one of those exalted members of the human race who feel that you have a special right and duty to tell others how to live. You think that you can decide what substances a citizen should or should not be permitted to introduce into his bloodstream, what types of weapons are "appropriate" for citizens to own, etc., and feel that, as a god, your mandates should carry the weight of life or death, so you advocate the employment of armed thugs in silly costumes adorned with shiny, government-issued costume jewelry to compel, at gunpoint, the obedience of the citizenry to your dictates.

Your delusions of grandeur to the contrary, I believe (as did men like Jefferson), that if "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg," it is none of the government's damn business. The mere act of selling something that you own free-and-clear to another individual does not constitute a crime against persons or property. If that individual decides to use his property (which you sold to him) to commit a crime, that is on him, not you.

ManInBlack said:

9 idiots who wear dresses to work can't change the black-letter text of the Constitution, which plainly prohibits the federal government from infringing the right.

Click to expand...

They can and they do.

Next idiotic comment please.

joeroket said:

They can and they do.

Click to expand...

You may have already lost your fight, but do not try to make the rest of us quit the battle. You are a slave asking your master for crumbs. We are free citizens demanding a return to the Constitutional Republic that was guaranteed to us by our forefathers.

Enjoy your chains.



EDIT: Think of it this way: in any negotiation, the objective is to start from a maximalist position so as to give up as few concessions as possible. By starting the argument from our enemy's premise (that they can do whatever they want, regardless of the Constitution, because they are the government), your approach can only, at best, slow down the inevitable loss of rights. We need to take rights back, and that begins by asserting the sovereignty of the people and the Constitution over any "law" and all government officials, whether executives, legislators, or jurists.

ManInBlack said:

You may have already lost your fight, but do not try to make the rest of us quit the battle. You are a slave asking your master for crumbs. We are free citizens demanding a return to the Constitutional Republic that was guaranteed to us by our forefathers.

Enjoy your chains.



EDIT: Think of it this way: in any negotiation, the objective is to start from a maximalist position so as to give up as few concessions as possible. By starting the argument from our enemy's premise (that they can do whatever they want, regardless of the Constitution, because they are the government), your approach can only, at best, slow down the inevitable loss of rights. We need to take rights back, and that begins by asserting the sovereignty of the people and the Constitution over any "law" and all government officials, whether executives, legislators, or jurists.

Click to expand...

ManInBlack said:

You may have already lost your fight, but do not try to make the rest of us quit the battle. You are a slave asking your master for crumbs. We are free citizens demanding a return to the Constitutional Republic that was guaranteed to us by our forefathers.

Enjoy your chains.



EDIT: Think of it this way: in any negotiation, the objective is to start from a maximalist position so as to give up as few concessions as possible. By starting the argument from our enemy's premise (that they can do whatever they want, regardless of the Constitution, because they are the government), your approach can only, at best, slow down the inevitable loss of rights. We need to take rights back, and that begins by asserting the sovereignty of the people and the Constitution over any "law" and all government officials, whether executives, legislators, or jurists.

Click to expand...

Slave? Uh I think not. What is it you do to take rights back? Break laws and prove them correct? I do it using the system put in place by our founding fathers.

Go away bad penny.

I agree with MIB.

ManInBlack said:

You may have already lost your fight, but do not try to make the rest of us quit the battle. You are a slave asking your master for crumbs. We are free citizens demanding a return to the Constitutional Republic that was guaranteed to us by our forefathers.

Enjoy your chains.



EDIT: Think of it this way: in any negotiation, the objective is to start from a maximalist position so as to give up as few concessions as possible. By starting the argument from our enemy's premise (that they can do whatever they want, regardless of the Constitution, because they are the government), your approach can only, at best, slow down the inevitable loss of rights. We need to take rights back, and that begins by asserting the sovereignty of the people and the Constitution over any "law" and all government officials, whether executives, legislators, or jurists.

Click to expand...

olypendrew said:

I agree with MIB.

Click to expand...

Very well said.

joeroket said:

Slave? Uh I think not. What is it you do to take rights back? Break laws and prove them correct?

Click to expand...

I would say that everyone breaks laws, knowingly or not, because there are too damn many of them. If we got rid of all the "laws" that have nothing to do with protecting persons or property, it would be very easy to go your entire life and never have an encounter with a peace officer.

A different matter entirely is whether or not one should break a law that he deems unconstitutional and/or immoral. That is a very personal decision, but prudence and discretion certainly have their value, and it would be irresponsible, in my opinion, for anyone with a family to put them in a position where they might have to choose between starvation and government handouts due to his incarceration. However, when the government is violating the highest law of the land, the Constitution, is it really "breaking the law" to disregard one of the examples of that constitutional violation?

I do it using the system put in place by our founding fathers.

Go away bad penny.

Click to expand...

I never advocated going outside the system. We haven't reached that point (yet), and any such attempt will be futile until at least 4-5% of the population is "radicalized" with respect to restoring the constitutional republic, and are willing to make REAL sacrifices toward that end. Until then, working within the system is our only option. However, working within the system does not mandate that we support "laws" that are plainly contrary to the Constitution and the persecution of those who "violate" them.

ManInBlack said:

I would say that everyone breaks laws, knowingly or not, because there are too damn many of them. If we got rid of all the "laws" that have nothing to do with protecting persons or property, it would be very easy to go your entire life and never have an encounter with a peace officer.

A different matter entirely is whether or not one should break a law that he deems unconstitutional and/or immoral. That is a very personal decision, but prudence and discretion certainly have their value, and it would be irresponsible, in my opinion, for anyone with a family to put them in a position where they might have to choose between starvation and government handouts due to his incarceration. However, when the government is violating the highest law of the land, the Constitution, is it really "breaking the law" to disregard one of the examples of that constitutional violation?




I never advocated going outside the system. We haven't reached that point (yet), and any such attempt will be futile until at least 4-5% of the population is "radicalized" with respect to restoring the constitutional republic, and are willing to make REAL sacrifices toward that end. Until then, working within the system is our only option. However, working within the system does not mandate that we support "laws" that are plainly contrary to the Constitution and the persecution of those who "violate" them.

Click to expand...

Now that I can agree with 110%. Maybe you just came off as "radical" to me in your previous posts, and for that I will step up and apologize for the banter. To answer the question am I will to make REAL sacrifices, Yes I am if it comes to the time for it. I believe we all have a duty to restore our government to one that abides by the constitution.

One thing we probably do disagree on is the judicial system. I think the judicial system as we know it is a joke and full of activist judges. If we can restore that, which is most likely not going to happen because politicians choose seats, we can start reforming other parts of the system that are in dire need of fixing.

joeroket said:

One thing we probably do disagree on is the judicial system. I think the judicial system as we know it is a joke and full of activist judges. If we can restore that, which is most likely not going to happen because politicians choose seats, we can start reforming other parts of the system that are in dire need of fixing.

Click to expand...

Many Judges run unopposed. Once seated they often don't have to do much more than pay the filing fee, on time, to be re-elected. Considering that a GOOD lawyer can make far more money in private practice, maybe that's why we get some of the Judges we end up with. Where's the incentive for those that are good at the law to "take a pay cut". Aren't that many purely motivated individuals willing to give up the rewards of a successful practice. We need to make it worthwhile or we'll keep the current system. That said, yes, we do get some good ones. Unfortunately, not enough and in the right places.

Have a family member in private practice that used to say "Most Judges were C-Students in Law School". If true, the public only gets the average graduates and private practices get the "outstanding".

olypendrew said:

I agree with MIB.

Click to expand...

Me too

amlevin said:

Many Judges run unopposed. Once seated they often don't have to do much more than pay the filing fee, on time, to be re-elected. Considering that a GOOD lawyer can make far more money in private practice, maybe that's why we get some of the Judges we end up with. Where's the incentive for those that are good at the law to "take a pay cut". Aren't that many purely motivated individuals willing to give up the rewards of a successful practice. We need to make it worthwhile or we'll keep the current system. That said, yes, we do get some good ones. Unfortunately, not enough and in the right places.

Have a family member in private practice that used to say "Most Judges were C-Students in Law School". If true, the public only gets the average graduates and private practices get the "outstanding".

Click to expand...

Nail hit right on the head, well done.

Trigger Dr said:

As some of you know, I am a retired Fed Investigator, and I do still have some contacts.

OK, just a few FACTS, from a person who knows 3 of them personally for several years.
1. One individual who will remain nameless for the time being, did have a machine gun. Now, let's separate the letter of the law from the spirit of the law. The "Machine gun" is really a machine gun. under the letter of the law it is illegal at the time. Under the spirit of the law, the agents have some discretion as to how they handle it. FACT...the machine gun was a rusted, inoperative, unable to be brought back into servicable condition hulk from a sunken ship.

The Machine gun, well under the letter of the law he was wrong. let's just hope the US atty and judge use alittle common sense(?)

Click to expand...

(Doc, I edited your comment to the pertinent parts for my post)

Back in the mid to late 80's I was involved with a young group of gentlemen who were pulling WWII fighters out of Lake Washington. One certain young gentleman pulled a .50 cal machine gun from the nose of one of the planes sitting down there and kept it at home as a souvenir.
Unfortunately, as with many young men, drinking was a serious hobby, and possibly a bit too much talking took place while engaging in said hobby. One day a small group of men with BATF stitched to their jackets showed up at his door asking about said weapon.

It seems common sense prevailed and they were nice enough to give him a choice. Hand over the rusted relic or a search warrant and arrest would ensue. As stated, per the letter of the law, it was considered a machine gun despite it's rusted, encrusted condition and was promptly handed over to the nice gentlemen at the door.

The associated lawsuit against all of us by the USN for "stealing" their Airplanes was great front page news for awhile in all the newspapers at the time. It became case law for all future "reclamations" of Naval aircraft.

n15WB
At that time frame, I was working investigations for the Shipyard at Bremerton, (NOT NCIS) and seem to remember something of that nature. I cannot recall the specifics, nor was I involved, but it does ring a bell.

n15wb said:

Unfortunately, as with many young men, drinking was a serious hobby, and possibly a bit too much talking took place while engaging in said hobby.

Click to expand...

This seems to be an incurable malady for many.