Illegal machine Gun Manufacturer Gets Federal Time

[BrewerGeorge]

How often are rifles in general used then, they are everywhere? Hardly ever, but if it stops just one criminal..............

Almost never, but I'm not sure that's relevant, is it? A rifle doesn't add much utility for a typical criminal and comes with some disadvantages. A legal rifle just gains you range with a significant loss of concealability - and concealability is very important for those carrying illegally, obviously. A select fire Sten gun gets you full-auto capability, and with the side magazine out and stock folded, it's much smaller than a typical rifle. It's a pistol-caliber submachine gun, just perfect for lots of urban uses.

As for the 'just one criminal' jab, you can keep that. I'm not some emotionally-driven Moms Against Bad Things Liberal. Trying to paint me as such isn't going to win the argument for you. I'm a gun enthusiast and life-long supporter of the 2nd Amendment who has researched and debated these issues extensively - on YOUR side! I am attempting to have a civilized discussion about a subtle aspect of that Right. A slight difference of opinion should not make me The Enemy. Attack my positions all you want, but dismissing me personally with a dig like that just undercuts your argument's credibility.

 

[Trigger Time]

Would you have bought one of the select fire guns from the guy?

**** no! My freedom is more valuable to me that that. Buyin an illegal machine gun even though I believe they should all be legal is not my personal line in the sand. It's not worth my life over. And 10 years is a lifetime

 

[arthrimus]

there is an individual right to keep and bear arms in the united states, not an individual right to manufacture and sell.

The right to manufacture and sell firearms is implied by the right to keep and bear them. How could one keep and bear something that does not exist, and cannot be obtained?

 

[Bunnykid68]

there is an individual right to keep and bear arms in the united states, not an individual right to manufacture and sell.

Where does it prohibit that in the Constitution ?

 

[88GT]

I guess I'm not being as clear as I'd hoped. Your last sentence is exactly the stance I'm trying to convey. IF they were legal, we would all have them and good guys would be capable of meeting a threat. Definitely yes. But they are NOT currently legal so good guys don't have them and we CAN'T defend ourselves equally. I am far from 'championing' the law; I recognize the law as the problem to be fixed. Fixing the law means repealing or changing it so its fair to everyone, NOT ignoring enforcement for those who willfully break it. Only ignoring enforcement for violators has the de facto effect that only criminals have them.

This sentence makes no sense. You can't ignore enforcement for non-violators because there's nothing to enforce. I understand your point, but I don't think you understand the one behind the non-enforcement.

I don't care what's inside them. By functionally different, I'm talking about the fact that they function demonstrably differently. One trigger pull sends multiple rounds downrange. This is the other side of the coin to the argument that we all make about AR's NOT being functionally different from many other semi-autos. Instead of a cosmetic description or brand name, one can rightfully say "These weapons do this differently."

Except that they don't. The process is the same. It's merely a question of how many cycles of the process take place with the initiating action. One, or many. That's not functionally different. I'd go so far as to argue that a bolt and an auto-loading aren't really different either. In fact, all modern firearms using smokeless powder are functionally similar in that they use a striker to initiate an explosion to burn the powder to propel the projectile out the barrel. The methods of re-load and extraction of spent casings are somewhat extraneous to those who understand these things. You're creating a dichotomy that doesn't really exist beyond a superficial level.

there is an individual right to keep and bear arms in the united states, not an individual right to manufacture and sell.

It doesn't have to be listed in the BoR to exist. The prohibition on firearms manufacture is the result of a misguided attempt to control bad behavior on the presumption that bad people intent on doing bad behavior will suddenly not be bad or do bad things if the tool of common usage is no longer widely available to them. We should all be acutely aware of the fact that a law prohibiting something is not a rational reason to give for the lack of a right.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The right to manufacture and sell firearms is implied by the right to keep and bear them. How could one keep and bear something that does not exist, and cannot be obtained?

Where does it prohibit that in the Constitution ?

I think the 9th amendment provides that right. Just because a right is not prescribed doesn't mean it's not there (I think we'd all agree). It's up to us voters to keep them.

 

[aaron580]

My head hurts reading some of these comments…Ive passed that house 100 times over the past few years. Wow.

 

[ChalupaCabras]

A weapon that is beyond your direct control to stop (biologicals, chemicals) I agree. A weapon that requires the resources of a State to build and maintain, I agree. But infantry fielded weapons, ALL of them, should be available to the citizens as well.

Anyone with a chemistry degree and a dabling in mechanical engineering could readily build and maintain a wide range of chemical weapons, or weaponize more common natural and indistrial toxins.

Read "the atomic boyscout" and see what a single devoted person with technical knowledge and time can accomplish.

 

[Destro]

Where does it prohibit that in the Constitution ?

where is congress prohibited from making laws related to firearms manufacture?

 

[Destro]

It doesn't have to be listed in the BoR to exist. The prohibition on firearms manufacture is the result of a misguided attempt to control bad behavior on the presumption that bad people intent on doing bad behavior will suddenly not be bad or do bad things if the tool of common usage is no longer widely available to them. We should all be acutely aware of the fact that a law prohibiting something is not a rational reason to give for the lack of a right.

I distinctly remember a conversation a few days ago where many a folk claimed that nothing can be implied in the constitution.

 

[BogWalker]

I must have read this a lot different than the rest of you.

Everyone is getting caught up on the fact he was arrested for making illegal machineguns. Did everyone else miss the part where he was more than likely selling them to be used in criminal enterprise? That seems like kind of a big deal. Like kind of a thing you should be arrested for, or would INGO sell firearms to people they know were going to commit a crime with them?

I agree with some of the previous posters. If he had made one for personal use I would not convict. Even if full-autos were treated just like any other firearm selling them when you know they are going to be used in the commission of a crime should still be illegal. This isn't some old man caught with the Thompson he brought back from WWII.

I wish there were more details. Heck, maybe they were for personal use. I incredibly doubt that though.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Anyone with a chemistry degree and a dabling in mechanical engineering could readily build and maintain a wide range of chemical weapons, or weaponize more common natural and indistrial toxins.

Read "the atomic boyscout" and see what a single devoted person with technical knowledge and time can accomplish.

Trust me, I well know. The knowledge that is in my head and my life experience is more than enough to commit whatever mayhem I wanted to at pretty much a very large scale. I don't because it goes against my moral beliefs. But when people start trotting out the "civilians owning nukes" as a "where does it end for civilians to own weapons," my response is it ends at what I posted. The State is constrained from preventing the citizenry from keeping and bearing arms, and this is as it should be as the State needs a final check on its actions by the citizenry should that be necessary.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I must have read this a lot different than the rest of you.

Everyone is getting caught up on the fact he was arrested for making illegal machineguns. Did everyone else miss the part where he was more than likely selling them to be used in criminal enterprise? That seems like kind of a big deal. Like kind of a thing you should be arrested for, or would INGO sell firearms to people they know were going to commit a crime with them?

I agree with some of the previous posters. If he had made one for personal use I would not convict. Even if full-autos were treated just like any other firearm selling them when you know they are going to be used in the commission of a crime should still be illegal. This isn't some old man caught with the Thompson he brought back from WWII.

I wish there were more details. Heck, maybe they were for personal use. I incredibly doubt that though.

It must be criminal enterprise because it is illegal, if it were not illegal it wouldn't be criminal enterprise now would it.

 

[JMoses]

Where are these stories of criminals using full auto weapons?

I know that it never happens because you know everything, but here's one right here in the hoosier state.

Trooper Cory R. Elson, Indiana State Police, Indiana

 

[Bunnykid68]

I know that it never happens because you know everything, but here's one right here in the hoosier state.

Trooper Cory R. Elson, Indiana State Police, Indiana

Never said it didn't happen but it seems to happen only a little more than the guy OC getting targeted first.

 

[BogWalker]

It must be criminal enterprise because it is illegal, if it were not illegal it wouldn't be criminal enterprise now would it.

When I wrote criminal enterprise in that post I had more in mind murders and such. I've already alluded I don't think possession in and of itself should be a crime (even for felons).

 

[ticktwrter]

J706, don't let those on here with a lack of common sense knock you down. Sounds like this guy was a bad guy and needed to be taken off the streets.

 

[Destro]

It must be criminal enterprise because it is illegal, if it were not illegal it wouldn't be criminal enterprise now would it.

If he was selling them, I doubt he was collecting taxes

 

[Tombs]

J706, don't let those on here with a lack of common sense knock you down. Sounds like this guy was a bad guy and needed to be taken off the streets.

It is important for our police to understand where the public stands.

They are supposed to be there to keep society shredding its self to pieces, not serve as a political regulatory body. We're individuals, not corporations with armies of lawyers to assure every footstep is taken within legal bounds.

All these firearm charges should only apply as tag on offenses to add to jail time when committing an actual crime against another individual. Having a barrel a few thousandths of an inch too short or some elmer fudd slapping a foregrip on his glock shouldn't result in criminal charges. I don't see how some see that as unreasonable.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If he was selling them, I doubt he was collecting taxes

Tried to rep you for that