Posted on 05/22/2004 4:54:17 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
RENO, Nev. (AP) - Federal agents working undercover at gun shows in Nevada the past year have arrested 14 suspects on a variety of firearms charges that include illegally possessing machine guns and explosives, agents said Friday.
The FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and local law enforcement agencies joined to apprehend the 13 men and one woman in five Western states - Nevada, California, Utah, Idaho and Washington - as part of "Operation Over the Line."
Nine of the suspects were arrested after search warrants were served Friday, and five others already were in custody as part of the investigation, said Daniel Bogden, U.S. attorney for Nevada.
They've been indicted by federal grand juries in Nevada and Idaho. The indictments, some dating to February, were unsealed Friday.
"Undercover ATF agents purchased nearly 40 firearms using different Reno gun shows as the hub of activity," said John Torres, ATF special agent in charge of the San Francisco office.
"We also seized explosives at one residence in Reno today," including 20 blasting caps and 20 feet of detonating cord, he said.
The agents purchased guns over the past year at about 10 gun shows, one in Las Vegas and the rest in Reno, including large events held at the Reno Hilton hotel-casino and the Reno-Sparks convention center, authorities said. The weapons include eight machine guns, 10 hand guns and 15 long guns, Torres said.
Items seized include a bulletproof vest, assault rifles and semiautomatic pistols - specifically a Korean-made AK47 machine gun, a .45-caliber submachine gun, an AK47 semiautomatic assault pistol, a Glock 9 mm pistol, a Glock .40-caliber pistol and a Baretta semiautomatic pistol.
"We want to show that you can't use gun shows as a vehicle to conduct illegal firearm sales," Torres said.
The operation was "part of a nationwide commitment to reduce the number of illegal guns in possession out there," Bogden said.
Assistant Washoe County Sheriff Jim Lopey said the operation was a huge success.
"We got a lot of weapons off the street," he said.
Torres and Bogden said each of the suspects appeared to have been acting independently and none is known to be involved in terrorism or belong to a gang.
"But we want to be sure they do not get into the hands of gang members," he said.
The indictments show undercover buys were made at the "Las Vegas Gun Show" on Jan. 17 and at various sessions of the "Big Reno Gun Show" on April 23 and last year on Aug. 16 and Nov. 15.
"We are not targeting gun shows. We're targeting people who use gun shows as a conduit to traffic illegally in firearms," Torres said.
A message left at the number for the Big Reno Gun Show was not immediately returned. Another listed contact, Donald Shiffer of Carson City, was out of town and not immediately available for comment, said a woman who answered the telephone and identified herself as his daughter.
Nina Delgadillo, senior special agent and spokeswoman for the ATF field office in Sacramento, emphasized that most gun show dealers follow the law.
"This is a minority of people who are using gun shows to conduct illegal activities," she said.
"Unfortunately you have this other kind of people mixed in here," added Thomas Cannon, ATF special agent in charge of the Reno office.
Several of the people charged were felons or were covered by domestic violence restraining orders and were prohibited from possessing firearms, Bogden said.
Only licensed dealers can sell firearms at gun shows and they can sell directly to people only from within the same state. Sales to out-of-state buyers must include a licensed dealer from their home state.
Most of the charges in the indictments are punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, although several carry maximum sentences of 10 years in prison, including possession of a machine gun and possession of a firearm by a felon, Bogden said.
Eh? For firearms, yes. But not for explosives, as the specific rules concerning those are set by the state. I have friends with Federal licenses for explosives, and that primarily covers sellers, manufacturers, and distributors, not the retail purchaser, and the license itself mostly revolves around safety issues, not access controls.
In Nevada, at least a couple years ago, purchasing high explosives was cash-and-carry. I think the state required that you sign a receipt or something. The person in whose home they found detonators and detcord is liable for a misdemeanor if I remember correctly, for improper storage.
Explosives have been FAR less regulated than firearms for a long time. Private consumption of high explosives is on the order of millions of pounds a year, and with virtually zero problems year after year. Everyone just always assumes that the sale is strictly regulated (like you did), when in fact it is not. At least a few years ago, one could mosey on into the local explosive magazine and buy a ton or two of whatever suited your fancy. And explosives are dirt cheap (they are simple industrial chemicals, after all), a little cash can get you a hell of a big boom.
Shhhh, we don't want to confuse CJ with them thar constimatoosional leegal terms.
Communitarians like to keep things simple. You do what they say, and everybody gets to be happy.
Federally, explosives are controlled by law very similiar to firearms. See USC 18-842 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/842.html
"Yep, lawless anarchy from the top down."
Hardly lawless, they're passing just as many laws as they can every year!
Problem is hardly any of them are Constitutional.
"Communitarianism is alive and in charge in DC, regardless of which 'party' is in the white house."
Another wonderful gift of the Neo-Cons...
The open carry "law" doesn't solve everything, but it was a small though significant victory in the war. A war which I agree we shouldn't have to fight I've come to realize as I grow older patience and persistence are rewarded. We are working to have reciprocal carry agreements with other states at this time. As for Alaska being "owned" by the federal government, after the purchase from Russia we were a territory. When Alaska gained statehood there was a land settlrment between the state and the feds, but much of the land has not been conveyed. Less than 5% of the land in Alaska is privately held. We're all trying to attain a similar goal,just approacning from different directions. Keep the faith....we've got to win this war also. Nice conversing with you. Regards,
Sounds from the context like ATF was putting this out -- not the state people. If so, ATF's people are using the confusion to put out disinformation, in order to "chill" private owners and sellers.
Of course, if the statement is true as quoted, then private owners can't "sell" to FFL's at a gun show, either.
If this is a local or state law, that is very curious, Nevada being a Western state.
Definition of a "domestic abuser":
She: "He hit me!"
Judge: "Ninety days!"
Defense Lawyer: "Hey, wait a min --"
Judge: "CONTEMPT OF COURT! NINETY DAYS!"
That's true --- I should have said someone who has actually physically assaulted someone --- if someone is a danger to society --- then lock them up but if someone is not considered a danger --- which released felons should not be, then give them their rights.
I'll give you that one, as I am all for the rights of property owners.
Except that property owners don't need a law to decide this. They already have the right to decide by virtue of owning the property. So it seems your adversary is oh-for-three.
Col Sanders
No, it's saying everyone is prohibited from owning dangerous weapons. If it said only gun owners are prohibited, then you might have a case that it is a bill of attainder. But it's not.
It's a simple test, really. Is the trial of fact determining whether you are a gun owner or are you in possession of the prohibited item? A Bill of Attainder would only be trying to establish your identity.
This is the philosophy which has made guns illegal in Washington D.C., the safest city in the U.S.
it does not help the cause of repealing them by stating that all gun laws are unconstitutional.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states, in part, "shall not be infringed". The Constitution is still the law of the land, having a supremacy clause contined within. Now maybe you can think of a gun law that does not infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but I certainly cannot.
It does not help the cause by arguing that indiviudals have an unlimited right to put others in an unreasonable amount of danger.
I think that allowing government to step out of its constitutional cage puts us in a greater amount of danger than keeping and bearing arms freely. You would have us guilty until proven innocent, and not to be trusted with weapons with which we might harm others? This is right into the la-la land of thought crime and European law, which our forefathers fled as I recall.
Since those wise men who wrote the Constitution could not have forseen the development of weapons of mass destruction, they made no provision for dealing with them.
I think they are an excellent place to draw the line as far as personal ownership of weapons.
I must respectfuly disagree with you both in the case of a business open to the public. You can't deny a whole class of peoples civil rights, whether it's a sign saying "we don't serve negroes", or a sign saying "we don't serve gun carriers".
I do not think that I could, but I am all for free markets.
While I think that only the vile and ignorant are racists,(I have a bit of personal experience with such.) I also think property which you have bought and paid for should be yours to use in any way which you see fit, with very few exceptions.
A free market has a way of sorting such things out on its own.
A Bill of Attainder would be singling out a person or group for direct punishment by fiat of law.
--- the state ~is~ claiming it can single out & punish gun owners by fiat prohibitions on 'dangerous' types of weapons.
No, it's saying everyone is prohibited from owning dangerous weapons.
The state itself is prohibited from writting such fiat 'law' by provisions of our 2nd, 10th, & 14th amendments.
If it said only gun owners are prohibited, then you might have a case that it is a bill of attainder. But it's not.
Obviously, if possession of certain types of weapons are prohibited, only those who own them are affected. Gun owners are being singled out and punished by preemptive, fiat 'legal' decrees.
It's a simple test, really. Is the trial of fact determining whether you are a gun owner or are you in possession of the prohibited item? A Bill of Attainder would only be trying to establish your identity.
You may imagine you're making sense here, but be assured, you are challenging basic principles of our liberty.
- To what end? -- Do you really think that you can legislate away the dangers of life? Isn't it more important to be free than 'safe'?
-- In fact, how can you be free to defend yourself from danger if the tools to do so are prohibited?
Please tell me how a silencer/supressor makes you more able to defend yourself?
(Hysterical Mad Mom): No matter WHAT it takes, we've got to get the gun shows OFF THE STREETS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.