Posted on 07/26/2006 4:47:07 PM PDT by bad company
Illinois State Police trooper Gregory Mugge pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing an unregistered machine gun in federal court on Tuesday, according to an announcement from the U.S. attorney's office.
Mugge, 52, of Jerseyville, was indicted in January, along with Illinois State Police Sgt. James Vest, 39, of O'Fallon, and John Yard, 36, an Illinois State Police special agent assigned to the Collinsville office, each face separate charges of illegal gun possession.
Mugge faces up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000 and a maximum three years of supervised release.
He is scheduled to reappear in court for sentencing on Oct. 27.
On Dec. 29, authorities seized Mugge's unregistered Colt .2234 caliber rifle from his home in Jerseyville. In his plea, Mugge admitted to knowing his possession of the rifle was unlawful.
In February, a group of 12 local police chiefs and sheriffs, and two state senators, Sen. Bill Haine, D-Alton, and Sen. James Watson, R-Greenville, endorsed a letter of support for the three state troopers.
At that time, the backers pushed for administrative punishment for the three troopers rather than prosecution.
A precision one. The extra 4 tenths was for better grouping.
Yes, it was a 223. Probably an M-16.
Standard defensive weapons issued to armed forces differ from what most Americans think their neighbors should own.
I have no idea what the weapon used in Viet Nam to protect bases from human assaults was officially named, but I remember it as the hamburger gun. It shot shrapnel into the human wave assaults killing at least dozens at a time.
Purely a defensive weapon in the military. Not something I want my wacko neighbor to own legally if he gets mad if my cat poops in his bushes.
Give it up dog, you're talking to a gun person of 60 years standing. I'd match a trench shotgun with buckshot against a submachine gun any day. And your hype against full auto rifles is ludicrous bull. They are no more 'dangerous' than semi-auto versions.
Right. That's why the Marines fight with shotguns and semi-autos.
The only automatic weapons at Ruby Ridge were those used by the federal marshals and FBI. Randy Weaver... Oops... That would be "White Sepratist Randy Weaver" was set up by an informant to cut down a shotgun barrel to 1/2" shorter than the federal limit. Then, the government changed the date of the court hearings, and there were some serious miscommunications between the feds and Weaver. I believe that he just decided not to go to court after getting the run-around about the court dates.
Randy Weaver did NOT have any automatic weapons on his property that led to the murder of his son and wife.
Remember, the government had to pay Weaver for the deaths of his wife and son.
Mark
Still, I must say a few of your posts sound familiar. They remind me of this recently invented phrase, "Living and breathing constitution".
I didn't say they should be illegal. I said they should be highly restricted. Big difference.
Historian Paul Johnson said, "beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language. For the fact that they do so is proof positive that their argument is false, and proof presumptive that they know it is. ...
Those who treasure the meaning of words, will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones.
The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status."
Give it up again. If you can't win the argument based on words
The argument is easily won by these simple words "-- shall not be infringed --". -- But of course, you will not even address the Constitutional issue.
and making sure they're understood correctly, the only other way to resolve misunderstandings is with machine guns.
Which is what you want.
Weird comment. Everyone here is trying to reason with you, and you are making unreasonable comments about prohibiting rapid fire arms.
I'd prefer words and logic. And keeping it civil so that we don't get mad at each other while we sort out any differences.
It's 'uncivil' to comment on your illogical use of words for prohibiting 'machine guns'? -- Bizarre.
Please note that there were no limits placed on the weapons. Remember, "the people" could own not only handguns, rifles, muskets, and shotguns, but artillery, something that a lot of gun banners seem to forget.
You mentioned that machineguns hadn't been invented yet. Well, neither were radio, television, nor the Internet. Should they be covered by the first amendment?
More importantly, your assertion that "machineguns... aren't easily classified as defensive weapons." You couldn't be farther from the truth. First off, until the advent of submachineguns and "assault rifles," most "machineguns" were crew served weapons, designed to be fired from a solid mount in some sort of emplacement. The most common use for machineguns during WWI was as a defensive weapon. To put it bluntly, those big, heavy water cooled brownings were a real bitch to move. Sure, they could be mounted on vehicles and then used as an offensive weapon, but when fired from an emplacement, they are strictly defensive in nature.
Mark
Some do, by choice. -- You're getting desperate for rejoinder's, dog.
You need rest.
But the fact we all have to deal with is that the world has changed since the Constitution was written, and in ways they the writers could never have envisioned. It's a tough task to apply their principles to new fact situations that they could not have possibly imagined. And that's the creation of new constitution law.
We don't have a choice. We have to make it. How it's decided is important, but whether to make it is not a choice. Anyone capable of thinking deeply agrees.
So don't accuse of me of being a liberal. My track record here is long, and I take great offense of being accused of that slur. I have no problem with being disagreed with and learning something after a discussion. I've learned a lot here that way.
But if the disagreements turn disrespectful, I really lose interest in the poster. Chide me if I ever start that losing exchange.
Do you really think that criminals or gangs don't have automatic weapons because it's difficult to get them through legal channels? You've got to be kidding me here... While I can't say for certain that this is the reason, I have a suspician that the reason they don't use them here (as opposed to other countries, like in Latin America), is because they're afraid that the US government, specifically the military, would come down upon them like a ton of bricks. If you can by a "real" AK-47 on the world market for less than $100, and given the sheer number of tons of drugs that are smuggled into the US every year, you don't think that they could smuggle automatic weapons in too?
There's got to be a reason that they're not using these sorts of weapons here.
Mark
Gang bangers don't bother with the paperwork at the local FFL. They buy machine guns imported with drugs coming across the border. Prices are much cheaper, but they still have to find ammo somewhere. Once you let 'er rip, you suddenly have lots of "friends". It's not the smartest thing a banger could do.
Well, I do need rest because I have a real job that requires me early in the morning.
If you wish to continue this debate, please ping me again. I may not get back to you until tomorrow evening. My ability to freep on company time is pretty much limited to lunch time if I'm at my desk at lunch.
I'm in the oil business. Nobody had any use for me 6 years ago. Now they all love me and voicemail is always full.
Actually, I'd be far more worried if that same idiot had a bolt action rifle, or a shotgun. In the case of the bolt action rifle, you've got a chance that this guy will take shot placement seriously. In the case of a shotgun, a single blast of 00 buck has a much better change of hitting and killing the target than some idiot doing a "spray and pray."
Think about that for a second... How many shots were fired by that a$$h0le$ in the DC area at each target. They were "snipers." The fact that they were using a semi auto didn't really matter if they only took one shot.
And look at the number of people killed and injured in one of the most infamous incidents where fully automatic weapons were being used: That bank robbery in CA, where the 2 criminals actually fired thousands of rounds. There were people seriously injured: I don't remember the number of fatalities, although I know that at least one of the criminals died on the scene.
Another example would be the McDonalds shooting that started the whole "assault weapons" craze by the gun grabbers. Again, given the number of rounds fired, there were surprisingly few injuries or deaths. If the perp had actually aimed, or used a shotgun, the death toll would have been far higher (although I believe that he did have a shotgin).
Mark
They're cops, aren't they entitled to own heavy weapons? /sarc
Heck, you can do it a lot more efficiently with a Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 pump action shotgun.
And I've seen a guy get 6 shots off in less than 5 seconds using a double barreled shotgun! He had 2 rounds between the fingers of each hand!
Mark
It doesn't really matter what any of us think... The problem is that the government does. The government classified any firearm capable of fully automatic fire (they have a specific definition) as a "machine gun" for the purposes of the law.
Mark
Sounds like a blood thirsty SUV to me!!!
When is a .2234 a heavy weapon and since when is a machine gun something that isn't belt fed?
I blame the media for the ignorance of the public and will use this article as my proof. Anything that isn't machine fed isn't a Machine gun,
Actually, in an earlier post that I made (from my posting perspective, that is), I said pretty much the same thing a TPaine. Unless the shooter has had military training and/or knows how to shoot automatic weapons accurately, I would MUCH rather go up against a guy with a fully automatic AK47 than a guy with a Remington 870. I've been around people who don't normally shoot automatic weapons, and they just spray the area with fire.
Mark
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.