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.
"would you prefer some gang-bangers opening fire in your neighborhood with a 12 round 9mm Glock, or a fully automatic weapon?"
Would you prefer they open fire with a 12 round or 10 round 9mm Glock? Would you prefer them to open fire with a M1 or a black powder muzzle loader?
"One could argue that a 'need' for a fully automatic weapon isn't valid. However, I see no problem with the semi-automatics."
Where does the 2nd state "Need"? Need for what? Stop rehashing the crap that the antis use. One could argue that a "need" for semi-autos isn't valid.
"The present system (Class 3 Federal Firearms Permit) for fully automatic weapons has worked very well since the 1940's."
Really, it hasn't stopped criminals from getting the guns when they wanted them. Didn't stop the state troopers did it?
"But the weapons of the day didn't include WMD. Would they have intended that the 2nd include your right to create and own chemical and biological weapons? A nuke is probably out of your capability, but it if you could buy one from N. Korea, is that fine with the Founders?"
You are sounding more and more like the antis.
"What did they intend, indeed? Machine guns weren't invented yet. They certainly wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves with guns. But machine guns and WMDs aren't easily classified as defensive weapons."
Following that logic then semi-autos and bolt actions would fall into the same catagory. So lets classify them with machine guns.
"If you're arguing that no line should ever be drawn, I disagree. There are no absolute rights in the Constitution because the rights conflict with others when taken to the extreme. Somewhere that line is drawn, and people will always argue where it should be."
So who defines the lines, people that claim that such and such was not not around when they wrote the 2nd so they should be banned. See above for the issue that would happen. Same for taking rights from "criminals" and people with mental issues. Who defines those?
You forgot about Switzerland.
"I wonder how the founding fathers would felt about farmers with cannon?"
Well considering that cannons were around when they wrote that little ditty and they didn't say except cannons, seems to me that they didn't have an issue with that.
What defines an offensive weapon? Any weapon can be an offensive weapon.
BTW, I have yet to see a person cut in half by full auto fire (except in Hollywood), after all as you pointed out the bullets are indiscriminately thrown out and to cut someone (let alone a crowd) in half would require the bullets to form a virtual knife by being thrown out in a controlled succession.
"Oh really, so if you have a misdomeaner for say trespassing or some other minor offense you should have your rights removed? Who decides/defines sane? What level of sanity is ok?'
Ahh details details. I'd generally break it down to violent crimes. Of course the libs are making more and more crimes a "violent" crime which then takes away peoples rights.
Sanity is easy, do you think big government is a good thing? Yes? then you are disqualified.
"There's really no pressing valid reason for any law-abiding citizen to have the capability to mow down 30 people in a minute, is there?"
That can be done with a semi-auto. Should we treat them like machine guns?
The Founding Fathers WERE farmers with cannon!!!
you have little control over where the rest of the clip goes.
Some of us are trained in their correct, safe & effective use. Leave us alone.
Get some suitable training, then check back. Until then...
bttt
#86 was a perfectly valid question, which remains:
Where does the Constitution express limitations due to technology?
(Hint: it's not the technology, it's what's done with it.)
Actually they were. Production & logistics just wasn't convenient yet.
The Founding Fathers owned the WMDs of the day.
Giggle! I remember that one...
He was talking about MGs in particular. About 100 victims per day for cars, about 2 for legal MGs in the last 75 years.
There are no absolute rights in the Constitution
Our absolute & inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property are twice mentioned. No person shall be deprived of them without due process of law.
because the rights conflict with others when taken to the extreme.
Thus due process of [constitutional] law is used to resolve the conflicts.
Somewhere that line is drawn, and people will always argue where it should be."
Looscannn asks:
So who defines the lines, people that claim that such and such was not not around when they wrote the 2nd so they should be banned.
Lawyers like Dog Gone claim that gov't can prohibit you from owning 'dangerous' property ['machine guns'] in order to protect your own 'life & liberty'; -- a ludicrous concept of circular reasoning.
The fact is -- gov't wants to prohibit in order to protect its own power, and take away yours.
You misunderstood my point. I was citing it as an example of when a situation involving new technology needed to addressed by the courts and where they had to attempt to ascertain what the Founding Fathers would have thought about it.
That is one of the most dishonest debating tactics available. You take a fragment of a sentence and use it as my position. And then you attack it.
It's totally contrary to what I believe. What a chickens** tactic.
Well, one thing we need is a Supreme Court decision extending the 2nd Amendment to the states, and that's a real sore point with me. Right now, there's nothing prohibiting states from banning guns entirely.
Where I seem to be differing with some folks here is whether there should be any limit on the amount of firepower a private citizen should be allowed to possess.
I wouldn't be too keen on a hand grenade and RPG store in my neighborhood. I don't mind responsible people having automatic weapons, but I feel pretty uncomfortable with irresponsible people having them. Based on crime statistics, the current restrictions seem to be working fairly well. So shoot me.
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.