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.
Maybe I'm not your kind of gun people, tpaine. I have 7 which arguably is a couple more than I can use at a time.
But I'm used to being in your disdain, and it really doesn't bother me.
I understand that and agree that there are some people that should not have firearms, but don't pass laws that can be perverted and used against honest law abiding citizens or worse that won't them have things that they have a right to. We also need to realize that criminals will find ways to get the things that they are not allowed to have and that no law will stop that. Laws are there to entice people to be good, if they choose to ignore them the laws effectively are no good.
Case in point, we have a laws against murder. Does that stop people from doing it? Not the people that choose to ignore them, only the law abiding people. I will note that those that abide by the law are the same people that would not do it even if there was not a law against it due to their morals/religious beliefs.
I will also state that no one needs a Corvette or an SUV, but we are allowed to own them and we don't even have a right to own them. No one needs a fancy house, no needs cable tv, internet, multiple ESPN channels, etc. The US and the Constitution/BOR is not about needs they are about freedoms and rights. While what I stated are not rights we have the freedom to own/have/enjoy them. Drop the need crap, you just play into the antis hand.
One more thing about the indiscriminately throwing rounds, a shotgun does the same thing. Should we restrict/ban them?
Yeah, I'd argue that it stops some people from doing it. I see no reason to slow down in a school zone before the first bus arrives, WHICH IS ACROSS A DIVIDED ROAD so there's not the slightest chance I could hit a kid, but I slow down because I don't want the penalty.
There are limits on your power to write 'laws' that deprive me of due process, dog.
You don't have the right to drive as fast as you want anywhere that you want anytime that you want.
Silly comparison, dog. Laws against reckless driving are reasonable.
-- 'Laws' against owning a machine gun are infringements of due process.
If that infringes on your liberty, tough.
Strange attitude.. -- Aren't you pledged, as a officer of the court, to protect & defend our constitutional liberties?
I'm used to being in your disdain, and it really doesn't bother me.
Suit yourself, dog.
"If my neighbor fires off a round, the odds are better than 99% he'll miss me. If he opens up with a machine gun; he may miss me, but he's gonna do a LOT of damage to everythign around him. Someone is going to get hurt/killed."
So what you are saying is that if the neighbor shoots and misses with anything other than a machine gun, no one will get hurt/killed? Wrong, that happens quite often.
That's not arguing or giving reasons. That's restating your conclusions.
Some laws are reasonable, by your own admission. Pretty big admission coming from you, but that's a side issue.
Would laws against the teenage neighbor of yours, with a history of animal torture, owning a machine gun, flame thrower or a bucket of hand grenade infuriate you? Or is that something you're completely comfortable with?
May I direct your attention to this little blurb which states
In the United States, submachine guns have been categorized as NFA weapons (also known as Title II weapons), so being because they are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. NFA firearms can be legally owned only if state and local law permit it, all the proper paperwork is submitted and approved, and a one time tax of $200 is paid. Certain submachine guns have also been available in specially-modified semi-automatic form, with non-removable 16 inch (406 mm) barrels and receivers modified so as to prevent conversion into a fully-automatic firearm; in this case, the submachine guns are treated as rifles, and are not subject to further regulations beyond those required for ownership of a rifle.
In Europe, Switzerland allows the private ownership of semi-automatic submachine guns as sporting firearms. Fully automatic submachine guns may only be owned by collectors and may not be fired in fully automatic mode. Czech Republic allows the ownership of all kinds of automatic weapons up to .50 caliber to collectors who obtain an exception from the ministry of interior. The exception is relatively hard to obtain and depends largely on the discretion of the local police department
Now, if you want to change the laws; that is your perogative. Of course, my perogative is to vote against you. Either way, we are a country with laws. The trooper knew the law, yet decided to break the law; now he is facing the consequences. I make no excuses for law breakers, I'm held accountable for my actions, and I'm sure you are held accountable for your actions. Why should a Trooper, ex-President or ex-First Lady be exempted from the laws that apply to every other person? He'll get his day in court; and he can plead his case, just as you or I would.
"I think the gangbangers would have them if they could get them. And I'd rather they didn't".
Just like the laws against crack, heroin, and cocaine have kept the gangbangers from getting them.
You can buy them, they have to be de-miled but you can get them if you have the money.
Re-read my response. If a neighbor fires off a ROUND (singular, one) the odds (ie. liklihood) of getting hit is small. If the same neighbor fires off with a machine-gun, the fact is that a plurality (ie. many) bullets will be fired. The more bullets that are fired, the greater my chance of being hit. Am I making sense so far?
My stance is that I am safer, and everyone around me is safer if we each have a semi-automatic pistol with which we may defend our homes; rather than any of us having a fully automatic weapon. I like being safe, I've been shot - it hurts. Remaining unshot for the remainder of my life is one of the goals I have set for myself - call me selfish; but that's one of my goals.
I know. I was just teasing the previous poster because he said we're entitiled to anything the infantry has, so I piped up and said "But I want a tank!"
When is the last time you heard a gangbanger ripping off a magazine with a fully automatic weapon? When is the last time you heard of a gangbanger firing a pistol? The sad fact is that because pistols are easy to get, they are the weapon of choice. I think we would both agree that the gangbanging punks would absolutely LOVE to get their incompetent paws on a fully automatic weapon; then they would have to use it in order to impress the "bros".
Silly comparison, dog. Laws against reckless driving are reasonable.
-- 'Laws' against owning a machine gun are infringements of due process.
That's not arguing or giving reasons.
I've made a reasonable 14th amendment argument [backed by Harlan's opinion], -- and now you want to claim I didn't?
That's restating your conclusions.
Do you really think you're making a rational argument yourself?
Some laws are reasonable, by your own admission. Pretty big admission coming from you, but that's a side issue.
No, -- its a typical little snide remark from you, because you have no other valid points.
Would laws against the teenage neighbor of yours, with a history of animal torture, owning a machine gun, flame thrower or a bucket of hand grenade infuriate you?
Now you want to make 'laws' targeting teen torturers? -- Bizarre.
Or is that something you're completely comfortable with? -- If that infringes on your liberty, tough.
Strange attitude.. -- Aren't you pledged, as a officer of the court, to protect & defend our constitutional liberties?
I'm used to being in your disdain, and it really doesn't bother me.
Suit yourself, dog.
"but don't pass laws that can be perverted and used against honest law abiding citizens or worse that won't them have things that they have a right to."
When those who make the laws are perverted by power and corruption there are no laws which cannot be abused. There are those who wish to harm America. Some of those are in or have been in Congress, courts, and the White House
Okay, I'll suit myself. I think your arguments have become bizarre, so we're even. We're apparently not even communicating. Suit yourself as well.
Along with a shoe string.
Weren't the guns the cops borrowed semi-autos or were they selective fire?
That is a bunch of crap, see http://www.starnewspapers.com/star/spedit/bowers/x21-bow.htm and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635866/posts for the facts.
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.