Replies

A few months back, I went through all of the legislative history on 924(c). You are absolutely correct--that it was never intended to be applied to LEOs in the performance of their duties. (It would apply to an off duty, rogue cop, committing a felony not associated with his law enforcement role). But more egregious, IMO, was Sutton using the law in the absence of any separate underlying crime. There was quite a lot of discussion in the congressional record about the firearm being used in the "furtherance" of a crime. In this case, there was no underlying crime--Sutton charged use of the firearm as the crime itself. In the amicus brief, I think they did a masterful job laying out that argument and it sounds like the appeals court judge saw this clearly (at least, that is my take reading the brief comments that were reported).

Hopefully, we will see their convictions reversed. I remain hopeful that the appeals court will bring some sanity to this case.

I think I argued months ago that Sutton basically needed the "attempted murder" charge to "piggyback" the 924(c) provision.

Rep. Poe was talking about this with Lou Dobbs people a while back and he explained that any LEO would be derelict in their duty if they didn't carry their firearm with them while on duty.

Thankfully, Sutton appears to be the exception to the proverbial rule with regards to exploiting 924(c).

Sutton still doesn't want to talk to the Judiciary Committee about what was actually said between his office and the Mexican Government with regards to the BP agents.

Maybe that's because he considers it a matter of "attorney-client privilege". ;>)

“It would apply to an off duty, rogue cop, committing a felony not associated with his law enforcement role.”

And what about an ON DUTY copy committing a felony?