Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Indictment adds weapons charges against Hutaree
Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 3 June, 2010 | David Codrea

Posted on 06/04/2010 5:34:06 AM PDT by marktwain

Reuters is reporting new charges added by the prosecution against the Hutaree:

The new 15-count indictment adds several weapons-related charges not contained in the previous indictment against the militia group.

What kind of weapons?

The new indictment adds 10 weapons charges including possession of machineguns and unregistered rifles and use of firearms during a violent crime.

According to the new indictment federal agents seized from defendants' homes in March machineguns, unregistered short-barreled rifles and over 148,000 rounds of ammunition, as well as "a variety of explosives and related items capable of being readily assembled to build several types of destructive devices."

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; codrea; examiner; gov; gun; hutaree
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
This is interesting and seems to lack credibility. Three months after the original indictment, the governmet now adds weapons charges.

It is hard to believe that in a politicaly charged national media case such as the Hutaree, it took the government three months to determine that firearms it confiscated were illegal. It appears that the prosecutors and agents are either incompetent or corrupt. There may be a third scenario, explained in the indictment. But, as David Codrea says:

"Plus, why are we suddenly finding out about all this now? Here it is June, the busts happened in late March...when did the federal grand jury first get this information and why has what would appear on the surface to be relatively straightforward evidence taken this long to be deliberated?"

1 posted on 06/04/2010 5:34:07 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“unregistered rifles”

???
Short-Barreled Rifles (SBR) with barrel lengths less than 16”?

Othewise, rifles have no registration requirements in those jurisdications.


2 posted on 06/04/2010 5:35:53 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Maybe it took the ATFE this long to convert the airsoft rifles < /sarc>


3 posted on 06/04/2010 5:36:14 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The feds had to shop around till they found a grand jury that would indict on magical evidence that wasn’t mentioned before the first judge.


4 posted on 06/04/2010 5:37:08 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Machine guns"... Or "poorly maintained semi-autos the FBI weapons lab was able to further damage to induce hammer-follow or mag dumps".

I trust the BATFE less than most criminals.

Original charges weren't sticking. This smells of a "fall back" position.

5 posted on 06/04/2010 5:39:27 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

would be kinda hard to register SBRs in MI as they are still not allowed.


6 posted on 06/04/2010 5:42:06 AM PDT by absolootezer0 (2x divorced, tattooed, pierced, harley hatin, meghan mccain luvin', smoker and pit bull owner..what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

By hook or by crook..


7 posted on 06/04/2010 5:46:20 AM PDT by muddler (Obama is either incompetent or malicious, and it makes little difference which.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

article doesn’t seem to say the “machine guns” were illegal or unregistered- just that they existed.


8 posted on 06/04/2010 5:48:04 AM PDT by absolootezer0 (2x divorced, tattooed, pierced, harley hatin, meghan mccain luvin', smoker and pit bull owner..what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0

I forgot about that.
They finally over-ruled/reversed AG whats his face and allowed suppressors, right?


9 posted on 06/04/2010 5:49:58 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Everyone should keep an eye open for great deals on superior weapons, never know when the day will come you will need something even a fraction of the capability of the enemy.

And its no fantasy that there will be enemies in America, they could be foreign troops or more.

There is no such thing as a secure America, not with the current poser-POTUS in command.


10 posted on 06/04/2010 5:51:59 AM PDT by Eye of Unk ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" G.Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
This whole thing is a joke. The feds are (re)proving themselves either completely incompetent or entirely politically motivated. Or both. What a disgrace.
11 posted on 06/04/2010 5:52:19 AM PDT by FourPeas (What do you call a peaceful Hamas protester? Deceased.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“why has what would appear on the surface to be relatively straightforward evidence taken this long to be deliberated?”

1. NFA firearms law is not simple.
2. It can take a while to go thru all the relevant registration paperwork to confirm legality of NFA items. The database has a very high error rate.
3. A quarter-inch here, a worn sear there, checking legal boundaries takes analysis and testing, not all of which is easy or safe. You don’t just load up a possible homemade machine-gun and let ‘er rip; some modifications risk killing the user.
4. “Constructive possession” can take creativity to determine. An illegal drop-in auto-sear is easily overlooked if not installed. A regular AR lower is indistinguishable from an NFA registered SBR one save for serial number (see #2). A short barrel is legal unless there is a stray unregistered lower around to match. “Yours” and “mine” become legally blurry if our separate collections are legal, but we live together and the combined collection can produce illegal items with a few minutes work.
5. The BATFE can prove any semi-auto is a machine-gun with enough time and effort. It may have taken three months to get one AR to “double” just once, but that’s enough for a conviction.


12 posted on 06/04/2010 5:52:47 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It’s probably CYA. The prosecution is piling on BS charges, threatening the defendants with delays, bankruptcy, and the real risk of conviction by a gullible jury or compliant judge.

They need to make them guilty of something to cover this fraudulent PR stunt.

This is how it works when the DA’s case falls apart.


13 posted on 06/04/2010 5:57:06 AM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

last i heard, suppressors were only allowed if they were integral parts of a machine gun, or if you were a class 2 or 3 dealer.

don’t quote me on that tho- you’d probably have to ask a dealer to be certain.


14 posted on 06/04/2010 6:03:00 AM PDT by absolootezer0 (2x divorced, tattooed, pierced, harley hatin, meghan mccain luvin', smoker and pit bull owner..what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0

What was the “violent crime”?


15 posted on 06/04/2010 6:14:23 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

IIRC just “plotting” to commit a violent act.


16 posted on 06/04/2010 6:21:22 AM PDT by absolootezer0 (2x divorced, tattooed, pierced, harley hatin, meghan mccain luvin', smoker and pit bull owner..what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yup. Someone at the lab tooled around with them long enough to create “evidence”.


17 posted on 06/04/2010 6:21:41 AM PDT by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
What was the “violent crime”?

As I recall, the first judge this case went to for the bond hearing seemed to be asking that same question. She even went so far as to remind the prosecutor that there was no resistance to the arrests despite easy access to weapons.
18 posted on 06/04/2010 6:24:44 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Sounds like someone’s taking on the Black Water Rod and Gun Club...


19 posted on 06/04/2010 6:46:38 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Liberal Logic: Mandatory health insurance is constitutional - enforcing immigration law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

...at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if the charges included “concealing deadly weapons” for them putting their hands in their pockets.
[/cync]


20 posted on 06/04/2010 10:19:22 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson