Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary and Harriet Leave the Reception in Their Honeymoon Shells
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
If you sign up
A sponsor will donate $10
Posted on 10/25/2011 10:06:48 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Golden Valley man accused in machine gun conspiracy
GOLDEN VALLEY - A local gunsmith is among six men facing a 106-count federal indictment alleging a conspiracy to illegally manufacture and distribute machine guns.
According to the July 2010 indictment, George Dibril Clark III of Golden Valley and Gold Canyon and five other men - three from Arizona and two from Maryland - "harvested" serial numbers from pre-1986 machine guns, thereby destroying them. They would then allegedly weld the serial number, or the entire receiver side plate, onto a newly manufactured gun, file the required forms with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, then sell the weapons.
Clark, who operated a business, Universal Test Receiver, in Golden Valley, allegedly did most of the manufacturing and is charged in 80 of the 106 counts, which include conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, money laundering and false entry on an application or record.
He and the five co-defendants, Randolph Benjamin Rodman and Hal Paul Goldstein of Maryland, and Lorren Marc Kalish, James Patrick Arneberger and Idan C. Greenberg of Arizona, all face additional charges of illegal possession of a machine gun, even though all are federal firearms licensees and allowed to sell legitimate machine guns and submachine guns.
The National Firearms Act revision of 1986 made it illegal for civilians to transfer or possess machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The indictment lists 32 instances in which the serial number of a pre-1986 weapon such as a MAC10A1A, with a 5.75-inch barrel and an overall length of 11 inches, would allegedly be transferred onto a fully-automatic replica of an Auto Ordnance Thompson machine gun ("Tommy" gun) or even a belt-fed "1919" machine gun similar to those used in world wars.
According to an affidavit filed in conjunction with the Maryland investigation into the case, ATF Special Agent Patrick Sean Sander had investigated the case, focusing on Clark, since 2007. Sander states in his report that he believes Clark had been doing serial number swaps since 1993.
Sander also states that Clark "admitted that he had done this for years and that he believed the serial number to be the actual gun."
Nonetheless, according to Sander, Clark and the co-defendants had transferred the guns among themselves, "making slight and subtle changes to ATF Form 3 or Form 4 that would slowly change the description of the machinegun so as not to raise any red flags with ATF."
No parties involved in the case have at this time returned repeated calls asking for comment.
The case is scheduled for trial before Judge Roslyn O. Silver beginning on Jan. 17, 2012, in Federal District Court in Phoenix.
Hard to violate an unconstitutional law. Where is the exception for federal government to regulate firearms in the Second Amendment? I hope I’m on the Jury, Not guilty.
A fellow by the name of Stewart was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm. A search of his residence found homemade machine guns, so the feds prosecuted him for that, too.
He was convicted on both counts. On appeal in 2003, the Ninth upheld the conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. However, it overturned his conviction for the homemade machine guns, saying the Commerce Clause did not allow the feds to regulate them.
The US appealed the Ninth's ruling to SCOTUS. In 2006, SCOTUS remanded the case back for reconsideration in light of Raich [2005]. The Ninth then reversed itself and said the Commerce Clause does indeed allow the feds to regulate such things.
And drug warriors cheered the Raich decision.
It won't happen. Congress is inclined to make the laws more strict, not less. The people aren't going to turn out the bums in enough number to make a difference.
Not that much different from this.
http://www.brpguns.com/categories/Machineguns/Stemple-Takedown-Guns-%28STG%29/
My take is that the law created the artificially high prices and the "idiots" used that law to their benefit by fraudulently creating pre-1986 guns from recently manufactured guns.
In other words, taking a Thompson built yesterday and selling it as a Thompson built in 1985.
As between the seller and buyer, only if the buyer is induced to believe that the firearm records show the S/N to be unique to the item in possession, and not transferred from a wrecked gun. Did these buyers think they were getting pre '68 iron? (other than the S/N that is).
As between the people and the government, the government wishes the number of legal to own automatic weapons decrease, over time, to zero. Of course the government is going to throw the book at these fellows - and they will be barred from possession of guns and ammunition. That makes the government happy.
At least these fellows survived a BATF investigation.
I know, but one can hope for a change.
/bad pun
Sure these guys were scammers but, how about we repeal the 1934 and 1968 laws on full autos so civilian buyers are not limited to only purchasing existing pre-1986 machine guns?
If one can qualify for the transfer and ownership of a machine gun (plus afford the ammo) let a legal citizen or resident own one. Actual crime with full autos is almost non-existent.
I can CREATE VALUE by rolling back the odometer of my ‘99 Ford and selling a fraudulent product.
There is NO evidence that any buyers were deceived over the nearly 20 years this logical practice went on.
As a vehicle has a serial number (VIN) adn that refers to that specific vehicle, might I inquire as to how welding that bit of material with the number onto an entirely different gun is different than putting the VIN of a Mercedes onto a Pinto and calling the Pinto a Mercedes?
The analogy is that the government bans cars made after 1986, except for government officials. Trucks, scooters, motorcycles and SUVs are still legal. People are allowed to buy and sell a very limited number of old cars, made before 1986. There is only one car per 1000 American citizens (excluding the government cars).
Those ownable cars are worth many times (10-20x) their original value, and worth many times more than new trucks and SUVs that would cost no more to make.
Ownable Mercedes are a lot more desireable than ownable Pintos. So some clever guy reads the arcane laws on the subject, and finds that the panel with the VIN is the “car” and everything else is “parts.” He then decides to take his pinto, and upgrade it with a while Mercedes “parts kit.” Those parts kits are available cheap at government surplus and from overseas, as long as the VIN part is destroyed.
So he welds the Pinto VIN on the Vin-less Mercedes, and creates a much more valuable car, without increasing the number of “evil” cars in circulation. The enterprising chap might even buy a new parts kit and instead of a 25-year-old Mercedes (still better than a 35-year old Pinto) he has created a NEW Mercedes!
So, no one could possibly be defrauded. And there is no evidence of fraud in the case.
All you do-gooders worried about poor innocent machine-gun collectors being fooled are really worried that the unconstitutional state might be threatened.
It doesn’t sound much like a manufacturing operation. More like a cut / paste outfit.
Spoken like a true anarchist.
I’m sorry, but your post illustrates a lack of understanding of law and society.
We, as a civilized society, have decided a set of rules we all agree to live by. You don’t have to like them, agree with them, or accept them as just, but you do have to follow them, or face the penalty for violating them, or leave this society. Period.
Just as you don’t want me deciding that I have rights to occupy your property whenever you are not home, I don’t want 250,000,000 individuals deciding what laws they will obey and which they will not.
The answer to a disagreement with a law is to attempt to educate 51% of the people to agree with you. It is not in disobedience.
Are all gun laws unconstitutional? Do you want a person convicted of child abuse to be able to follow your child to school with a concealed weapon? Do you want 6 loyal Islamist followers of your local radical imam to sit on the street in front of your house with a loaded ZU-23, while drunk on cheap red wine?
It’s like playing Monopoly or Scrabble. We all agree to play by the same rules, or the game (or life) is worthless.
If you don’t like a rule, work to change it. If you can’t get people to agree to vote to change it, don’t blame the law; blame yourself.
U.S. v. Dalton (1991) The Money Quote:
The government is correct that a statute is repealed by implication only when that statute and a later statute are irreconcilable. See, e.g., Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 533, 549-51 (1974). In our view, however, that is exactly the situation here. Sections 5861(d) and (e) punish the failure to register a machinegun at the same time that the government refuses to accept this required registration due to the ban imposed by section 922(o). As a result of section 922(o), compliance with section 5861 is impossible.
Accordingly, we vacate Dalton's conviction and reverse with instructions to dismiss the indictment. In so doing, we recognize that the illegal possession of a machinegun is a most serious matter. However, it is precisely because this conduct raises such grave concerns that the government must exercise its prosecuting responsibility with care. The decision to proceed under an inapplicable statute has resulted in a constitutionally infirm conviction.
Mpmey quote:
The enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o) in 1986 removed the constitutional legitimacy of registration as an aid to tax collection. This is because the government interprets and enforces sec. 922(o) to disallow registration, and refuses to collect the tax. Farmer v. Higgins, 907 F.2d 1041, 1042-44 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, - U.S. - , III S.Ct. 753, 112 L.Ed.2d 773 (1991). Thus, sec. 922(o) undercut the constitutional basis of registration which had been the rule since Sonzinsky.
Finally, the prosecution quotes an enactment passed in 1968 that the provisions of Title I of the Gun Control Act shall not modify or affect the National Firearms Act. (Footnote 15) However, the 1968 Congress cannot bind the Congress of 1986, which decided to ban transfer and possession of machineguns. P.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 453 (May 19, 1986). (Footnote 16) Further, a Congressional declaration in 1968 does not solve a constitutional problem which arose in 1986. The ban enacted in 1986, and the government's refusal to accept registrations and tax payments, simply left the registration requirements with no constitutional basis. It is the duty of the judiciary to declare such laws unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison, I Cranch. 137, 176-77, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).
In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts l(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED.
Naturally, the government refused to appeal these decisions, as it completely destroys their entire victim disarmement regime, as codified by the 1934, 1968, and 1986 GCAs.
I remember back in 1968-1970 some company in Phoenix was selling new Thompson look alikes. Semi auto and ATF legal. They were advertised in the pages of gun magazines at that time.
Then the ATF called them all in and confiscated them when it was found that if you held in the safety and pulled the trigger it would go full auto.
“All you do-gooders worried about poor innocent machine-gun collectors being fooled are really worried that the unconstitutional state might be threatened.”
Speak for thyself, John Alden - I am not in the least worried about unconstitutional aspects of governmment being ‘threatened’.
I am worried about unconstitutional aspects of government not being seen as so threatening that we are motivated to vote to shut down such ‘unconstitutional’ acts/agencies of government.
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.