Getting warmer?
Posted on 04/29/2005 5:23:31 PM PDT by P_A_I
Calaveras County Safe Again
By Jeff Knox (Manassas, VA, April 27)
The people of Calaveras County – the remote central California mining region made famous by the gold rush of 1849 and the jumping frogs of Mark Twain – can breath easier now that Richard Wilmshurst has been brought to justice. Wilmshurst was convicted last month of illegal possession of a machinegun and illegal possession of "Assault Weapons" in California. The judge sentenced Wilmshurst to three years probation and ordered that he dispose of his "arsenal". Wilmshurst, by the way, is a car dealer and land speculator with a law degree, a federal firearms import license, and a class 3 license. This could be the Second Amendment case we've been waiting for or it could be another case of a white-hat taking a fall because white-hats are easier targets than black-hats.
Wilmshurst's troubles began in January of 2003 when an ATF agent performing a routine inspection of his import inventory mentioned that a couple of the guns were not legal for Californians to own. Wilmshurst wasn't worried; the guns were within the umbrella of his import business and were intended for distribution outside the state of California for sale to law enforcement.
In February, officers from the California Department of Justice Firearms Enforcement Division, using information obtained from ATF, staged raids on Wilmshurst's home and Angel Camp car dealership. The raids were conducted in full "storm-trooper" fashion with black "ninja" suits, heavy body armor, and true assault weapons. This being "people friendly" California, the assault force included a medic to monitor 69-year old, stroke survivor, Wilmshurst's blood pressure as they dumped the contents of his safe and confiscated every gun he or his businesses owned.
Even though it is a violation of federal law for information obtained from records generated in compliance with import license regulations to be used directly or indirectly as evidence against the licensee, the judge refused to hear arguments that the warrants were illegal and that all evidence seized was inadmissible. Instead, he barred any mention of federal law in the courtroom and instructed the jury that if the prosecutor proved that Wilmshurst was in possession of the firearms in question (something that Wilmshurst never denied), that the jury must return a guilty verdict.
The guilty verdict was summarily returned and last week, Wilmshurst was sentenced to three years probation and, as a convicted felon, ordered to dispose of all of his firearms.
The judge in the case – who happens to be the same judge that ruled against Wilmshurst in a property case currently on appeal – expressed dismay that Wilmshurst is showing no remorse for his crimes… Wilmshurst is planning to appeal the conviction and has filed suit against the Attorney General of California for violating federal law in conducting the raid and for violating Wilmshurst's civil rights under the Second Amendment.
The Firearms Coalition is bringing the Wilmshurst case to the attention of Second Amendment scholars and firearms civil rights organizations in hopes of generating "friend of the court" briefs and perhaps getting Mr. Wilmshurst the specialized legal assistance this case clearly deserves.
We will keep you posted as the case develops. In the meantime, let this be a reminder: Your white hat is no defense against aggressive police, prosecutors, and judges. There are many things that Richard Wilmshurst would rather be doing with his time, money and midnight oil. Cross your T's and dot your i's…
Yours for the Second Amendment,
Jeff
Jeff Knox Director of Operations The Firearms Coalition
"officers from the Calif Dept of Justice Firearms Enforcement Division staged raids..."This puts a new twist in this incident.In some instances the federal gov can prosecute(in federal court)and use evidence obtained by the state(ie Cal)even if the warrant is erroneous.As long as it was issued and served(by State law enforcement)in good faith.Sounds like double jeapordy,doesn't it?That may be why the judge stated no reference to the flawed warrant.But,if this case was tried in state court and not Federal court?I'm not an attorney,but that could be an important fact.
Getting warmer?
In California, that is a distinct possibility -- this outfit will brazenly violate Federal civil rights, knowing that most of the time their target will not have the resources to fight it and that the judges in the state are sympathetic to the gun goons. It happened to me many years ago, and it was not pleasant.
In my case they underestimated us and we were able to accumulate strong evidence of gross 4th amendment violations and falsification, and we also had activist friends in high places. This after an illegal search of the house AND a stand-off with agents on the front lawn. Somewhere up the phone tree was a friendly pack of high-profile attack lawyers and politicians who launched a blistering assault on the chain of command pro bono and threatening very public civil suits if they didn't back off. The goons walked away, but it is quite something else to be on the receiving end of it, and it has definitely colored my view of the world.
Nothing ever came of it, though the lawyers told us to get the guns out of the state ASAP in case the goons decided to escalate.
Calaveras County Safe Again (ATF at it Again!)
Citation: Misrepresenting story - Inaccurate Title
You are issuing a "citation"? How droll. -- You gots to show me you badges first..
As it turns out, factually speaking, this was the State of California that brought charges against Wilmshurst and not fedgov which so many people here love to loathe;
And you love to point out those loathers -- and issue citations..
I also happen to think he has a case against CA ... Here's an interesting tidbit - and Ii think it casts an interesting light overall on this case:
Richard Wilmshurst, 68, filed a civil complaint against Lockyer in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, claiming that his federal arms importer's license should shield him from state prosecution. Wilmshurst claims, in his civil complaint, that the state is prosecuting him solely to cover up the theft of 10 ounces of gold and other gold coins by state agents and to hide the "cruel and inhuman procedures employed to intimidate a 68-year-old man in failing health."
From: www.stocktonrecord.com/articlelink/080504/news/articles/080504-gn-9.php
Yes, an interesting sidelight.. But it wouldn't be the first time a lawman got sticky fingers on a search, would it?
I say we let the pot boil over, and scald the cooks.
Citation: Misrepresenting story - Inaccurate TitleHow about an 'indictment in the court of pubic opinion'; you plead; I sentence; you perform some helpful public service and additionally you promise never to repeat said infraction again?You are issuing a "citation"? How droll. -- You gots to show me you badges first..
I think it's just a bit more than disingenuous to 'plant' such a misleading title only to stir up the passions of others in an intentionally false and misleading manner.
Just to clarify, what exactly was it the ATF did 'again'?
It's not very clear in my mind, and it's probably ambiguous by what exactly is meant by that to more than just a few others reading these threads ...
holy [expletive]!
bookmarking and pinging
Routine? Private property?
It is a condition of some types of firearms licenses.
Such a "licensed gun dealer" better have more than just a "federal firearms import license" or his home will be the next one raided. At least the jack-booted-thugs did not kill Wilmshurst's family or pets or burn his home to the ground.
Wilmshurts had a class 3 license, which I believe authorized him to possess full-auto weapons in almost every state of the union, excepting Kalifornia, of course. Kalifornia believes that only the police and hollywood producers of Arnold movies need access to full-auto weapons.
Citation: Misrepresenting story - Inaccurate Title
You are issuing a "citation"? How droll. -- You gots to show me you badges first..
How about an 'indictment in the court of pubic opinion'; you plead; I sentence; you perform some helpful public service and additionally you promise never to repeat said infraction again?
How bout I laugh a lot at your imagined power trip?
I think it's just a bit more than disingenuous to 'plant' such a misleading title only to stir up the passions of others in an intentionally false and misleading manner.
Get a grip _jimmy.. That hype don't hunt.
Just to clarify, what exactly was it the ATF did 'again'?
The ATF routinely abuses the power [that Congress unconstitutionally gave them] to 'regulate' firearms. Try reading the 2nd Amendment for original intent sometime _jim.. Our right to bear arms is being infringed, quite obviously.
It's not very clear in my mind, and it's probably ambiguous by what exactly is meant by that to more than just a few others reading these threads ...
I just addressed the fact that there are quite a few freepers like you around here. Thanks for admitting it.
Just to make it clear it was a ratfink BATFAG who notified the California Department of Justice Firearms Enforcement Division of this 'violation'.
Another case of FedGoons trampling on an honest citizen.
I suppose he's lucky that it was the California authorities who raided him. If it actually was an F-Troop operation they would have shot his dog, stomped his cat to death, shoved his pregnant wife against a wall so that she miscarried, lied to the FBI and the Army, left the search and arrest warrants 'at the office', and then shot him to death when he answered the door all the time claiming their valiant officers were in fear for their worthless lives.
Oh yea, the Feds had nothing to do with this....
I hope that b**** of an ATF agent gets run over by a bus...
L
De judg forked up, methinks.
OK...I didn't know. Thanks.
Fortunately, unlike Osama turning himself in, the 9th circuit doesn't get to decide which of its cases go on to the Supreme Court. However the case has a ways to go, although the "White Hat" could file in federal court, more likely he'll appeal through the California state court system. After than it could go to the 9th or even directly to the Supreme Court... which will probably refuse to hear it anyway.
The only way they can do that is to find in favor of the "White Hat". He can hardly appeal a win. The state of California could, but they aren't likely to want it to go to the Supremes either.
And just how do they argue that the 2d does not apply in California? I can't imagine anyone for state's rights can honestly pick and choose which rights are covered and which are not.
What makes you think the supreme court would agree to hear the case? Even if they did, do you really expect them to actually rule on the case in the way a clear reading of the 2nd amendment would require? The court is terrified of what a real 2nd amendment ruling would mean.
I'm embarassed to be a native born Californian. What a total cesspool.
Yep, his son, IIRC. If you go to the link, you'll see the article is really from the Firearms Coalition, which is Knox's "outfit", now run by his wife Jay and sons Jeff and Chris after his passing January 17th.
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.