Calaveras County Safe Again (ATF at it Again!)

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=4458 ^ | 4/29/05 | Jeff Knox

[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

[King Prout]

"mornioning"

?????????????

dammit... DARKS!

[johncatl]

When do they bulldoze his house?

[B4Ranch]

Judges are supposed to read berween the lies not tell them.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

Just a note to all the republicans in this thread that threw their vote away in 2004.This is george bushs atf doing this and your small goverment states rights constitution loving law and order republic president allowed it and did nothingto stop the abuse of citizens by the atf even when they violate federal law.One of the main planks of the libertarian party platform however is disbanding the atf and getting rid of every last one of the 20 000 unconstitutional gun laws that are currently on the books.(george bush however recently said he would ADD one more unconstitutional gun law to the books if it reached his desk fortunatly it didnt get that far.)

[MeekOneGOP]

hehe! :)

[_Jim]

I just addressed the fact that there are quite a few freepers like ...

Nice dodge; nice try at a smear.

That's two more citations on top of the original ...

Also, you're being HIGHLY presumptive - and you don't even know me or my position on a whole host of issues - make that yet a fourth citation.

Got anything else to say that I can 'rack up' more citations with?

[_Jim]

Just to clarify, what exactly was it the ATF did 'again'?

The ATF routinely abuses the power ...

Your headliine stated "ATF at it again" and so far you have failed to show where they were "at it again".

I say you initially read this story, salivated over mental images that the ATF had once again overstepped it's authority, hastily posted this story, and while doing so drafted an incorrect/fabricated headline.

Is that about right?

[robertpaulsen]

What I don't understand is why the ATF agent reported her finding to the State of California. I would suspect that every federally licensed firearms importer is in violation of state law, no matter the state.

I have a sneaky feeling that he was showing off his personal stash to her (ie., not intended for resale). That, of course, would be a violation.

[robertpaulsen]

"I can't imagine anyone for state's rights can honestly pick and choose which rights are covered and which are not."

If you are for state's rights, then you support the state constitution to define and protect the rights of it's citizens. When our country was founded, that's what we had -- each state had their own state constitution, plus the newly formed federal government had one.

The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution originally applied to the federal government only. These were rights which the federal government could not violate. The states, of course, were free to do so, provided it didn't violate their respective state constitutions. Examples of this abound.

But, people who favor a strong central government, like P_A_I, wanted to apply the federal BOR to the states. And they got their way via the 14th amendment. This way, if the U.S. Supreme Court says the 1st amendment protects nude dancing, for example, then ALL states must allow it. Or sodomy. Or abortion. Or prohibits the display of the Ten Commandments. Or "Under God". And so on.

Keep in mind. If a federal amendment applies to the states, then whatever five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court says it means, that meaning then applies to all the states. For good OR bad.

Now, a gun grabber like P_A_I loves this concept. It he can somehow get the 2nd amendment to apply to the states (currently is doesn't, thank God), and if he can get five liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that, say, concealed carry is not protected by the second amendment and is in violation of some right to peaceful existence (or some such nonsense) then concealed carry would be banned across the U.S.

[robertpaulsen]

"The court is terrified of what a real 2nd amendment ruling would mean."

I highly doubt that. The 2nd amendment will mean what they say it means. Why do you think Campaign Finance Reform looks the way it does?

If they say sodomy is a federally protected right, or abortion, then by God you can bet your sweet a$$ it is. You disagree? Tell it to the judge at your trial.

We can thank the Higher Power that the 2nd amendment is NOT incorporated. That each state decides and defines the RKBA for its citizens.

I DO NOT want five unelected and unaccountable liberal justices sitting on the USSC telling me what rights are protected by the 2nd amendment. They MAY tell me that it only protects the collective right of a militia.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... cold dead hands and all that. We did squat about the other violations. We'll do squat about this one. THAT is the "terrifying" thought.

[Chode]

more from the wonderful people who brought you RubyRidge and Waco!!!

I'm from the Government and I'm here to HELP YOU...

[sandydipper]

Wait Wait - Wilmshurst had an FFL which gives him federal authority to have - store and sell firearms?? How can a state judge deny him the very things that a federal license gives him??

PLease keep us posted - and I think Wilmshurst should ask us to help finance his law suit agaisnt the state - I'd donate.

[SauronOfMordor]

>>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… <<

Any speculation as to whether the judge has an undue interest in the property case?

[zeugma]

I'm with you on just about your entire reply. What I meant by my original comment: "The court is terrified of what a real 2nd amendment ruling would mean." is that they are terrified of the consequences of if, by some improbable fluke, a ruling is made that actually conforms to the second amendment's text, a lot of well laid plans will be put at risk. Just imagine what it would be like if it was universally recognised that we have a Right, as much a part of our lives as the air we breathe, to keep and bear, i.e., own and carry, any arm.

That thought terrifies the statists out there, both "conservative" and "liberal".

yeah, yeah ... cold dead hands and all that. We did squat about the other violations. We'll do squat about this one. THAT is the "terrifying" thought.

I generally have to agree with you there. In light of Waco and other things, I think things will have to get much worse before the 5 percenters will wake up enough to put some real fear into the powers that be.

[P_A_I]

Of course, to some misguided FReepers here, -- Wilmshurst has no 2nd Amendment rights in California.  

Is that true? I haven't run across anything but a couple of idiots that couldn't find their butts with a flashlight. They generally disappear with any factual debate.

See paulsen's post at #89 for what passes as "factual debate" on the issue.

[P_A_I]

Your headliine stated "ATF at it again" and so far you have failed to show where they were "at it again".

The aptly titled article showed where, -- as did El Gato's reply at #66:

" -- They turned in a federally licensed dealer, with an import license, a "regular" federal firearms license, and a Class III dealer's license (license to sell, and thus buy from suppliers, machine guns) to state authorities, in violation of federal law. This where there was no violation of federal laws or regulations that the BATFE is supposed to be enforcing.
So yes indeed, they are "at it again" or more properly 'still at it'. -- "

I say you initially read this story, salivated over mental images that the ATF had once again overstepped it's authority, hastily posted this story, and while doing so drafted an incorrect/fabricated headline. Is that about right?

I posted the story, as correctly headlined, from the source indicated. Salivate over that mental image as you will.

[B4Ranch]

I won't accuse the man of anything more than being grumpy and using his authority incorrectly.

[Darksheare]

LOL!!
Typo virus strikes again.
*sorry*

[P_A_I]

paulsen wrote:

The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution originally applied to the federal government only.

Not true. Article VI clearly says the opposite.

These were rights which the federal government could not violate. The states, of course, were free to do so, provided it didn't violate their respective state constitutions. Examples of this abound.

Examples still abound of States/localities/feds violating our Constitutuion. Claiming that "-- The states, of course, were free to do so -- ", is simply revisionist nonsense.

But, people who favor a strong central government, like P_A_I,

More nonsense. I favor the 'Free State' principle.

wanted to apply the federal BOR to the states.

The US Constitution is not exclusively 'federal'. It applies to all areas & people of the US of A as the supreme law.

And they got their way via the 14th amendment. This way, if the U.S. Supreme Court says the 1st amendment protects nude dancing, for example, then ALL states must allow it. Or sodomy. Or abortion. Or prohibits the display of the Ten Commandments. Or "Under God". And so on.

Here we see paulsens agenda. He is willing to let States violate gun rights so that they are free to control the other issues he has outlined.

Keep in mind. If a federal amendment applies to the states, then whatever five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court says it means, that meaning then applies to all the states. For good OR bad.

Simply untrue. The other branches of all levels of government in the USA are free to check & balance the USSC, as are the people, - through jury nullification, the ballot box, and ultimately - civil disobedience.

Now, a gun grabber like P_A_I loves this concept. It he can somehow get the 2nd amendment to apply to the states (currently is doesn't, thank God), and if he can get five liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that, say, concealed carry is not protected by the second amendment and is in violation of some right to peaceful existence (or some such nonsense) then concealed carry would be banned across the U.S.

Concealed carry is, [or should be]- Constitutionally speaking, - valid across the USA. Only gun grabbers think otherwise.

[Darksheare]

Yeah, THAT would have been quite 'fun' if they had done that.
*sigh*
The legal bog they'd have stumbled into would have been interesting.