Firearm definitions, Fed vs, State?
I have,unfortunately, run across several AZ cops who seem to believe they can "indict" someone on possession of a black powder muzzle-loader. I read in "Legal firearms for Prohibited Persons" (Michael Crooker, 03631-158, copyright 1998 M.T & D.R. Morse, Firing pin Enterprises) that the Federal Definition of a "firearm" is NOT a muzzle loader or replica, or turn of the century cartridge gun that takes cartridges not "readily available on the market"; i.e. Wal-Mart. Nor a wall-hanger, something that will take a lot of gunsmithing/parts to make shoot. He also states "State law cannot countermand Federal law". So, Which way Is it? I see CA redefining Assault rifle to what Looks like an assualt rifle, Not its specifications, which is counter to Fed. law (ATF has challenged them on this to no avail.)
I have attempted to contact Mr. Crooker thru Firing Pin. Also, my lawyer read the law to me (in AZ); he seems to agree with him. I advised these know-it-all cops that they Might get away with an indictment or two with an ignorant judge/jury, but sooner or later someone with a good lawyer will file a class action suit and several men will be released. After all, in AZ, several were jailed over a "concealed weapon" when it was in plain sight; a Chas. Heller sued on their behalf. Now, there is No Concealed Weapon Permit necessity; the lawsuits will be a regular Tidal Wave.
There with be repercussions and compensation paid on this Black powder "restriction", too. So, I told these cops, why not stop repeating what you boss "told you" and Research. And, stop trying to make criminals on this nebulosity as it Will happen, sooner or later, and you are better to come clean now than lose your job and possibly get criminal/civil charge sagainst you and the city/state.
I have attempted to contact Mr. Crooker thru Firing Pin. Also, my lawyer read the law to me (in AZ); he seems to agree with him. I advised these know-it-all cops that they Might get away with an indictment or two with an ignorant judge/jury, but sooner or later someone with a good lawyer will file a class action suit and several men will be released. After all, in AZ, several were jailed over a "concealed weapon" when it was in plain sight; a Chas. Heller sued on their behalf. Now, there is No Concealed Weapon Permit necessity; the lawsuits will be a regular Tidal Wave.
There with be repercussions and compensation paid on this Black powder "restriction", too. So, I told these cops, why not stop repeating what you boss "told you" and Research. And, stop trying to make criminals on this nebulosity as it Will happen, sooner or later, and you are better to come clean now than lose your job and possibly get criminal/civil charge sagainst you and the city/state.
0
-
Well, to start with, most not all cops enforce what they want to belive is law. Most of those are fairly ignorant of what the law actually IS.
AND they will keep doing what they will, until someone with enough money makes them stop.
That is a problem with society today. Cops and prosecutors have an unlimited budget with other people's money. They can afford teams of lawyers and "expert witnesses" and baffle a jury with B.S. All the while the "defendant" can barely afford to pay attention as the only lawyer he could afford drained him with a retainer fee.
Truth means NOTHING in a court. It is all about who puts on a better show.
One case that will ALWAYS stand out in my mind as a HUGE waste of money and nothing but a clown and pony show, was the Duke Lacross case. Can you imagine ALL the money that was wasted (TAXPAYER dollars) even though the prosecutor KNEW they "victim" was lying her ass off?0 -
Yeah, I was afraid of that. Guess my instincts were right. I just know for a fact cops Hate being told what their job is--but I say, Tough Titty. The work For Us, not the other way 'round.
One fella I talked to about this said he got sore at a hassling cop and told him "I pay Your salary". The cop threw him a nickel, and said: "Here it is, Back!"
I just want to know Exacty What Fed. law states. Mr. Crooker quotes US Code 18, sec. 92 (a) (16) plus title 26, and Sec. 5861 , IRS code. I have examined these and I personally don't think they jibe with his statements. But, I'm not a lawyer, either.0 -
There are laws. There are interpretations of law. There is law enforcement...
Add politics to the mix and there is much confusion.0 -
LAWYER [8)] 0 -
I was asking for First-hand experience with this, not a lawyer reference.
I Have talked to a private lawyer; he read the law to me and agreed.
Now, just getting Local Fuzz to adhere to it...like trying to super-glue over armor all....[?]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments