Low hanging fruit
https://nypost.com/2019/09/06/texas-man-becomes-first-person-ever-charged-under-federal-bump-stock-ban/
'A Texas man was arrested for owning a bump stock device ? making him the first person to be charged under the federal ban.
The device, which is used to transform a semi-automatic firearm into a rapidly-firing machine gun-esque weapon, was attached to an AR-15, according to Justice Department officials.
It was allegedly owned by Ajay Dhingra, 43, of Houston.
The rifle-toting Texan came to the attention of US Secret Service agents last month after he fired off an email towards the George W. Bush Foundation ? telling the former president to ?send one of your boys to come and murder me,? according to federal prosecutors.
Dhingra had been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility in the past and was barred from owning firearms prosecutors said.'
'Dhingra is facing multiple charges, including possessing a machine gun and making false statements to acquire a firearm. His attorney, David Adler, declined to comment Thursday when reached by the media outlets.'
The Trump Administration has apparently picked what it believes to be a winnable case to set precedent for the legality of the clearly illegal Bump Stock Ban.
Find a person who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution to charge with possession of a machine gun under the arbitrary re-definition of the term as specifically described in the NFA of 1934.
A non-sympathetic figure, who will probably be ignored by the even the SAF because of the baggage he carries into the issue. If convicted and the conviction goes unchallenged, the power of regulatory agencies to re-write law based upon feel good politics will be confirmed yet again.
'A Texas man was arrested for owning a bump stock device ? making him the first person to be charged under the federal ban.
The device, which is used to transform a semi-automatic firearm into a rapidly-firing machine gun-esque weapon, was attached to an AR-15, according to Justice Department officials.
It was allegedly owned by Ajay Dhingra, 43, of Houston.
The rifle-toting Texan came to the attention of US Secret Service agents last month after he fired off an email towards the George W. Bush Foundation ? telling the former president to ?send one of your boys to come and murder me,? according to federal prosecutors.
Dhingra had been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility in the past and was barred from owning firearms prosecutors said.'
'Dhingra is facing multiple charges, including possessing a machine gun and making false statements to acquire a firearm. His attorney, David Adler, declined to comment Thursday when reached by the media outlets.'
The Trump Administration has apparently picked what it believes to be a winnable case to set precedent for the legality of the clearly illegal Bump Stock Ban.
Find a person who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution to charge with possession of a machine gun under the arbitrary re-definition of the term as specifically described in the NFA of 1934.
A non-sympathetic figure, who will probably be ignored by the even the SAF because of the baggage he carries into the issue. If convicted and the conviction goes unchallenged, the power of regulatory agencies to re-write law based upon feel good politics will be confirmed yet again.
0
-
Seems they picked a perfect test case.
After seeing your topic, I looked up a number of articles to see how compliance has been. From the sources I found,...it appears that only a very tiny number have been turned in. I don't own one, and never have, but I am still firmly against this new 'law'.
Why do lousy politicians always feel they have to do SOMETHING, even though they know it will have zero impact on preventing another round of what got them started in the first place?
Some of the antis are honest enough to admit that confiscating all firearms from legal owners would do nothing to stop murders, or mass shootings,....but they still want to see it done. It's pretty clear to me why they want it done, and it has nothing to do with mass shootings, or murders.0 -
To gain momentum in anything difficult, the advise has always been, "Go after the low hanging fruit".
It seems government has taken this advise and run with it. We know the guy is nuts as a sack of peanuts. And we know that's what will win the case, not the "bump stock ban" law. But those who want to see lawfully armed citizens disarmed will herald this as a win for justice through the unlawful "bump stock ban".
I see it as a cowardly act by government to yet again infringe upon citizens rights.
I agree with both the opening statement and Marc... it's just another anti gun piece of legislation that can't get support unless they bundle it with otherwise obvious winnable odds. :evil:0 -
The possession of a machine gun charge is thrown on top of illegal possession of a firearm, lying to purchase a firearm, etc.
If convicted of all charges, it would still be worthwhile to challenge the possession of a machine gun conviction. The distastefulness of a defendant should not stand in the way of a legitimate Constitutional challenge.
From 26 USC:
26 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2010 Edition
Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle E - Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes
CHAPTER 53 - MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS
Subchapter B - General Provisions and Exemptions
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 5845 - Definitions
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov
?5845. Definitions
For the purpose of this chapter?
(a) Firearm
The term ?firearm? means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term ?firearm? shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.
(b) Machinegun
The term ?machinegun? means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
A bump stock equipped semi-auto rifle fire a single shot with each function of the trigger, and is thus definitively NOT a machine gun as proscribed in existing law as enacted in 1934.
If this clown is convicted of possessing a machine gun, I will be pushing the SAF as best as I can to take up his defense against this one charge. Like Marc, I do not own one and have never had a desire to own one, but if this idiot President can arbitrarily redefine a semi-auto AR as machine gun, nothing is safe.0 -
After the Miller case, was there ever any question the lengths the US gov't would go to, to limit 2A rights? If two good ol boys can be "disappeared" this is no surprise. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
4 comments