Update On The Big Gun Trial In Phoenix
Short version: The defendant was acquitted.
The government, I thought did a reasonably good job of proving that the defendant was dealing without a license, since they tracked 473 gun acquisitions and sales. However, the judge did not believe that the test of "profit motive for livelihood" was met, and entertained a motion from the defense to acquit.
I told the prosecutor that I would have felt a lot more sanguine about the case had the government proved that even one gun was sold to a person in a prohibited category. He sold a bunch to undercover ATF guys, but not one to a convicted felon, illegal alien, etc.
Anyhow, I spent 3 days there, gave my 20 minutes worth of testimony, and the guy got off.
It was an interesting experience anyway. I had never been to U.S. District Court before.
The government, I thought did a reasonably good job of proving that the defendant was dealing without a license, since they tracked 473 gun acquisitions and sales. However, the judge did not believe that the test of "profit motive for livelihood" was met, and entertained a motion from the defense to acquit.
I told the prosecutor that I would have felt a lot more sanguine about the case had the government proved that even one gun was sold to a person in a prohibited category. He sold a bunch to undercover ATF guys, but not one to a convicted felon, illegal alien, etc.
Anyhow, I spent 3 days there, gave my 20 minutes worth of testimony, and the guy got off.
It was an interesting experience anyway. I had never been to U.S. District Court before.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by nunn
A license is also there, in many cases, to ensure that the practitioner holding the license is reasonably competent. Would you go to an unlicensed physician, hire an unlicensed attorney, list your home with an unlicensed realtor, let an unlicensed plumber or electrician work in your home? Do you want to share the road with unlicensed drivers?
A licensed gun dealer is a businessman. He has a business, and reputation to protect. If you have a problem with a purchase, in most cases, he will try to work with you on getting the problem resolved. The fellow showing up at gun shows or selling guns in his garage sale probably will not.
To answer your question if I would use the unlicensed people:
Yes, IF I felt confident in their work. I would venture to say that REPUTATION is MORE important to those that are UNLICENSED. Would you agree?
Take tatoo's as an example. Licesnsed guy HAS a store front giving people a false hope of honesty and integrity, because he is licensed.
Unlicensed guy HAS to rely upon referals from HAPPY customers. If unlicensed guy gets a bad reputation, he is out of business quick as nobody would be "walking into" his shop .
The guy with the license has people come in that know no better. He has a storefront AND a license, leading people to belive he is honest and MUST be a good businessman, otherwise the GOVERNMENT would close him down.
I *may* be one of the few that belives that , JUST because you HAVE a license, that DOESN'T automatically MAKE you a GOOD businessman.0 -
I know several people who have done this.
Here in Michigan we are having a terrible economy. Folks are dumping entire collections just to make their mortgage payments.
My friends go to estate sales and pick up a dozen guns for a couple thousand dollars. They cherry pick the guns they really want and they churn off the remainder almost immediately. Sometimes they add a few cast offs from their current collection into the sale of the rejects.
Basically each time they are upgrading their collections while selling off those that they no longer desire. Each weekend they buy and sell dozens of guns to upgrade their collections and in the meanwhile earning some extra bucks. While some guns are sold within a few days, others an be in the collection for years. That's how you improve your collection.0 -
quote:Originally posted by PanzerSlayer2
I know several people who have done this.
Here in Michigan we are having a terrible economy. Folks are dumping entire collections just to make their mortgage payments.
My friends go to estate sales and pick up a dozen guns for a couple thousand dollars. They cherry pick the guns they really want and they churn off the remainder almost immediately. Sometimes they add a few cast offs from their current collection into the sale of the rejects.
Basically each time they are upgrading their collections while selling off those that they no longer desire. Each weekend they buy and sell dozens of guns to upgrade their collections and in the meanwhile earning some extra bucks. While some guns are sold within a few days, others an be in the collection for years. That's how you improve your collection.
I applaud your friends efforts. They are intellegent enough to do what they know how to, to survive in a sinking economy. They aren't asking for a handout like many people do, when times get tough.
Though other people would tell you they are felons (breaking the law) or they should just get a license and PAY the government.
My belief tells me that a capitolistic society has no need for government issued licenses to RESTRICT the trade of goods and services. While taxes ARE necessary for the operation of this country, taxes are out of control and will ONLY get worse.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
That law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I will NOT support it.
This law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I WILL support it.
Where is the difference?
People should make up their minds, one way or the other.
Walking the fence, playing BOTH sides.........[V]
+1
These laws are Un-Constitutional....period. If I were on the Jury, there would be a not guilty verdict.0 -
quote:Highball's position is absolute Libertarianism, with no government at all.
I disagree. The Constitution says what it says...period. It means what it says...whether you like it or not Frank. Highball is merely espousing a strong belief in our Constitution. It's a damn shame that more folks are not doing the same.[:(][V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by nunn
As I pointed out, the prosecution made a very good case against him for dealing without a license. The weakness, according to the judge, was the establishment of profit motive. They should have, and did not, subpoena any financial records.
Like it or not, the sales of firearms are regulated in this country, and there are laws. This "dealer," and he was a dealer even if unlicensed, was buying hundreds of guns, and re-selling them at gun shows, where he would rent multiple tables and display 50 or so guns at a time.
As to whether he sold a gun to a "gang-banger," we will never know the answer to that, since the vast majority of his sales were to individuals, and we don't know their status. We know about the guns he sold to ATF agents. I would have liked it better had the agents sent in some confidential informants that were prohibited from owning firearms, and had them make buys. Or, the agents could have presented themselves as convicted felons. Or, an agent could have simply bought a handgun and shown an out-of-state ID card.
You never fail me, david. And I bet you don't see a damn thing wrong wih your proposal.
Clouder..0 -
I quote: mildly disagree. I think his position leans more toward Anarchy. And, having met Highball, I think he could survive in such a state.
Not knocking Highball one bit, either. He has the right to his opinion, same as the rest of us. I am just not sure most of us would be comfortable in his perfect world.
Well ..not Anarchy ..really.
While I would indeed do my level best to survive such ..I do recognize the NEED for some level of control from government.
Say ..the amount authorized by the Constitution.
I find it difficult to believe the original intent of the Constitution was to make sure I get a good deal every time I buy something. The whole 'license' thing is an affront to freedom ..any way you look at it.
I believe in weeding out the crooks in a bit more earthy way...
FFL dealers on EVERY level directly contravenes the Second Amendment.
Were we to have a free country again.FFL will have to be consigned to the trash heap of history ..along with purges, racial purity, and which end of the egg is cracked first.0 -
quote:You never fail me, david. And I bet you don't see a damn thing wrong wih your proposal.
Clouder..
Been here 8 years...and this is the first time I have seen the LEO exhibited by Officer Nunn.
Not entirely fair.0 -
Racial purity?????????? [:0]
Where have I seen that phrase before? [B)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:You never fail me, david. And I bet you don't see a damn thing wrong wih your proposal.
Clouder..
Been here 8 years...and this is the first time I have seen the LEO exhibited by Officer Nunn.
Not entirely fair.
I agree....this is the very first time I've seen David on this side of the fence...the Constitution. He has always espoused a strong belief that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land...[?]0 -
In your perfect world, would it be all right with you for convicted felons, gangsters, mentally ill people, drug abusers, etc, to buy and own firearms?
I am assuming for a moment that the answer is "No."
My suggestion would have made the government's case stronger, and I personally would be more on board with what they were doing. For example, Mr. Unlicensed Dealer is set up at a gun show, with four tables bristling with all sorts of guns. Mr. Vato, tattooed on arms and neck, with a tiny teardrop tattoo under one eye, comes up and says he wants to buy a pistol, and that the other dealers won't let him have one on account of his record. If our hero, Mr. Unlicensed Dealer then sells Mr. Vato a pistol, he deserves for a small piece of the world to fall on him.
Now, you boys and girls are free to think of me what you will, and I don't particularly care much. Personally, I don't believe there is any Constitutional authority for ANY Federal law enforcement agency to exist, except maybe to deal with interstate crime and to enforce the law in the U.S. Territories. But we have what we have until we change it.0 -
quote:In your perfect world, would it be all right with you for convicted felons, gangsters, mentally ill people, drug abusers, etc, to buy and own firearms?
In my "perfect world" our criminal justice system would do it's job correctly. If someone is deemed safe to walk amongst the free, they should be able to own a firearm. If someone has paid their debt to society and is released, I believe they should have their rights restored...we might have a whole lot less repeat offenders if this were the case. If someone is a threat to society, they should be locked up or executed. I believe this was the original intent of our forefathers. The Constitution is not flawed...the criminal justice system is. Why is it OK to attack the rights of law abiding citizens in an attempt to fix the broken criminal justice system???
quote:Personally, I don't believe there is any Constitutional authority for ANY Federal law enforcement agency to exist, except maybe to deal with interstate crime and to enforce the law in the U.S. Territories. But we have what we have until we change it.
I do agree with this statement. My point was that, in the past, you have stated that you might be inclined to overlook some offenses of the law, if you thought they were un-Constitutional. This new position seems to contradict that ideology...??? Hence my questions...0 -
I never said the government agents were heroes, nor that the unlicensed dealer was a villain. The government agents thought he broke existing law, and I thought they did a reasonable job, though not a perfect job, of proving it up. The judge disagreed, apparently.
I don't remember saying that I would refuse to enforce a particular law, either, and that is irrelevant to this discussion, since my part in the case was as a witness for the prosecution, not an investigating officer.
I received a subpoena to appear in court and to produce certain documents that are part of my records. Would you have had me refuse to show up? Destroy my records? Forget that the pistol I examined on the witness stand was once part of my inventory? Forget where I got it or where I sent it?
I bet each of you who has a FFL and who has been audited by the BATF, or asked to assist with a gun trace, or to produce documents to the BATF, has complied to the best of your ability and will do so next time as well.
My world is VERY imperfect, and most days, I just have to do the best I can with what I have to work with.0 -
quote:I received a subpoena to appear in court and to produce certain documents that are part of my records. Would you have had me refuse to show up? Destroy my records? Forget that the pistol I examined on the witness stand was once part of my inventory? Forget where I got it or where I sent it?
Absolutely not...that was not my point. My point was the change in ideology from previous positions you've taken on Constitutional issues. We do have to obey the existing laws and I would have done exactly what you did in this matter. If I were on the jury however, I could never find someone guilty of something that is expressly allowed by the US Constitution.
quote:My world is VERY imperfect, and most days, I just have to do the best I can with what I have to work with.
This is all too true.
quote:I don't remember saying that I would refuse to enforce a particular law, either, and that is irrelevant to this discussion, since my part in the case was as a witness for the prosecution, not an investigating officer.
I'm not sure I could find the posts but you specifically mentioned in the past that you might be inclined to overlook firearm violations if they were not related to the offense you were questioning someone on...and again, this goes more towards the ideology you expressed, making it relevant to the discussion.0 -
I believe in "officer's discretion," and believe it is a powerful tool. I have overlooked violations that I felt were unimportant in the context of the case at hand, and may do so again. That is still irrelevant. I reported facts here as I saw them. I suggested some factors that could have made the government's case stronger, and stated that I personally would have like to see the government prove that he sold a gun to a person who really should not have one. I thought the government proved profit motive; the judge did not, and it's the judge's opinion that matters.
As far as being LEO, that was not my part in this drama.
One of the bosses saw my computer wallpaper and threw a fit about it. It was a picture of a ATF agent, dressed up in Ninja gear, holding a burp gun, wearing a mask, with an uncomplimentary caption. I took it off, but we had a lively discussion about it, and he wanted to know why I was even a cop, if I disrespected the man in the picture. I told him my opinion about federal law enforcement agencies being un-Constitutional, and explained that I feel no kinship with "officers" such as those in the picture. I challenged him to find the Constitutional authority for the establishment of any federal law enforcement agency, and also to read and understand Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. He had no idea what Amendment 10 states.
FWIW, it was FFL dealers at the gun shows who reported the unlicensed dealer and got the ball rolling.
As a FFL, how would you like to see GCA1968 repealed? I would, but then I don't try to make a living selling guns. Repeal of that law would surely change the way we do business, and drive a lot of dealers out of business, would you not agree?0 -
quote:As a FFL, how would you like to see GCA1968 repealed? I would, but then I don't try to make a living selling guns.
I would LOVE to see it repealed David...and it just might be after the Supreme Court gives it's ruling on the Second Amendment. Sure, there would be more competition with selling firearms, but most big stores/companies would still be afraid to touch them. I would rather have our freedoms than to have a protected niche in the firearms business.
The dealers that reported this guy are no better than the Jack Booted Thugs that arrested him...and they probably did so out of their own selfishness.
You are dead on with the "officer's discretion" thing...0 -
quote:Originally posted by westkybanded
Not to get too far off base, but how many gun sales by a private individual constitutes a felony here?
When I lived in California, I understood the number to be over five. That was from the CDOJ.
However, I bought and sold about a dozen, and would have had a reasonable defense against any charges of dealing in firearms.0 -
Actually, 'perfect world' describes what the big government types promote..the idea that more government controls, rules, regulations, licenses, ect. will somehow make us all safer.
I prefer the hustle/bustle of a free society..one where personal responsibility is important.
Nobody, David, is questioning your part in this trial. We do what we must, when the Beast orders it so..at least for the present.
The discussion is partly about Jury Nullification..partly about the validity of a law that is UnConstitutional..partly about the insanity of laws that cannot be figured out even by those that carry them out.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nunn
I don't remember saying that I would refuse to enforce a particular law, either,
Was it you who said that if a "law" was passed, ordering you to confiscate civilian firearms, that you would "have to go to the house and wait for the rest to come get mine."
Have you, time after time, stated that you would NOT follow that "lawful" order?0 -
quote:Was it you who said that if a "law" was passed, ordering you to confiscate civilian firearms, that you would "have to go to the house and wait for the rest to come get mine."
Have you, time after time, stated that you would NOT follow that "lawful" order?
Yes, I said that, and I meant it, but that day has not happened. Not yet.0 -
Sir, I've been in this town for a couple decades.
If you could, could you PM me the defendant's name?
Thanks
D.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
51 comments