Carlton chief, sergeant face firearms charges (BATF now persecuting local police)

News-Register (McMinnville, OR) ^ | February 22, 2003 | STARLA POINTER

[Leisler]

That is because the job itself is no longer it's own reward. Peace officers used to be socially one and the same as the community. They were and worked for and amongst the people. Now they are law enforcement agents. It doesn't matter weather the law makes sense, is not the will of the people, is invasive or unconstitutional. The police force it. Therefore they have to get psychic rewards not from the job, but from symbolic do-dads, trinkets, bolo badges and the such, hence my statement about police being infantile and effeminate, prickly, vain, touchy.

[marktwain]

There is a very good reason silencer possession is a federal crime. It should apply to everyone.

I think you are letting 70 years of liberal propaganda get to you. Silencers were legal for about 20 years, and we had no problems with them. The only reason that we can find that was given for their inclusion in the 1934 federal firearms act was that Roosevelt administration officials were worried about them being used for poaching, but that no one had ever been caught poaching with one.

The effective ban on silencers because of the required $200 tax has been one of the worst government health policy disasters in history. Litterally millions of people have suffered hearing loss for lack of a $5 gun muffler.

I think the real reason for the ban was to insure that people could not conduct pistol practice in their back yard without annoying the neighbors. Silencers were treated as a social necessity for decades in europe. People were not allowed to obtain a pistol permit unless they showed that they were also obtaining a silencer, so that the neighbors would not be annoyed. Silencers were very common on hunting rifles in Britain up to a decade ago for this very reason.

In Finland today, anyone may own, purchase, make, or trade a silencer without a permit, and they don't have any problems because of this freedom. We should have the same freedom here.

[wita]

Which is why it ralates to the "receiver", which is numbered and the wrong number in the wrong hands, equals felony gun law violation. That being said, the bureaucratic agencies evolved from all the Unconstitutional attempts by congress to override, "shall not be infringed" needs to have their energies directed where the problems are not where they are presently directed, and if they cannot do so, they need a good disbanding.

[wita]

We do. Congress has chosen to place their name on an unconstitutional bit of legislation, and the supreme court is party in the illegal attempt to legislate "shall not be infringed" out of existance.

[Comus]

I always wonder how the BATF chooses its targets. Violent gangs with nation-wide theatres of operation get no attention from the baby killers, while rural loners and gun tinkerers are hunted down and killed or sent to prison. It's almost like they want...............

[StriperSniper]

I'm sure some of you think that it's a good thing for the gun laws to get inflicted on the cops, and maybe you're right... but for the most part these small-town cops are just regular folks and are getting chewed up and spit out like the rest of us gun owners by Uncle Bug-Breath and the socialist gun-grabbers.

Yup, it's a tough decision. But maybe if more of the really good guy locals get enough heat from the FedGovThugs, they will become a more vocal advocate for the civilians who finds themselves in the same spot. It's getting time to chose up sides, it would be nice to see the local police on the side of freedom, and if this it what it takes to convince them...

[rogator]

"Police depts with a platoon size population, yet the podunk chief has full general stars."

This is not universally true. The chief in a nearby Oregon town has four officers (including himself) and wears only a bird colonel insignia.

[philetus]

"There is a very good reason silencer possession is a federal crime"

Yes there is. It.s so the Fed Gov can generate $200.00 in revenue from each silencer a citizen wants to own.
Exactly the same as the $200.00 for each machine gun.

[Lurker]

Sorry, no sympathy for the cops here. They would have been more than happy to bust somebody for the same thing and send them up for years and years.

"my guess is their radio signals are going to be too weak to be heard by any police radio in this county..."

You say that like it's a bad thing. During Prohibition 'revenuers' used to go missing in the woods all the time. It wasn't a bad thing then, and it wouldn't be a bad thing for a few of these BATF goons to go missing now.

L L

[dwilli]

So you feel there should be no restrictions on silencers or
machine guns? I have owned guns my entire life from 10 years old to the present but there have to be some limits to firepower and accessories citizens can possess.

There are non-criminal nuts in our society, couch commandoes and weekend game players who have no business with a spitball and a rubber band much less rapid-fire weapons and silencing equipment.

If silencers were readily available, blowing away that dead-bolt lock on on your front door would be much quieter and
quicker for people wanting to enter your home.\

I can think of no reason for law enforcement officers to use silencers.

[gore3000]

Yeah, they're supposed to obey the law like the rest of us.

What we have here is tyrannical laws, tyrannically enforced. The charges amount to failure to do proper paperwork. I don't know about others here, but it seems to me that people should not be put in jail and have their lives destroyed for failure to do paperwork. If that is the case I think just about everyone in America could be put in jail.

[Spok]

Just like busting kids with tiny guns on charm bracelets or asthma inhalers, the government has discovered that it's easier to prosecute honest citizens who do things out in the open than it is to find real criminals. It gives them the stats they need to justify budgets and tell the public they're being productive.

[Mackey]

Yeah, that and the fact that real criminals might get violent...

[Howie]

Silencers are essential to "midnight meat gathering" also. (poaching) They work great on .22s when hunting out of season,also. (so I've been told)

[marktwain]

Silencers have been predominantly used to prevent hearing damage and to reduce noise pollution. These are excellent reasons to return silencers to there original legal status.

For criminal purposes, firearms are easy to silence with a pillow, blanket, or plastic liter bottle.

[dwilli]

I'm not saying silencers are totally useless, my feeling
is that law enforcement has no business operating in our society with silencer-equipped weapons. Limit them to the firing range, I have no problem.

They have no business on the street.

[philetus]

"So you feel there should be no restrictions on silencers or
machine guns?"

I didn't that. You are trying to put words in my mouth.

"I have owned guns my entire life from 10 years old to the present but there have to be some limits to firepower and accessories citizens can possess."

Why? Do you think the politicians in control of the military hardware are smarter,more moral, saner than the citizens? Do you think someone should be able to come in your house and take one of your guns?

"There are non-criminal nuts in our society, couch commandoes and weekend game players who have no business with a spitball and a rubber band much less rapid-fire weapons and silencing equipment."

And if they meet the qualifications, they too can posess a silencer or auto weapon.

"If silencers were readily available"

They are! Try doing some research.
And ,of course, if they were totally banned, it would keep criminals from getting them?

[SSN558]

My understanding has always been that if a rifle fires one round with one pull of the trigger, it is classified as "semi-auto" by the BATF.

Nope, not exactly. If the receiver was originally designed for use with select fire it remains a machine gun in eyes of the BATF, even if you remove the auto sear and other parts required for automatic fire. When the prohibition of manufacture of new machine guns for civilian use was enacted in 1986, it basically refered to receivers. The auto sear and other parts are basically useless without it.

[_Jim]

I have but ONE question for all those that would prescribe ownership of any and all manner of destructive fire power - including pistols, rifles, hand grenades, rocket launchers up to and including theater thermonuclear devices -

- The question is this:

"Have you ever, in your life met SOMEONE you thought should not own such weapons either because they were:

a) not mature enough. IOW, they couldn't be trusted to exercise proper 'fire control. Age related to some degree, sure, but also related to 'development' in life - have they developed proper discipline to be trusted with devices that can take human life.

b) incapable of handling said weapon (weren't simply big enough, too small a frame for the large bore rifles, etc)

c) mentally incapacitated beyond the point where they could be trusted to control their 'fire' (mentally incompetent - can't judge proper from improper use of weaponry that can potentially kill)

d) deemed to be a risk because of their 'criminal bent'"

[Leisler]

Yeah, and I met them all in the Airborne Infantry.