Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Carlton chief, sergeant face firearms charges (BATF now persecuting local police)
News-Register (McMinnville, OR) ^ | February 22, 2003 | STARLA POINTER

Posted on 10/19/2003 12:41:47 AM PDT by fire_eye

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last
To: dwilli
dwilli said: "Would we have known The British are coming if their muskets were silencer equipped?"

The alarm that went out was "the Regulars are coming". Meaning the regular army. It was the colonists own army which was being used to confiscate civilian arms. Citizens of Boston were forced to disobey the order to turn in their weapons and had to smuggle them out of the occupied city in order to keep them.

It was not the firing of the regular's guns which raised the alarm, but several mounted riders including Paul Revere.

You can bet if our army is ever instructed to confiscate the arms of civilians, the army will have every weapon known to man at their service. You and I may not have silencers, machine guns, helicopters, or anti-tank missiles, but the forces sent to tyrannize us will have all this and much more.

51 posted on 10/19/2003 7:16:38 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: fire_eye
We're banking on the truth here."

This is the BATFE here. They don't have much use for the truth, nor much aquaintence with it either. I'm not sure they'd know what it was if it bit them in the a$$.

52 posted on 10/19/2003 8:57:47 PM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
There is a very good reason silencer possession is a federal crime.

And that would be?

53 posted on 10/19/2003 8:58:49 PM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
not mature enough. IOW, they couldn't be trusted to exercise proper 'fire control.

Like the BATFags at Waco?

incapable of handling said weapon

Like many women police officers?

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)

See Waco again.

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

Like the SOB who murdered a woman carrying a child in her arms at Ruby Rudge.

Yeah, I guess there are some folks who shouldn't have guns.

54 posted on 10/19/2003 9:02:20 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
You can bet if our army is ever instructed to confiscate the arms of civilians, the army will have every weapon known to man at their service.

Many, if not most, in the American military take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously. I'd also bet that the higher the 'skill' level of the soldier, the more likely they are to support the Constitution and refuse to obey any illegal edicts to violate the Bill of Rights.

You and I may not have silencers, machine guns, helicopters, or anti-tank missiles

Should such an illegal edict come down the pipe, I would guess that a lot of these items would either mysteriously disappear, or suddenly have "reliability" problems.

There are still quite a few Patriots in the American military.

55 posted on 10/19/2003 9:07:29 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
There is a very good reason silencer possession is a federal crime.

No, it's not a federal crime, so long as you have the proper paperwork filled out and you've paid your tax.

The only reason they passed that edict was to raise revenue for the state. It needs to be repealed, as the 2nd amendment doesn't give the government the power to regulate silencers.

56 posted on 10/19/2003 9:10:19 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: riverrunner
Is it right no but no one in congress wants to set them right nor pull any funding when they stomp cats to death and kill people over unpaided tax's.

There were a lot of Republicans (as well as a few democrats) that talked about pulling their funding in 1994 after they won Congress, but the Bush/Dole wing of the party stopped that.

57 posted on 10/19/2003 9:11:44 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
Which is exactly why the right is "not" to be infringed.
Just like the british would want any adversary disarmed so does any federal gov want any possible future adversary unarmed.
The 2d ammendment keeps this most crucial right and power in the hands of the people off limits to the gov.
If even a small percent of military follows any order to disarm American citizens it would be too late to acquire what we need.
58 posted on 10/19/2003 9:31:27 PM PDT by chuckwalla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: chuckwalla
If even a small percent of military follows any order to disarm American citizens it would be too late to acquire what we need.

If that day ever comes, a decent bolt action rifle equipped with a scope is all many Patriots will "need".

59 posted on 10/19/2003 9:36:35 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
You sure about that???????
I prefer a choice.
60 posted on 10/19/2003 9:43:26 PM PDT by chuckwalla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Mulder said: "Many, if not most, in the American military take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously."

I certainly did. Nevertheless, it was military tanks at Waco that injected CS gas into the buildings. If you tell enough lies and demonize the "enemy" you can get even well-meaning soldiers to support the wrong side.

61 posted on 10/19/2003 10:05:41 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
That,s right.
And neither the military nor the fbi nor the atf were using hunting rifles. I bet they didn't have ten round magazines for their pistols either.
62 posted on 10/19/2003 10:19:49 PM PDT by chuckwalla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
Why would even a police officer need a silencer? There is only one reason to use a silencer and it ain't noise control.

It is in Finland. At some ranges, it's mandatory. The German military even has mufflers for artillery pieces. They are the size of largish storage shed, and I don't know how well they work, but I read about them in one of the European defense technology publications about 8 years ago.

63 posted on 10/19/2003 11:44:06 PM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: misanthrope
attempting to prosecute anyone (let alone LEOs) for posessing a rifle CAPABLE OF BEING CONVERTED TO FULL AUTO.

It' a little more complicated than that. Their regulations (not the law, just their regulations) define any gun, which means any receiver, that was once a machine gun as a machine gun. That's the main reason all, well most the Navy still uses theirs, the M-14s haven't been distributed through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. They are select fire, and even with the select fire parts removed, even if "removed" means ground off the receiver, BATFE considers them to be machine guns, which the subjects are not allowed to possess. There is some RUMINT going aroudn that CMP and BATFE have come to some sort of agreement on that would allow the M-14s to have their recievers modified so that without welding and machine work, they could not be converted back to select fire, and thus sold through CMP. If so, and I stress it's RUMINT, I want one. All the CETMEs, FN/FALs, G-3s and any other "battle rifles" that have been imported must be fitted with a new receiver before the rest of the parts (a kit) can be assembled into a functioning semi-auto firearm. Even then they have to use a certain number of US made parts beside the reciever, due to the Bush I non-sporting purpose import ban and the subsequent codifying into law of the gist of that ban.

64 posted on 10/19/2003 11:52:33 PM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: philetus
At least it's only $200 once. Imagine if it were like car registration which had to be renewed yearly.
65 posted on 10/20/2003 12:00:56 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
The only reason they passed that edict was to raise revenue for the state.

Actually not, they passed a $200 tax on a $15 (or thereabouts) suppressor because they didn't want thee or me to have one. $200 bucks was big money in 1934. They did it that way because they knew darn good and well they had no authority to ban such items, but they did have the power to tax, so they used it. Their model was the Harrison narcotics act, wherein they did the same to various herbs and plant extracts, again, knowing full well they had no power to ban them. (Since such keeping and using such herbs and plant extracts is not explictly protected by the Constitution, state governments may very well have had to the power to ban or severly regulate them, but not the feds, see the ninth amendment) Since then the Supreme Court has ruled that a constutionally protected right may not be singled out to be the object of such a tax, even one much less onorous than that laid out in the Federal Firearms Act. The particular case involved newsprint, IIRC. The same is true of keeping and bearing arms. The 1934 "tax" on machine guns, short barrelled shotguns, short rifles, suppressors, and other stuff was of course only the first slice of the salami, or if you prefer when the first turned on the flame, just a little one, under that pot of boiling water with the frog(s) in it.

66 posted on 10/20/2003 12:07:25 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
certainly did. Nevertheless, it was military tanks at Waco that injected CS gas into the buildings. If you tell enough lies and demonize the "enemy" you can get even well-meaning soldiers to support the wrong side.

The tanks belonged to the military, but the crews were FBI. There were however trained, poorly, by the military under the "war on drugs" exception to the posse commitatus act.

67 posted on 10/20/2003 12:09:25 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
At least it's only $200 once. Imagine if it were like car registration which had to be renewed yearly.

Well, it's actually $200 every time the thing changes hands. As I indicated earlier, in 1934, $200 might has well have been $2,000,000 for the vast majority of people.

68 posted on 10/20/2003 12:12:52 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: _Jim; Dane; MrLeRoy
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 -

Your post might as well have come from Handgun Control Inc. The 2nd Amendment states that the right to bear ARMS shall not be infringed. Rocket launchers and thermonuclear devices are not arms. Gun grabbers are very fond of using such scare tactic comarisons.

As for the rest of your points, if someone is too dangerousa to be trusted with a firearm, they should not be out on the streets, as if they really want to kill, they'll find a way.

You drug warriors have been showing your true colors quite a bit in the last few days.

69 posted on 10/20/2003 8:30:29 AM PDT by jmc813 (Ron Paul for President in '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
There is a very good reason silencer possession is a federal crime.

I give up; what is it?

70 posted on 10/20/2003 8:34:13 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fire_eye
The criminal indictment was handed up by a federal grand jury Feb. 14, following a three-year investigation. It also charges Noble, the department's second-in-comand, with possession of a sawed-off rifle.

"It's a lot to have over your head," said Whalon, who has been a police officer for 12 years. "When you've gone all your life being the good guy, and all of a sudden you're the suspect, that can be draining,"

Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it officer ?

71 posted on 10/20/2003 8:41:54 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Virtue untested is innocence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
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.\

That something may be used for evil is hardly a reason to ban it. This sort of thinking leads to official paranoia: Government officials trying to track purchases of the two most common chemicals used in agriculture, fertilizer and diesel.

Tearing up a deadbold is going to make a lot of noise no matter what. Besides, firing at hardened steel may earn the invader more than he bargained for anway.

72 posted on 10/20/2003 8:47:00 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
Owning a silencer is only a crime if you don't pay the TAX on it to the BATF. They are legal to own.
73 posted on 10/20/2003 9:06:59 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Not true.
Letters of marque and reprisal were granted by congress to privateers to go after pirates. The Privateers had their owned warships fully equipped with cannons.
One of the major purposes of the 2d ammendment was to counter a tyrannical government or any federal gov gone bad and using a fully equipped army against the citizens.
Perhaps that is why they said the right "shall not be infringed".
74 posted on 10/20/2003 10:03:55 AM PDT by chuckwalla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Oh c'mon.

CAN'T you deal with that question realistically and/or objectively?

YOU KNOW you can't produce one objective, studied 'work' (article, forensic analysis, et cetra) that supports your contentions at Waco/Mt. Carmel. Not one.

So, please, give it up, come back to earth - cease with the incessant hyperbole, engage in a *serious* argument for a change before you go 'ball to the wall' ballistic and put your thinking mental faculties on hold.

Vernon Wayne Howell had a death wish that he carried out. TO the detriment of those innocent people under his 'care' I might add.


75 posted on 10/20/2003 10:34:39 AM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
On the other hand, I believe Lon Horiuchi was charged by the state of Idaho for the manslaughter of Vicky Weaver. But, like your desire for "legitimate studies" it was bounced to a "legitimate" Federal court where it was peremptorily dismissed. That dismissal was over-turned by a Federal appeals court (or was it USSC?), but the delay did its job. The current Attorney General is now free to prosecute the alleged murderer, but the fervor to do so has now died down. The momentum of any legal effort can be dissipated and questions of legitimacy and jurisdiction are favorite tools of dissemblers like the whacko conspiracy theorists you usually disdain.

It all started with the matter of a little $200 excise tax that the government now in large part refuses to collect. That in itself is telling as to which party is acting in good faith and which is fraudulent.

76 posted on 10/20/2003 11:18:14 AM PDT by LibTeeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
YOU KNOW you can't produce one objective, studied 'work' (article, forensic analysis, et cetra) that supports your contentions at Waco/Mt. Carmel. Not one.

My conclusions are that the JBTs initiated the firing at the Davidians and continued to fire into a building they knew contained women and children. The latter cannot be disputed, and I believe the former to be true since the gov't has not proven otherwise.

They could have arrested Koresh at any time they wanted. Instead, they wanted to launch a high-profile attack where they slammed women and children to the ground, and could brag afterwards about all the guns and ammo they seized, as Congressmen licked their boots and voted to give them more funding.

Vernon Wayne Howell had a death wish that he carried out. TO the detriment of those innocent people under his 'care' I might add.

I guess we'll never know since he was murdered by the feds. Or do you believe that he just happened to commit suicide and murder his followers at the exact instance that the tanks rolled in?

Furthermore, if the federales believed him to be that dangerous, why didn't they simply pick him up during one of his daily trips into town?

Either way, they screwed the pooch (commiting numerous crimes in the process), and got away with it.

77 posted on 10/20/2003 5:08:47 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Actually not, they passed a $200 tax on a $15 (or thereabouts) suppressor because they didn't want thee or me to have one.

You, sir, are 100% correct.

78 posted on 10/20/2003 5:09:54 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
Nevertheless, it was military tanks at Waco that injected CS gas into the buildings. If you tell enough lies and demonize the "enemy" you can get even well-meaning soldiers to support the wrong side.

My understanding is that the military guys that were there got very pissed off once they found out the feds had lied to them. So only a few of them remained to make sure the feds didn't lose their equipment. I think the feds, not the military, operated the tanks. But I could be very wrong, as all of this is based on stuff I've read elsewhere.

79 posted on 10/20/2003 5:12:20 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: chuckwalla
You sure about that??????? I prefer a choice.

I'm with you 100%.

My point was simply that should the 'enemies of the Constitution' issue an illegal edict and attempt to have the miltary unlawfully carry it out, the "latest and greatest" equipment won't be necessary to defeat them.

In many cases, grandpa's bolt action deer rifle would suffice.

80 posted on 10/20/2003 5:17:56 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
In many cases, grandpa's bolt action deer rifle would suffice.

Or at least a few hundred thousand or a million of them.

81 posted on 10/20/2003 11:12:23 PM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson