Man found guilty in firearms court case (Michael A. Crooker)

http://www.masslive.com/ ^ | 7 13 06 | BUFFY SPENCER

[freepatriot32]

SPRINGFIELD - A federal jury yesterday found Michael A. Crooker guilty of a firearms crime that will mean a 15-year mandatory prison sentence.

The jury, made up of eight men and four women, delivered its verdict shortly after 2 p.m. yesterday after deliberating about 10 hours during two days.

Crooker, 51, formerly of Agawam, had been charged with being a previously convicted felon "causing a firearm to travel in interstate commerce."

Crooker was accused of trying to mail an air rifle and sound muffler to an Ohio man in 2004. Air rifles are not considered firearms under federal law, but silencers that can be used on regular guns are. Testimony during the trial centered on whether the black metal cylinder mailed with the air rifle qualifies as a silencer and therefore a firearm. Felons are prohibited from owning firearms.

The jury yesterday morning came back to Judge Michael A. Ponsor with a question, basically asking for more of a definition of a silencer under federal law. Ponsor told them he could not give any more of a description than had been given in his jury instructions.

Crooker sat silently and without obvious expression beside his lawyer, Vincent A. Bongiorni, as the verdict was read.

In an interview after the verdict, Bongiorni said that there is not much to say about a verdict from a jury. "It was tried on a factual basis," he said.

Sentencing for Crooker was set for Oct. 20 at 2 p.m. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Regan said after the jury's decision that he is pleased with the verdict.

In closing arguments on Monday, O'Regan told jurors they should have no question Crooker shipped the sound muffler knowing it was capable of being used on a regular gun.

Bongiorni said in his closing arguments that jurors cannot conclude that Crooker knew the muffler could work on anything but the air rifle. He said he defied the jury to find any evidence that Crooker had actual knowledge that it could work on a powder-burning, or regular, gun. The trial began on June 28.

[Hawthorn]

Database wrote:


> the original article linked above indicated a 100 fold decrease in decibels which is quite significant. Who knows if the reporter got it right. <


It's hard to imagine the reporter did get the facts right, because if my math is correct, a 100 dB decrease would be a decrease in power by a factor of 10,000,000,000!

(Ten raised to the tenth power.)

And I don't think even BATF would believe any muffler or silencer or suppressor could do that much!

[absolootezer0]

The muffler could be attached with an adapter to a Ruger .22; was the adapter something readily available in commerce, or did the BATF custom-make it? If the latter, how does this man's device constitute anything other than a collection of parts which is not sufficient to build a silencer?

a "collection of parts" altho stupid is very dangerous. a dummy grenade, black powder and caps can get you killed. having a handful of rubber washers and a piece of exhaust pipe. shoelaces and paperclips.
owning any ONE of the multiple parts that constitute the difference between an AR15 and an M16 (even tho all of them are needed) and having an AR15 is a felony.
there are a number of stories i've heard about the ATF going to great lengths to "prove" wrong doing was done. removing recoil pad to get a gun under length, or breaking off welded on compensators for example. there's the "consipracy to violate federal firearms laws" that are a good blanket charge for just about anything.

[mugs99]

And the BATF fastened this guy's muffler to a .22!? What wouldn't silence a .22 as well as this guy's muffler?
Exactly...You could adapt a lawn mower muffler to a .22 the same way. The fact is the guy didn't adapt the muffler to a .22 or any other firearm. He was convicted of a crime he might possibly commit sometime in the future.
.

[mugs99]

Divide and conquer. Bit by bit, one person at a time, one "gun" at a time, we're going to lose our Second Amendment rights.

"I say that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for exceptions or else it would have read that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless Congress chooses otherwise." And because there are no exceptions, I disagree with my fellow panelists who say the existing gun laws should be enforced. Those laws are unconstitutional [and] wrong because they put you at a disadvantage to armed criminals, to whom the laws are no inconvenience."...Harry Browne
.

[mugs99]

Since the 1934 NFA Act is an Unconstitutional "law", this man is innocent ... period!

Tried by a kangaroo court and convicted by a jury of fools.
.

[oldfart]

There's quite a lot of us who feel the same way. Somehow though, about all we ever do is preach to the choir. Even the big dog in the neighborhood, the NRA, uses the same rhetoric in their official comments.
Like a lot of other old folks who have failed to attain all they wanted in life, I sometimes dream of what I would do if I were King. First and foremost is always: Repeal NFA-34 and GCA-68 with all their additions and ugly baggage. Then I'd DIRECT the SCOTUS to incorporate the entire BoR under the 14th Amendment.
But those are just the dreams of an old man.

[mugs99]

But those are just the dreams of an old man.

LOL...
I'm another old man with the same dream!
.

[looscnnn]

Well you have the reciever (upper or lower depending on the firearm that it would be used on). You have a shoestring that is a machinegun, a defective semi-auto that is a machinegun, etc.