Posted on 07/26/2006 4:47:07 PM PDT by bad company
Illinois State Police trooper Gregory Mugge pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing an unregistered machine gun in federal court on Tuesday, according to an announcement from the U.S. attorney's office.
Mugge, 52, of Jerseyville, was indicted in January, along with Illinois State Police Sgt. James Vest, 39, of O'Fallon, and John Yard, 36, an Illinois State Police special agent assigned to the Collinsville office, each face separate charges of illegal gun possession.
Mugge faces up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000 and a maximum three years of supervised release.
He is scheduled to reappear in court for sentencing on Oct. 27.
On Dec. 29, authorities seized Mugge's unregistered Colt .2234 caliber rifle from his home in Jerseyville. In his plea, Mugge admitted to knowing his possession of the rifle was unlawful.
In February, a group of 12 local police chiefs and sheriffs, and two state senators, Sen. Bill Haine, D-Alton, and Sen. James Watson, R-Greenville, endorsed a letter of support for the three state troopers.
At that time, the backers pushed for administrative punishment for the three troopers rather than prosecution.
He is, i think he paid the dues to the NRA in order to make his film when he "interviewed" Heston.
...My $30,000.00 investment in 1988 is doing quite nice ;)
I'm sure you'd also like to see gangbangers deprieved of semi-automatic weapons. What would you do to reach that goal? Pass a law making them illegal, so law-abiding citizens won't have them but criminals, who buy guns illegally on the black market, will? Or would it make more sense to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, and have severe punishments for anyone who commits a violent crime? Would you like your gun confiscated simply because a criminal used a similar gun to commit a crime?
Think about this logic for semi-automatics, and then apply it to automatics. It works the same way.
It also happened becaues the BATF knew he was dumb and desperate for money. They asked him to cut the barrels off.
Well, I'd prefer to aim. But automatic weapons are still fun!
It was a deadly .2234 which is notorious for it's ability to kill.
I can understand allowing pistols, rifles and shotguns. However, would you prefer some gang-bangers opening fire in your neighborhood with a 12 round 9mm Glock, or a fully automatic weapon?
One could argue that a 'need' for a fully automatic weapon isn't valid. However, I see no problem with the semi-automatics. The present system (Class 3 Federal Firearms Permit) for fully automatic weapons has worked very well since the 1940's.
How's about Only children, the insane and criminals should be barred from having one?
It's not that hard. The founders intended that the citizens could be armed, and actively encouraged it. But the weapons of the day didn't include WMD. Would they have intended that the 2nd include your right to create and own chemical and biological weapons? A nuke is probably out of your capability, but it if you could buy one from N. Korea, is that fine with the Founders?
What did they intend, indeed? Machine guns weren't invented yet. They certainly wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves with guns. But machine guns and WMDs aren't easily classified as defensive weapons.
If you're arguing that no line should ever be drawn, I disagree. There are no absolute rights in the Constitution because the rights conflict with others when taken to the extreme. Somewhere that line is drawn, and people will always argue where it should be.
That's fine, my point being that cops shouldn't expect any special treatment for gun violations they commit as private citizens, i.e. personal ownership of machine guns.
It is interesting that they realize the injustice of sending these men to prison for 10 years, but they probably think it is because they are LEOs and not that the law they have violated is unjust. After all, where are the victims?
Nicely done.
You are absolutely right...the Founders never even thought of the ball point pen, internet, printing press, typewriter, radio, tv, movies, etc...as freedom of speech...so lets restrict those too!
...this is too easy...
"One could argue that a 'need' for a fully automatic weapon isn't valid. However, I see no problem with the semi-automatics. The present system (Class 3 Federal Firearms Permit) for fully automatic weapons has worked very well since the 1940's."
Except the part where no new weapons can be sold. A gun that costs the US Govt a couple hundred bucks would cost me several thousand. Doesn't sound like its working to me.
He has a Constitutional right to own that gun. The real criminals are the politicians who subverted the Constitution to make some guns illegal.
"How's about Only children, the insane and criminals should be barred from having one?"
Ok sounds good to me.
They'll just keep making more things crimes so that there are fewer and fewer non-criminals.
If this were a truely free country, we wouldnt have gang bangers on the street...they would be pushing daisies after a 30 day fair trial, or languishing in hard labor prisons. Law abiding citizens would flourish, and maybe, just maybe, a 5-shot revolver, (or a miniuzi) on those four (4) planes on 9-11 would have averted a disaster.
I challenge both of you to go to israel and see everyone, I MEAN EVERYONE carrying machine guns, grenade launchers, belt feds...etc.....
Aside from political/religious crime (read terrorism)...Israel is WELL ARMED and VERY SAFE (and thus polite)....plus the women are beautiful!! ;)
I'd love to have a 12 round 9mm Glock to defend myself and family with. Heck, I'd love to have more than 12 rounds!
As for a fully automatic weapon, that would just be for fun for me. I doubt a gang banger could afford one, nor would they find it of much use.
Just because your rights have been infringed since the 1940s, doesn't make it right.
1. Under the current system, law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops to get an automatic weapon. Criminals simply have to buy one on the black market, or steal one. The current system isn't making anyone safer (except the criminals).
2. A criminal with an automatic weapon isn't necessarily any more dangerous than one with a semi-automatic. Read the story of Charles Whitman, the Texas tower sniper.
I don't expect you to change your mind, at least not right away. But I do hope you'll have a different view of what the media has labeled "gun nuts."
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.