Posted on 10/25/2011 10:06:48 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Golden Valley man accused in machine gun conspiracy
GOLDEN VALLEY - A local gunsmith is among six men facing a 106-count federal indictment alleging a conspiracy to illegally manufacture and distribute machine guns.
According to the July 2010 indictment, George Dibril Clark III of Golden Valley and Gold Canyon and five other men - three from Arizona and two from Maryland - "harvested" serial numbers from pre-1986 machine guns, thereby destroying them. They would then allegedly weld the serial number, or the entire receiver side plate, onto a newly manufactured gun, file the required forms with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, then sell the weapons.
Clark, who operated a business, Universal Test Receiver, in Golden Valley, allegedly did most of the manufacturing and is charged in 80 of the 106 counts, which include conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, money laundering and false entry on an application or record.
He and the five co-defendants, Randolph Benjamin Rodman and Hal Paul Goldstein of Maryland, and Lorren Marc Kalish, James Patrick Arneberger and Idan C. Greenberg of Arizona, all face additional charges of illegal possession of a machine gun, even though all are federal firearms licensees and allowed to sell legitimate machine guns and submachine guns.
The National Firearms Act revision of 1986 made it illegal for civilians to transfer or possess machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The indictment lists 32 instances in which the serial number of a pre-1986 weapon such as a MAC10A1A, with a 5.75-inch barrel and an overall length of 11 inches, would allegedly be transferred onto a fully-automatic replica of an Auto Ordnance Thompson machine gun ("Tommy" gun) or even a belt-fed "1919" machine gun similar to those used in world wars.
According to an affidavit filed in conjunction with the Maryland investigation into the case, ATF Special Agent Patrick Sean Sander had investigated the case, focusing on Clark, since 2007. Sander states in his report that he believes Clark had been doing serial number swaps since 1993.
Sander also states that Clark "admitted that he had done this for years and that he believed the serial number to be the actual gun."
Nonetheless, according to Sander, Clark and the co-defendants had transferred the guns among themselves, "making slight and subtle changes to ATF Form 3 or Form 4 that would slowly change the description of the machinegun so as not to raise any red flags with ATF."
No parties involved in the case have at this time returned repeated calls asking for comment.
The case is scheduled for trial before Judge Roslyn O. Silver beginning on Jan. 17, 2012, in Federal District Court in Phoenix.
But let's move from the abstract to reality. It's just that we are bound as a society to follow the rules of a government (at least until we possibly change them) or be willing to suffer the consequences. It's a binary choice (as all choices eventually are.)
It's that simple. We can work to change those rules, leave the society (for a foreign land, a commune, or prison), or suffer the penalties called for under those rules/laws.
That is reality.
Someone asked, well, what happens when a court enforces a rule/law incorrectly. Under the precepts of Marbury v. Madison, after appeals, etc, a court is simply incapable of enforcing a rule/law incorrectly... because it's the courts that decide what “correct” is. Madison gives the courts final say what the law is.... unless it is changed by legislation passed by representatives of the people at a later date.
Take slavery, for example. For an extended time, it was legal. The 13th Amendment, adopted in 1865, reversed 70 years of what the people had come to believe was a wrong set of rules/laws. (BTW, from a legal standpoint, the Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a PR stunt.)
But was wrong as slavery was, it was the absolute law of the land until ‘65.
As far as laws being “popular,” that is a very slippery slope.
Eugenics and the laws supporting it were widely popular in Europe and the US in the first third of the 20th Century. Class-ism laws still abound in many parts of the world. Sex with another’s spouse is still illegal in many areas, even in the Western world. Libel is a civil matter here, but a criminal matter in much of Europe. Which is the right course?
As far as “popularity” in the US is concerned, “Pedophilia Chic” was very popular in NY in the 1980s, and there were serious moves in NY and California to legalize so-called "consensual" sexual relationships, regardless of the age of the younger participant. Conductor Leonard Bernstein was very fond of showing up with his wife and some 10-14 year old boy at some very “social” events in NYC, and every “cafe society” person thought it was “so cool” that the three of them would share a bed later.
Popular sentiment against he war in Vietnam made Draft Dogging so “popular,” Jimmy Carter effectively legalized it. Obama has effectively legalized what you and I would call “illegal immigration.”
Bottom line. Work to change laws you don't like, and/or change the people who make them, but complaining that a court is wrong about a law is “wrong” without working to change it is like complaining about gravity.
But let's move from the abstract to reality. It's just that we are bound as a society to follow the rules of a government (at least until we possibly change them) or be willing to suffer the consequences. It's a binary choice (as all choices eventually are.)
It's that simple. We can work to change those rules, leave the society (for a foreign land, a commune, or prison), or suffer the penalties called for under those rules/laws.
That is reality.
Someone asked, well, what happens when a court enforces a rule/law incorrectly. Under the precepts of Marbury v. Madison, after appeals, etc, a court is simply incapable of enforcing a rule/law incorrectly... because it's the courts that decide what “correct” is. Madison gives the courts final say what the law is.... unless it is changed by legislation passed by representatives of the people at a later date.
Take slavery, for example. For an extended time, it was legal. The 13th Amendment, adopted in 1865, reversed 70 years of what the people had come to believe was a wrong set of rules/laws. (BTW, from a legal standpoint, the Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a PR stunt.)
But was wrong as slavery was, it was the absolute law of the land until ‘65.
As far as laws being “popular,” that is a very slippery slope.
Eugenics and the laws supporting it were widely popular in Europe and the US in the first third of the 20th Century. Class-ism laws still abound in many parts of the world. Sex with another’s spouse is still illegal in many areas, even in the Western world. Libel is a civil matter here, but a criminal matter in much of Europe. Which is the right course?
As far as “popularity” in the US is concerned, “Pedophilia Chic” was very popular in NY in the 1980s, and there were serious moves in NY and California to legalize so-called "consensual" sexual relationships, regardless of the age of the younger participant. Conductor Leonard Bernstein was very fond of showing up with his wife and some 10-14 year old boy at some very “social” events in NYC, and every “cafe society” person thought it was “so cool” that the three of them would share a bed later.
Popular sentiment against he war in Vietnam made Draft Dogging so “popular,” Jimmy Carter effectively legalized it. Obama has effectively legalized what you and I would call “illegal immigration.”
Bottom line. Work to change laws you don't like, and/or change the people who make them, but complaining that a court is wrong about a law is “wrong” without working to change it is like complaining about gravity.
I guess that would depend on how much of that original gun remained attached to that serial number.
This sounds similar to someone rebuilding a car by transferring a VIN.
What Glock 27?
:)
They can’t comfiscate what they can’t find.
Then I would litigate to get my rights to legally posses it back.
What if the courts are making it up as they go along, practicing a form of anarchy?
I'm not talking about "unpopular," I am talking about reading one thing, and saying it means the opposite.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Compared with this ...
Our holding is compelled by the Supreme Court's opinion in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886). ...Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005)Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the States. The courts are uniform in this interpretation. See, e.g., Thomas, 730 F.2d at 42 (1st Cir.); Peoples Rights Org., 152 F.3d at 538-39 n. 18 (6th Cir.); Quilici, 695 F.2d at 269 (7th Cir.); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, 965 F.2d at 730-31 (9th Cir.).
My point is that such a government is corrupt, and is utterly untrustworthy. It certainly does not merit respect.
I've pointed this exact case out several times. I educate my family, and those I come in contact with, and they come to the same conclusion. The system is rotten.
The judges who pull these stunts KNOW they are dishonest hacks; Congress isn't going to do squat about it.
You can have your rotten and corrupt government. Defend it with all your might. Rail against me until you are blue in the face, and I will not be moved one inch by your plea to respect the government. The government get my "respect" for one reason. It is a brutal and effective wielder of violence, and it is more than happy to use it to keep me in line. I fart in its general direction.
The only “sides” when the highest court in the land ignores the very plain and historically demonstrable meaning of the second amendment is the constitutional side and the unconstitutional side.
Therefore, we, in our system of government, allow the courts to decide.
I'm not arguing which side is right (of course we are!) but since there are two sides to the argument, the courts, not the protagonists decide.
Unfortunately, your posts are that of the “last angry man.”
A summation is very simple. Our government is nothing but corrupt. You and you alone have all the answers. No one’s opinion counts, except yours.
Last person I interviewed with blatant an opinion was Lyndon LaRouche.
That pretty much renders your high-minded rhetoric about obeying all laws meaningless.
The National Firearms Act revision of 1986 made it illegal for civilians to transfer or possess machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.
This is what is called an "infringement". It is illegal under "shall not be infringed".
Every driver is a lawbreaker every day. (54 in a 35 last week.)
I never said we must obey all laws. I simply said we must be prepared to accept the penalty when we do not.
Yes. Those that attempt to infringe upon "keeping" and "bearing" firearms are explicitly illegal. As for use, we already have other laws dealing with that, like assault and murder charges.
Your laws end where my Rights begin. Don't like it? Move to another Country.
That's a strawman (it's false), and you know it. If it's true, it applies in reverse to you (no chronic corruption in the system), as it does to me. Oh, and no ones opinion counts, but yours.
What do you make of the lower courts disregarding what Presser says, and substituting a falsehood? Not corrupt? An error of decades long duration, SCOTUS was offered more than one opportunity to correct the error below, and didn't, and still hasn't.
-- Last person I interviewed with blatant an opinion was Lyndon LaRouche. --
Heh. Well, you don't budge either, Mr. MindBender.
That, plus the notion that the penalty is just, because we live in a law-ordered society, and the courts, by definition, never get it wrong.
And, "love it or leave it."
Sprinkled with a few "If you don't agree, then you don't understand"'s.
“The National Firearms Act revision of 1986 made it illegal for civilians to transfer or possess machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.” - article
I would like to see one of the prongs of their defense be that they were doing this gunsmithing as members of the unorganized militia, under title 10 of the US code. (not as civilians)
The next line would be that the law fails the equal protection clause, by creating a class of people with more rights than other citizens. (How can a government pass laws that they exempt themselves or some classes of people from?)
Wow.... try the Decaf.
“It’s just that we are bound as a society to follow the rules of a government” - MB26
Ideally - but when government does not follow the rules - then what?
Take the not so hypothetical example of government funneling guns to gangs and drug cartels. What do we do when the government openly destabilizes society in clear violation of the law?
I think the answer lies in a document that begins “When in the course of human events...”
They disagree with Presser. Big deal. All inter-jurisdictional cases come from courts disagreeing with each other.
The courts today disagree with Scott v. Sanford and thousands of other prior decisions. Does than then make those decisions right or wrong?
The major problem is that the majority of the people on SCOTUS don’t agree with you. That doesn’t make them corrupt, that simple means we must work harder to elect a president who will appoint judges to our liking.
Please remember that “justness’ is a matter of opinion.
You and I have very different opinions of what is right and just regarding firearms than Hillary and Obama, etc. do.
What I am talking about is reality. Complaining that a court decision should not be followed because it is wrong is simply “pizzing in the wind.”
Regarding “correctness” or “justness,” I once told Tom DeLay in an interview that not only did he have the votes to pass a certain bill, but I thought it was the “right” thing to do.
He said “If you have the votes, it doesn’t matter if your measure is right or wrong.... and if you don’t have the votes it doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong either. In most cases, it will take 100 years of history to tell if an action was right or wrong. In the present, real world, we can’t know its “rightness,” so it’s the votes that count.”
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.