Posted on 12/04/2001 11:16:45 AM PST by ahmedtousay1
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms seized guns from the home of the commander of the Kentucky State Militia yesterday, who said he will do ``whatever it takes'' to get the guns back.
Don York, spokesman for the BATF, said agents confiscated guns from the Garrard County home of Charlie Puckett after receiving information that he was a felon in possession of firearms. Puckett cooperated with agents executing the search warrant, he said.
York could not comment on what types of guns were taken from Puckett, how the BATF found out he had guns in his home, or why it took the BATF so long to find out that Puckett, who has been commander of the Kentucky State Militia for 12 years, committed a felony in 1966.
The BATF will present the findings of the search to the U.S. attorney for a possible grand jury hearing, which will decide whether charges will be filed against Puckett.
Puckett said the BATF took guns such as a deer hunting rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a handgun, as well as ammunition. Puckett also had to turn over his permit to carry a concealed firearm -- a permit he said he received even with his felony conviction.
Puckett of Lancaster, called the seizure theft of private property and a violation of his rights. The 1968 federal gun control act that prohibits felons from owning guns does not apply to Puckett because he was convicted of the felony two years before the law's enactment, he said.
York said the law does affect Puckett, and that Puckett has never applied for a ``restoration of rights'' with the BATF to allow to him to own firearms.
Puckett said he will go to the U.S. attorney's office in Lexington and ask for the return of the guns on the basis that law that prohibits felons from owning firearms does not apply in this case.
Anything less than the cooperation of the U.S. attorney would amount to treason, he said.
``Either I get my stuff back or we got a real problem,'' Puckett said.
When asked what kind of problem, Puckett replied:
``Well, it could turn into anything. Use your imagination.''
Puckett said he was convicted of a felony after stealing food from a grocery store in 1966 in Virginia. He and several friends who were hungry took more than $100 in food from the store, he said. The BATF described the felony as nonviolent.
Puckett could not recall how much time he served, but said it was less than two years.
``I paid my debt to society,'' he said.
Puckett of Lancaster, called the seizure theft of private property and a violation of his rights. The 1968 federal gun control act that prohibits felons from owning guns does not apply to Puckett because he was convicted of the felony two years before the law's enactment, he said.
They both can't be right.
York said the law does affect Puckett, and that Puckett has never applied for a ``restoration of rights'' with the BATF to allow to him to own firearms.
That is the scariest part of the whole story.
Am I correct - is this just an example of BATF grandfathering the law to seize weapons from those who oppose them??? Or, is this an above-board action by the Anti-american Task Force????
Does the BATF expect us to believe that they would ever actually restore anyone's right to own firearms!?!
2)
Since this guy had a carry permit and had been associated with a militia for 12 years - it seems pretty clear that BATF only recently came up with the idea that the 68 law was retroactive.
3)
I thought BATF had already been determined a terrorist organization - didn't GWB just recently freeze their funds?
Disclaimer: we're generally on the opposite sides of these things, but I'm asking the question in all sincerity. This is NOT a setup. ;-)
Am I correct - is this just an example of BATF grandfathering the law to seize weapons from those who oppose them??? Or, is this an above-board action by the Anti-american Task Force????
Yes, this is that case. Misdemeanor conviction in 1966, not a felony. I'd say that this was an attempt by the Anti-American Task Force to make the raid appear above-board.
LOL! Very good question. Since post 9/11 we're reorganizing the various alphabet agency security services anyway, why not just let the BATF get lost in the shuffle and quietly abolish it? I, for one, see alcohol, tobacco, and firearms as part of what made America great.
To call Clinton a traitor was humorous, but calling Bush/Ashcroft and the axis powers tyrannical is dangerous. The "patriots" who were eager to fight Gen. Reno, have now become loyalists that will report such right-wing fanaticism. With that kind of support, rounding up trouble makers on the "red and blue lists" is trivial.
How bad is nice Mr. Ashcroft?
He really does feel your pain.According to a draft of the anti-terrorism Bill which was published yesterday, John Ashcroft, the Attorney-General, initially wanted to do away with the fundamental legal tenet of habeas corpus for terrorist suspects.
Such a move would have allowed the authorities to hold suspects in secret and indefinitely without charging them or producing them before a judge.
A secret first draft of Mr Ashcroft?s Bill included a section titled ?Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus?. Its inclusion has astounded some members of Congress. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told Newsweek magazine: ?That stuck out like a sore thumb. It was the first thing I crossed out.?
Habeas corpus establishes the requirement on authorities to produce a suspect before a judge at regular intervals so that the court, and therefore the public, is satisfied that the detention is lawful.
The CONSEQUENCES of being a convicted criminal have never been good, and can get worse from time to time--methinks the only no-no in this regard would be dragging someone back into prison after actual completion of sentence. For example, Megan's Law requires that all convicted sex offenders register their name and address with their local LEAs, so that the neighbors might be able to find out if a child molester just moved in down the street. That's still constitutional, last time I checked.
My experience with some friends who pulled boneheaded stuff in their late teens and early 20s is that "release from disability" isn't that hard to get if you've been clean for a few years outside of the corrections system.
But, of course, the new, improved approach we have to ex-post-facto should mean that we can now pass laws which reverse prior releases from disability. Pretty neat, huh?
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.