Attorney: Puckett has quit militia

Posted on Wed, Apr. 10, 2002 Attorney: Puckett has quit militia EX-COMMANDER OF KY. UNIT FACES REVISED CHARGES By Greg Kocher CENTRAL KENTUCKY BUREAU

Charlie Puckett wants it known that he is no longer with the Kentucky State Militia.

Friends of the former commander of the civilian paramilitary organization intended to file a legal notice in the Garrard County Clerk's Office notifying the public that Puckett will not be affiliated with the group any more, said Puckett's attorney Gatewood Galbraith.

Galbraith read the signed statement yesterday morning after Puckett pleaded not guilty to a revised indictment in U.S. District Court in Lexington. Judge Jennifer B. Coffman scheduled May 28 as the new date for Puckett to stand trial on federal weapons charges.

Under the revised indictment, Puckett would forfeit weapons seized during a Nov. 27 government search of his property in northern Garrard County. Puckett also faces a new count charging him with intimidating a witness in March in Garrard County.

If he is convicted of that last charge, Puckett would face up to an additional 10 years in prison, according to a notice of sentence enhancement filed by the U.S. attorney's office.

In his statement, Puckett says that "I ... hereby resign from the Kentucky State Militia, effective immediately." Galbraith said Puckett had belonged to the militia for seven or eight years. Experts say the group is one of the most active in the country.

Galbraith said the resignation is not "a disavowal" of Puckett's ideals. Rather, Galbraith said Puckett hopes to eventually "get back to a normal, everyday life" with his family.

Puckett surrendered to authorities last week after he had slipped out of an electronic monitoring bracelet and disappeared from house arrest for three weeks. Galbraith said he still doesn't know where Puckett went during his disappearance.

Puckett, a felon, is charged with illegally owning guns, pipe bombs and almost 35,000 rounds of ammunition. Puckett has called the seizure of his guns and weapons a theft of private property and a violation of his rights. He argues that the 1968 federal gun control act prohibiting felons from owning guns does not apply to him because he was convicted of a felony two years before the law's enactment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reach Greg Kocher in the Nicholasville bureau at (859) 885-5775 or gkocher1@herald-leader.com.

There should be a barf alert here. It is my understanding that the conviction was not a felony in 1966. It is in contention as to whether he is a felon or not.

In any case, you cannot increase the penalty for crimes committed in the past. That is a major part of prohibiting ex post facto laws.

. . . you cannot increase the penalty for crimes committed in the past. That is a major part of prohibiting ex post facto laws.

I agree with you, which is why this case is important at the national level. Mr. Puckett being involved with the Kentucky Militia is not that relevant in this.

In any case, you cannot increase the penalty for crimes committed in the past. That is a major part of prohibiting ex post facto laws.

Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing’.

"They don’t have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered.

‘"The law says they don’t have to."

‘"What law says they don’t have to?"

‘"Catch-22"’ .

Yossarian strode away, ‘cursing Catch-22 vehemently as he descended the stairs, even though he knew there was no such thing. Catch-22 did not exist, he was positive of that, but it made no difference. What did matter was that everyone thought it existed, and that was much worse, for there was no object or text to ridicule or refute, to accuse, criticise, attack, amend, hate, revile, spit a, rip to shreds, trample upon or burn up’

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

I have read all the news articles you have posted regarding Mr. Puckett.

I have noticed several 'catch phrases' or 'buzz words' used in them like "pipe bombs" for example.

Would you say there's any truth to that ? or would you say that's probably a contortion of the truth ?

Would you say that Mr. Puckett is a good man that has gotten himself in a bad situation ? or would you say that this bad situation was caused by a bad man ?

Would you say that the BATF is probably just digging up dirt from the past in order to discredit a good man for some as yet undisclosed reason ?

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.