More government abuse of power

[Jackpine Savage]

It appears the ATF and DOJ tried to reverse the ATF pistol brace determination, in court, against some poor citizen.

I read one comment that suggested you carry the ATF determination letter on the firearm, in the grip, etc, so it becomes part of the evidence. IANAL

ATF Unhinged: Prosecutions Made Up Out of Whole Cloth – You Might Be Next…

Posted on October 28, 2018 by Joshua Prince, Esq.

Since the Law Vegas shooting and what some contend has been a takeover by Department of Justice (which in some contexts appears to be accurate), ATF has begun internally reversing prior determinations and making up new interpretations of law, in the absence of informing the Firearms Industry or the public of these reversals and/or new interpretations. More disconcerting, this mentality has now seemingly infected certain U.S. Attorney Offices, which is alarming to say the least.

Although I cannot disclose all of the occasions where ATF has recently reversed its prior determinations or devised a new interpretation of the law or regulation, I can disclose a recent prosecution, of a veteran, where ATF devised a new interpretation out of whole cloth and was successful in convincing the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio to prosecute. The case is U.S. v. Wright, 3:18-CR-162 and it should have the entire Firearms Community alarmed.

.
.
.
.
More at link: https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/10/28/atf-unhinged-prosecutions-made-up-out-of-whole-cloth-you-might-be-next/

[Ghost]

Well it's government, might as well get so confusing nobody knows what's right.

[Jackpine Savage]

Well it's government, might as well get so confusing nobody knows what's right.

Yep, that way they can selectively prosecute you when they feel like it.

[Rip Van Winkle]

Not to spoil a good internet rant, but...

This story reminds me of the National Guardsman several years ago who was prosecuted by the government for having a "malfunctioning" rifle. IIRC, he ranted for 60+ pages on Barf.com about how innocent he was and how incompetent the BATF was. In the end he was convicted, and the court record told a little different story than the one he was proclaiming.

[Jackpine Savage]

Not to spoil a good internet rant, but...

This story reminds me of the National Guardsman several years ago who was prosecuted by the government for having a "malfunctioning" rifle. IIRC, he ranted for 60+ pages on Barf.com about how innocent he was and how incompetent the BATF was. In the end he was convicted, and the court record told a little different story than the one he was proclaiming.

A great example of free association. Did you actually read the entire article?

The opening post wasn't written by the guy being prosecuted, or his lawyer. A jury also found him not guilty.

The government attempted to prevent the ATF's determination letter from being used as evidence.

Joshua Prince specializes in firearms law: https://www.princelaw.com/attorneys/joshua-g-prince/

[Ghost]

Not to spoil a good internet rant, but...

This story reminds me of the National Guardsman several years ago who was prosecuted by the government for having a "malfunctioning" rifle. IIRC, he ranted for 60+ pages on Barf.com about how innocent he was and how incompetent the BATF was. In the end he was convicted, and the court record told a little different story than the one he was proclaiming.

I missed that thread. Sounds interesting.

[Rip Van Winkle]

Yes, I did read it. What struck me the most was the lack of information regarding the modification. Apparently some kind of cheek piece was added. Was it an aftermarket part or homemade? was it installed properly or modified somehow? The article doesn't say.

Was the government overzealous? Probably. Was this guy an innocent Boy Scout? Probably not.

As for the author, he may not have been involved it the case, but he does have a vested interest in stoking outrage.

Personally, I'll reserve my outrage until more information becomes available.

[Rip Van Winkle]

Not to spoil a good internet rant, but...

This story reminds me of the National Guardsman several years ago who was prosecuted by the government for having a "malfunctioning" rifle. IIRC, he ranted for 60+ pages on Barf.com about how innocent he was and how incompetent the BATF was. In the end he was convicted, and the court record told a little different story than the one he was proclaiming.

I missed that thread. Sounds interesting.

United States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652 (2009)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Olofson

[Jackpine Savage]

Yes, I did read it. What struck me the most was the lack of information regarding the modification. Apparently some kind of cheek piece was added. Was it an aftermarket part or homemade? was it installed properly or modified somehow? The article doesn't say.

Was the government overzealous? Probably. Was this guy an innocent Boy Scout? Probably not.

As for the author, he may not have been involved it the case, but he does have a vested interest in stoking outrage.

Personally, I'll reserve my outrage until more information becomes available.

Being that the government seems to have sealed the court record I guess we'll just have to wait until the next one comes along.

[Ghost]

Not to spoil a good internet rant, but...

This story reminds me of the National Guardsman several years ago who was prosecuted by the government for having a "malfunctioning" rifle. IIRC, he ranted for 60+ pages on Barf.com about how innocent he was and how incompetent the BATF was. In the end he was convicted, and the court record told a little different story than the one he was proclaiming.

I missed that thread. Sounds interesting.

United States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652 (2009)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Olofson

I had heard of this but hadn’t read much on it. I feel sorry for his victims

[Rip Van Winkle]

Being that the government seems to have sealed the court record I guess we'll just have to wait until the next one comes along.

Perhaps the lesson here is not to dance around the edges of the law.

Trying to beat the devil on a technicality is a good way to get burned.

[Jackpine Savage]

I don't what the issue is, or who it is being prosecuted, when the government puts in writing that something is legal, and then on the other hand charges you for that very thing, and then tries to prevent their own writings from being used as a defense, they have lost their moral authority.

Sad to see it rationalized.

[Rip Van Winkle]

A couple thoughts.

1) Government has no "moral authority", government is force, plain and simple. A prosecutor's job is to convict criminals, whether the law is just or not.

2) Your consternation should be directed at the law regarding SBR's not the prosecutor's slimy tactics. There's a very vague line dividing legal pistols and illegal SBR's, it's stupid and I don't like it, but that's the way it is. Remember also, that line can change overnight at the whim of a nameless bureaucrat with a political axe to grind.