« Well, that was quick | Main | US Attorney Dennis Burke and Fast and Furious »
Case on use of machine gun in crime
Story here. Federal law provides a 30 year mandatory minimum for use of a full auto in a violent crime. The question is -- does it require that the defendant knew it was full auto? (In this case, a real AK).
5 Comments | Leave a comment
I would be tempted to say no. The reason being is that you had the instance of the man convicted of illegally transferring a machine gun.
Except that machine gun was actually a semi-automatic that suffered from hammer follow with soft primers. The weapon wasn't actually a machine gun yet there was no question of his knowledge of firearms in that case.
That case was US vs Olofson.
In that case it can be quite easily argued that the owner had no knowledge of its ability as ruled by the ATF to operate full auto.
A dictated minimum of 30 years just because of some technical aspect of the firearm unrelated to the crime and to the harm inflicted sounds like cruel and unusual punishment.
What difference should it make from a sentencing standpoint whether a bank robber has a full auto or a semi auto firearm, if the damn thing was never fired in the commission of the crime? The sentence should be for the wrongful act. Our government is irrationally obsessed with evil objects when it should be focusing on evil behavior.
Another thing I wonder is why the government didn't just prosecute this bank robber for transfer of a machinegun without registering it and paying the $200 transfer tax. That's up to 10 years in prison right there, on top of the bank robbing charge. Possession of a machinegun is also, the last I heard, illegal in the DC area, another charge that could have been prosecuted against him. Why have all these laws if they won't even be used to prosecute a bank robber?
Olofson had M16 fire control parts in the weapon. He also had knowledge that the firearm fired full auto.
Yes, but the federal government does not have the a granted police power to make any of these things crimes. They however do it anyway because the people and those running the States are ignorant.
If you disagree, explain why the Framers found it necessary to explicitly grant Article I, Section 8, Paragraphs 6, 8, and 10. And Article II, Section 3, Paragraph 2. Then explain why, IF the power is either inherent or implied, Amendments 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24, & 26 were thought to require "enforcement" authority by the authors and ratifiers of those bills. Taking the position that the feds have either an inherent police power or implied power through some other clause negates the need to include all these other clause and implies that the authors, including the Framers, were dunces.
Very simply yes. See Staples v. US.