unjust justice

[orangello]

I feel bad for "Jim" in regards to his country's disrespect for the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution through subsequent laws that limit the rights afirmed by the 2nd. Unfortunately for "Jim", he failed to accept that his country had defined some of its citizens as criminals for exercising their rights without accepting the unconstitutional limitations placed on those rights. It seems like "Jim" was probably, at least to some extent, aware of the risks of trying to exercise rights deemed illegal or only legal in limited circumstances by the government of the country (not by the country or for the country, just of the country) in which he lives based on the kind of company he appears to have been keeping; IOW, he probably knew better than to offend "the man" after hanging out with other people unhappy enough with the sad state of their country to resort to bombings and such. Sucks for "Jim".

When the feds decide to further limit the second amendment to outlaw things like 18" barreled shotguns or "tactical" rifles, more of us may feel sympathy for "Jim".

 

[vranasaurus]

I don't agree with the NFA but I won't be violating it's provisions.

You mess with a bull and you might get the horns.

Mr. Krause didn't have any right to plant a bomb by a church and Mr. Pierce lied to protect him.

Those who knowingly aid or harbor a terrorist are no better than a terrorist and should be dealt with harshly.

 

[Rifleman1776]

He did not possess his own.
Storage "in his house" could be a matter of interpretation. The shed is attached to but not accessible from inside the house.
Knowledge of what was in there is not a requirement under Fed law for establishing "possession". That is why I am calling it unjust justice.

 

[Eagle Eye]

I kept reading posts and thinking "this does not smell right." Vranasaurus discovered the reason for the stench.

Enjoy your new home, Jim.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Knowledge of what was in there is not a requirement under Fed law for establishing "possession". That is why I am calling it unjust justice.

In any case, Mr. Pierce had his day in court; and his attorney had the opportunity to present evidence in Mr. Pierce's favor, and to make any available arguments in Mr. Pierce's favor, including to challenge the law under which Mr. Pierce was charged.

When I first read the OP, I did think it rather odd that the U. S. Attorney would pursue a case against an elderly man for innocently storing someone's possessions without knowing that those possessions included contraband. It struck me that there had to be more to the story.

And it seems that there was a good deal more to the story. The article that vranasaurus brought to our attention in post 30 goes a long way toward explaining why a case against Mr. Pierce was pursued. And the jury seems to have agreed that Mr. Pierce was not the innocent claimed.

Of course, it's always possible that Mr. Pierce's conviction was the result of errors of law in the trial. That can be tested by an appeal.

 

[Conn. Trooper]

Yeah, no sympathy from me. Either he is the biggest moron on earth, or he knew exactly what he was up to.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The shed is attached to but not accessible from inside the house.

Knowledge of what was in there is not a requirement under Fed law for establishing "possession". That is why I am calling it unjust justice.

Again, as a matter of law, this is incorrect. See the United States vs. Staples case I cited earlier. The mens rea requirement for possession of an NFA item is knowing - a person must know they possess the item.

Examples:

1. Gunnie A buys a new house and moves his firearms collection into the house. A few days after moving in there is a fire and an M60D machinegun is discovered underneath the floorboards, apparently having been stored there for many years. Unless there is some evidence Gunnie A knew the M60D was there, he cannot be convicted under federal law for possession of an NFA weapon, even though he possessed the weapon - because he did not know he possessed it and a reasonable person would not be expected to pull up there floorboards looking for illegal NFA weapons.

2. Gunnie B inherits a shotgun from his Grandfather. Gunnie B reads on the Internet that 16" is the shortest legal length for a rifle barrel and after careful measurement, cuts his shotgun down to 16". If Gunnie B gets caught in possession of the shotgun, he can be convicted of possession of an NFA weapon because A) He knew the barrel was 16" and B)He was in possession of it. The fact that he didn't know the correct law is irrelevant.

3. Before Gunnie B can get convicted, his son, Gunnie C takes the shotgun out hunting and is arrested by the local Fish & Game officer. Gunnie C had no idea what length the barrel of the shotgun was, he just grabbed one and went. If the jury believes that Gunnie C did not know that the shotgun had a 16" barrel and a reasonable person would not have realized the shotgun had a 16" barrel, Gunnie C cannot be convicted. If the jury believes Gunnie C knew or they decide a reasonable person would have noticed the 2" difference, Gunnie C has just violated the NFA.

Accordingly, your friend could not have been convicted of possession of an NFA weapon left in his shed unless the jury believed that he knew or should have known what was in the shed.

 

[hogdogs]

Putting in the name of the bomber for google to help me, I found several of the requisite "Free The Criminal..." type sites. All call the terrorist an "artist" "blacksmith". I posted a comment on one asking why, if he was a good guy, would he ruin this elderly man's life. It was deleted by morning at no surprise to me...

Terrorists and their sympathizers get no support or sympathy from me.

Brent

 

[44 AMP]

So, if the later supplied info is correct, then what the OP is saying is that "Jim" was unjustly convicted for "posessing" the bomber's NFA items, in addition to being justly convicted of posessing his own NFA items?

Since he left this, rather, pertinent information, out of the original post, one would assume he does not consider Jim's conviction for having an NFA item of his own to be unjust, right?

Leaving out information easily obtained by a search shows a clear intent to focus the discussion, and garner sympathy for poor ol' Jim, which, if Jim was actually pure as the driven snow, would not be needed, as the ALL the facts would generate sympathy for his plight.

Rifleman 1776, if you deliberately left out the information about the other charges and convictions, then you have lost a huge amount of your personal creditability. And if you didn't do it deliberately, you still screwed up, causing your appeal for sympathy to backfire.

anyone have a good reason NOT to shut this one down now?

 

[Al Norris]

I agree.

44 AMP, without more, this thread will close when next you or I log on.