Solvent Trap business gets ATF raid

[SHIVAN]

But what if intent was established?

I must have misunderstood that evidence. Show me more. Nope, still unclear. Sorry. Dense, I guess. Maybe voir dire should be used better next time around. Good luck.

As a juror you swear to uphold the law, not look for ways to hang the jury because you don't believe what he did was or was not a crime.

I served on a federal district jury and took no such oath. Our oath was more along these lines:
""Do each of you solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will well and truly try, and true deliverance make, in the case now on trial and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence, so help you God?""

I am having a problem discerning HIS intent. He sold them as X, and said they could be used as Y. A lot of things can be used as something else. Do we have evidence of him using these illegally? No? Hmm, still must be a density issue here. Let's go over it again, ok? Maybe we should vote again?

[st381183]

The only evidence we truly have is that a solvent trap maker was closed down and his computers seized. We don't know what he told people. Does it change for you if he made illegal silencers? Does it change for you if he encouraged others do make an illegal silencers?

[SHIVAN]

Silencers are illegal? Imagine my surprise when I learned that!!!

Oh you mean silencers that the government didn't get to tax are illegal. Hmm....encouraged them to create an object that is legal, so long as the government gets it's $200? Ok. I fine the user to pay $200 to the government.

[jpmuscle]

The only evidence we truly have is that a solvent trap maker was closed down and his computers seized. We don't know what he told people. Does it change for you if he made illegal silencers? Does it change for you if he encouraged others do make an illegal silencers?

You don't want to know my answer.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[st381183]

Sorry, silencers that the government didn't give you permission to make or possess because you didn't pass a background check or pay $200 are illegal and you will go to prison if the government catches and convicts you. Go to the ballot box and change the law if you don't like it.

You may not like that but that is the sad truth of the world we live in. I don't like it either. I'm not arguing the ethicacy of the law just the fact that the gov'ment's gonna get ya if you don't obey the law. If you are willing to take that chance than god speed to you, I am not willing to take that chance.

Why am I a bad person because I follow the rules to possess NFA items? It's not hard to do. I would prefer to not pay $200 but until the laws change I'd rather pay the tax and have the item than be morally superior and not have it.

Everyone wants NFA regs gone but until then when the government says no then no it is. Usually the ATF sends a cease and desist letter to those offending them much like Dead Air received regarding the sale of wipes. Guess what, Dead Air stopped selling wipes. They didn't start a revolution, they didnt continue to sell wipes as a middle finger to the man, they decided stay in business and not go to jail. Pretty good decision on their part.

[tylerw02]

Sorry, silencers that the government didn't give you permission to make or possess because you didn't pass a background check or pay $200 are illegal and you will go to prison if the government catches and convicts you. Go to the ballot box and change the law if you don't like it.

You may not like that but that is the sad truth of the world we live in. I don't like it either. I'm not arguing the ethicacy of the law just the fact that the gov'ment's gonna get ya if you don't obey the law. If you are willing to take that chance than god speed to you, I am not willing to take that chance.

Why am I a bad person because I follow the rules to possess NFA items? It's not hard to do. I would prefer to not pay $200 but until the laws change I'd rather pay the tax and have the item than be morally superior and not have it.

Everyone wants NFA regs gone but until then when the government says no then no it is. Usually the ATF sends a cease and desist letter to those offending them much like Dead Air received regarding the sale of wipes. Guess what, Dead Air stopped selling wipes. They didn't start a revolution, they didnt continue to sell wipes as a middle finger to the man, they decided stay in business and not go to jail. Pretty good decision on their part.

Yeah good thing Washington did that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bret]

Ah, definitions!

You misunderstood. I was depicting a conversation between two people, one being a Nazi and another being a resident who has knowledge of people hiding so that they are not exterminated. My point is that sometimes doing the morally right thing requires one to be dishonest and lie to those who are doing the morally wrong thing.

Are you really equating those of us who follow the NFA laws and regulations to Nazis and people who would turn in a human for eradication???

Not at all. I was responding to Butch's wishing jail upon another for not following a law that he himself is against. I personally follow all gun related laws, not because they are right, but because a cost/benefit analysis makes them not worth breaking. I have no problem with any person who breaks a gun control law so long as they do not do anything morally wrong or help another to do the same.

[BufordTJustice]

This is all tantamount to discussing the morality of violating the laws of prohibition.

I find it difficult to morally, or legally, condemn the perpetrators of victimless crimes, using the logically and constitutionally baseless legal concept of "constructive possession"..... which is then FURTHER stretched to enable a government employee to, literally, read another person's mind.

All this to satisfy the legal precept of mens rea, or guilty mind.

Sans proof of mens rea for charges of possession, a crime literally fails to exist.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

[jpmuscle]

This is all tantamount to discussing the morality of violating the laws of prohibition.

I find it difficult to morally, or legally, condemn the perpetrators of victimless crimes, using the logically and constitutionally baseless legal concept of "constructive possession"..... which is then FURTHER stretched to enable a government employee to, literally, read another person's mind.

All this to satisfy the legal precept of mens rea, or guilty mind.

Sans proof of mens rea for charges of possession, a crime literally fails to exist.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

What he said.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[st381183]

We don't know many details but what if the government found a unregistered suppressor or email conversations where he says, "My intent is to sell solvent traps so people can make unregistered suppressors!" That would prove intent. Keep in mind that prosecutors rarely move forward with charges unless the case is a slam dunk. 23 years in law enforcement and DAs and federal prosecutor want wins, not loses or draws.

A lot of people hang their hat on the nail of the government proving intent. Intent is easily proven, if you do A, your intent was to do A. It is up to you to prove what your intent was if you do A and your intent was B. I killed Bill but my intent was only to really hurt him, not kill him. Guess what, you are still guilty of homicide, they just change the name to manslaughter or negligent homicide to make you feel better.