Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 67

Thread: Fake knights sights?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    91
    Feedback Score
    0
    If someone has a USMC KAC sight, I have a Matech for trade. I picked up at end of last deployment. Supply told me to that they didn't want it back. Hope that doesn't make me a thief.....

    I'm joking. Just because an expendable item saw service, it doesn't make the owner a thief.
    Last edited by SeaDonkey; 02-10-16 at 14:15.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    454
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    It happens.
    Not everyone knows the story on them and are tricked into buying stolen items.
    This.

    I bought two when they first hit the market, not knowing anything about the back story. Ended up getting a couple of offers I couldn't refuse and sold/traded them away, and then learned about the back-story on these. Ooops.

    I like the Magpul MBUS Pro series sights better anyway.
    It is missing the point to think that the martial art is solely in cutting a man down; it is in killing evil. It is in the strategem of killing the evil of one man and giving life to ten thousand -Yagyu Munemori

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SeaDonkey View Post
    If someone has a USMC KAC sight, I have a Matech for trade. I picked up at end of last deployment. Supply told me to that they didn't want it back. Hope that doesn't make me a thief.....

    I'm joking. Just because an expendable item saw service, it doesn't make the owner a thief.
    It would not make you a "thief" in common perception, but it would make you in possession of stolen government property. It would also make the supply clerk likely to be charged under Articles 108 and 121 of the UCMJ, but would likely just be an NJP due to the relatively low cost.

    The USMC sights are not "expendable items". The Matech may be, I don't know as I don't know the language in their contract of if they were a simple COTS buy with a different fund source.

    On the civil side, this is covered by the 9-66.000 series: http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-6...nment-property
    Here are some pertinent snippets:
    1641. Concept -- "Sell, Convey And Dispose Of Government Property Without Authority"

    The offense of selling, conveying or disposing of government property without authority can be seen simply as one form of knowing conversion. Section 641 of Title 18, however, contains a separate prohibition against this conduct. To prove a violation of this prohibition the United States must show: that the defendant sold, conveyed or disposed of; property belonging to the United States; without authority to do so; and with knowledge that he did not have authority to do so. See, e.g., United States v. Denmon, 483 F.2d 1093 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Sher, 418 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. Souza, 304 F.2d 274 (9th Cir. 1962).

    It is not necessary, however, for the government to prove that the defendant knew the property belonged to the United States as part of the prosecution under this section. See United States v. Denmon, 483 F.2d at 1095. Nor must the government show that the property was stolen from the United States. The government is not required to show how a defendant obtained possession of this property in a prosecution for sale of government property. See United States v. Sher, 418 F.2d at 915.
    1642. Concept -- Receiving, Concealing Or Retaining Stolen Property

    Section 641 of Title 18 also prohibits receipt of stolen government property. There are five elements to the offense: the defendant must receive, conceal or retain; stolen property; belonging to the United States; knowing that the property has been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted; and with the intent to convert that property to his own use or gain. See United States v. Fench, 470 F.2d 1234 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 909 (1972); Teel v. United States, 407 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1969).

    At the outset, it should be noted that the conduct proscribed by this section is set forth in the disjunctive. Thus, a defendant violates the law when he either "receives, " "conceals" or "retains" stolen property. None of these words are terms of art and they should be given their normal construction.

    The intent requirement of this section presents more serious problems. Prosecutions for receiving stolen property require proof of a compound state of mind. First, the defendant must know that the property he has received, concealed or retained is stolen. Note, however, that the defendant need not know that the property was stolen from the United States. See Baker v. United States, 429 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 957 (1970). Ownership of the property by the United States is simply a jurisdictional requirement and is not relevant to the criminal intent needed to violate the law.

    The defendant must also act with the intent to convert the property to his own use. Thus, this offense is a specific intent crime. Proof of this intent, however, does not require evidence showing that the defendant actually derived some benefit from the property. This element is satisfied merely by showing that the defendant intended to convert some property to his personal gain. See United States v. Hinds, 662 F.2d 362, 369 n. 15 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 (1982).
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    91
    Feedback Score
    0
    No shit. Your KAC sight is else an expendable item. So you find it your duty to throw this crap in the face of every soldier who has deployed, who has extra gear left over from their service to our Country. Some people need to get a life.

    If there is a guy selling dozens of these, NIW, yeah, it needs to be looked into. But application of this verbage as a blanket over the military community is offensive. It pisses me off.
    Last edited by SeaDonkey; 02-10-16 at 15:21.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SeaDonkey View Post
    No shit. Your KAC sight is else an expendable item.
    It appears that our definition of "expendable" is different.
    Mine comes from AR 735-5, in which the sights meet the criteria for "Durable Property":
    7–6. Durable property
    Durable property is personal property that is not consumed in use, does not require property book accountability, but
    because of its unique characteristics requires control when issued to the user. The following classes or types of
    property will be coded durable and responsibility assigned as follows:
    a. All hand tools in Federal supply classes (FSC) 5110, 5120, 5130, 5133, 5136, 5140, 5180, 5210, 5220, and 5280
    with a unit cost of $50.00 or more, but less than $300. When the unit of issue contains more than one item (such as,
    package, box, dozen, and so forth and the cost of a single item (unit of measurement) is less than $50.00, the hand tool
    will be treated as an expendable item at the user level, even though it is coded as durable in the AMDF contained on
    FEDLOG.
    b. Personal property having a unit cost over $300, but less than $5,000, assigned a CIIC of "U" or "7,” and a RICC
    of “0."
    c. Nonconsumable supply class 8 items as limited by AR 40–61, and not otherwise coded with an ARC of "N"
    (nonexpendable) in the AMDF contained on FEDLOG.
    d. Commercial and fabricated items similar to those items coded with an ARC of "D" (durable) in the AMDF
    contained on FEDLOG.
    e. Audiovisual production master material and copies that are accounted for under AR 25–1.
    f. Cellular phones, pagers, and research in motion (RIM) Blackberry units with a unit cost of less than $1,000.
    g. Software.
    Source: http://army.com/sites/army.com/files..._d20050228.pdf

    So you find it your duty to throw this crap in the face of every soldier who has deployed, who has extra gear left over from their service to our Country. Some people need to get a life.
    I spent plenty of time in service to my country in deployments, and I too left service with expendable items that were not unit assets.
    As I have said before, I'm not worried about that, and it would be a pretty pitiful existence running around pointing fingers at people that retained items that were essentially given to them.
    I even extend that concept to the individual that keeps a rear USMC marked sight under the impression that everybody is ok with him keeping it right along with his extra set of boots, some magazines he found, and a set of flight gloves.
    I don't find pleasure in screaming about stolen KAC sights on EBay, but when a dude is moving dozens of them along with other military issued stuff, he's doing something wrong, or is getting them from somebody that is doing something wrong.

    If there is a guy selling dozens of these, NIW, yeah, it needs to be looked into. But application of this verbage as a blanket over the military community is offensive. It pisses me off.
    I didn't write the regulations or the rules, but I know of them, and I disseminated the information in an applicable thread.
    I don't know how that applies to the "military community", or how the statement that people that are stealing stuff, are, indeed, stealing stuff is offensive.

    I didn't initiate this course of the discussion, I answered direct challenges to my statements; statements that I believe to be true.
    I didn't intend to offend or "piss off" anyone, but simply back my statements with what I believe to be supporting information.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,854
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SeaDonkey View Post
    So you find it your duty to throw this crap in the face of every soldier who has deployed, who has extra gear left over from their service to our Country. Some people need to get a life.
    Why don't you go ph-ck yourself? F2S is a stand-up guy who has bled for our country and has some awards to prove it. He is personally known by multiple members and one of the good guys.

    You on the other hand, come across as an asshole keyboard commando. Why don't you STFU unless you know what you are talking about.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,887
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 6933 View Post
    Why don't you go ph-ck yourself? F2S is a stand-up guy who has bled for our country and has some awards to prove it. He is personally known by multiple members and one of the good guys.

    You on the other hand, come across as an asshole keyboard commando. Why don't you STFU unless you know what you are talking about.
    Ease back on the throttle Ice Man. Don't get your self in trouble take a deep breath and step away for a bit and clear your head.
    Love you Pop. F*ck Cancer.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    91
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 6933 View Post
    Why don't you go ph-ck yourself?

    You on the other hand, come across as an asshole keyboard commando.
    OK "killer"… kettle black? Dork. I didn't question F2S's credibility, service or his reputation. People argue and bitch. It is the internet. Holy shit, really?

    ANYWAY… my gripe isn't with F2S. It was the delivery. Nowhere did I question his service. I understand that he has profits to protect. That is cool, I respect that. I have an issue with your average Joe being placed in the same category as the ebay humper. It pisses me off. I think it is disrespectful. Whether that is F2S's intention or not, that is how I feel about the subject.

    I have read (as many of us already have) about this subject to nauseam. Every one of these threads one can read multiple statements from guys freaking out about a USMC KAC sight (I have a couple myself, got a great deal on them too!). Yet, any person I have met who is passionate about our profession/hobby has multiple items on their rifle, or in their range boxes, or in their ammo cans/lockers, that were originally paid for by Uncle Sam… whether they know it or not. Heck, how many member on this forum have a M9 bayonet, Gerber, Benchmade, Surefire, Otis cleaning kit, Matech sight, KAC RAS, Sop-Mod stock, cans of ammo, muzzle devices ect., ect., where the owner owner knows that the origin is questionable?

    Yes, I agree, the guy humping dozens of USMC KAC sights on ebay is likely a thief, and knows that the origin of these sights is questionable. My point is that most of the persons who repeated suggest that ownership, sale, or purchase of these items is on par with theft and deceit is hypocritical at best.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    91
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    It appears that our definition of "expendable" is different.
    Mine comes from AR 735-5, in which the sights meet the criteria for "Durable Property"

    I spent plenty of time in service to my country in deployments, and I too left service with expendable items that were not unit assets.
    As I have said before, I'm not worried about that, and it would be a pretty pitiful existence running around pointing fingers at people that retained items that were essentially given to them.
    I even extend that concept to the individual that keeps a rear USMC marked sight under the impression that everybody is ok with him keeping it right along with his extra set of boots, some magazines he found, and a set of flight gloves.
    I don't find pleasure in screaming about stolen KAC sights on EBay, but when a dude is moving dozens of them along with other military issued stuff, he's doing something wrong, or is getting them from somebody that is doing something wrong.

    I didn't write the regulations or the rules, but I know of them, and I disseminated the information in an applicable thread.
    I don't know how that applies to the "military community", or how the statement that people that are stealing stuff, are, indeed, stealing stuff is offensive.

    I didn't initiate this course of the discussion, I answered direct challenges to my statements; statements that I believe to be true.
    I didn't intend to offend or "piss off" anyone, but simply back my statements with what I believe to be supporting information.
    I understand you have profits to protect. Someone doesn't take their time and $$$ to sponsor and moderate an internet forum out of the goodness of their heart. I respect that.

    As a person who has extensive military/deployment experience, you also know the tangible reality of how many of these items end up in Joe's possession. The majority of the time, it is far from deceitful. You know that. I have no doubt that you own some cherished "durable goods" that were just shorted of "gifted" to soldiers by their command. One of favorites is a Benchmade that I carried in Iraq, along with the blanket letter from our commander authorizing us to return home with it. The other is a sop mod stock stop used on my Afghanistan deployment M4. It is chewed and beat to hell, it was going to be thrown out. It is on my "go-to" rifle and it is priceless. Some fobbits kept their pristine stocks. I have no doubt a couple found their way onto ebay. Go figure.
    Last edited by SeaDonkey; 02-10-16 at 18:50.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    FYI- your shenanigans is putting you in the perilous category of becoming disappeared. Moderators of any sort are not compensated for our time here.

    Quote Originally Posted by SeaDonkey View Post
    I understand you have profits to protect. Someone doesn't take their time and $$$ to sponsor and moderate an internet forum out of the goodness of their heart. I respect that.

    As a person who has extensive military/deployment experience, you also know the tangible reality of how many of these items end up in Joe's possession. The majority of the time, it is far from deceitful. You know that. I have no doubt that you own some cherished "durable goods" that were just shorted of "gifted" to soldiers by their command. One of favorites is a Benchmade that I carried in Iraq, along with the blanket letter from our commander authorizing us to return home with it. The other is a sop mod stock stop used on my Afghanistan deployment M4. It is chewed and beat to hell, it was going to be thrown out. It is on my "go-to" rifle and it is priceless. Some fobbits kept their pristine stocks. I have no doubt a couple found their way onto ebay. Go figure.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •