PDA

View Full Version : CA convicted: AW charges & machinegun possession.


bwiese
03-18-2005, 2:39 PM
Article is at:

http://www.uniondemocrat.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=16796

Sounds like guy had FFL and was inspected by ATF and that's when the sh*t hit the fan...

Bill Wiese
San Jose



----------------------------------------------
Car dealer guilty in weapons case

14 March 14, 2005

By MIKE MORRIS

A jury late Friday afternoon convicted an Angels Camp businessman of violating state law by possessing a machine gun and nine assault weapons.

Richard Wilmshurst, co-owner of Forty-Niner Subaru, remains free on his own recognizance and will be sentenced next month.

"There was no doubt there was possession (of the weapons)," said juror Jennifer Eltringham, 53, of Angels Camp.

She said the guilty verdict was not easily reached. But after listening to more than a day's worth of testimony, combined with the judge's instructions, jurors found Wilmshurst guilty of the two counts.

Wilmshurst, 68, said after Friday's hearing that the verdict did not surprise him given California's strict gun laws.

"They're pretty tough in this state, right or wrong," he said. "They go against the other 49 states, but I happen to live in California."

A federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent reported the guns to state officials in January 2003 after finding them during a routine inspection on Wilmshurst's private property.

When state authorities returned to Angels Camp, they found 10 guns that are illegal to possess under California law, said Deputy Attorney General Aaron Maguire.

A jury of seven men and five women deliberated for about an hour Friday afternoon in Calaveras County Superior Court. A few people, including Wilmshurst's son, sat in the courtroom as a court clerk read the verdict.

Along with Sonora attorney Thomas Marovich, Wilmshurst represented himself in trial last Thursday and Friday.

He maintains that his federal gun import license supersedes state laws.

"California doesn't recognize anybody but California," he said after the trial.

Wilmshurst said he had the guns at home because he and his longtime friend, who died in Wyoming, were going to go into business together, selling the guns to law enforcement and airport security crews.

His friend died in 2002, the year before the weapons were found.

On Feb. 11, Wilmshurst said he filed an appeal of his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco so he can "get a reading on the Second Amendment as it applies to individuals in the United States."

A portion of the Second Amendment reads,

" ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Wilmshurst, who said he hopes his case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by a three-judge panel, was not sure when the panel will hear his case.

"It's due to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court," Wilmshurst said.

As for the state case, Thomas Smith, a visiting El Dorado County judge, set a deadline of today for Wilmshurst to schedule an interview with the Calaveras County Probation Department.

That interview will help determine his sentence. A sentencing hearing will be held at 9:30 a.m. April 21.

Maguire would not comment on the case or what sentence Wilmshurst could face.

-----------------------------------------------
Contact Mike Morris at mmorris@uniondemocrat.com

bwiese
03-18-2005, 2:39 PM
Article is at:

http://www.uniondemocrat.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=16796

Sounds like guy had FFL and was inspected by ATF and that's when the sh*t hit the fan...

Bill Wiese
San Jose



----------------------------------------------
Car dealer guilty in weapons case

14 March 14, 2005

By MIKE MORRIS

A jury late Friday afternoon convicted an Angels Camp businessman of violating state law by possessing a machine gun and nine assault weapons.

Richard Wilmshurst, co-owner of Forty-Niner Subaru, remains free on his own recognizance and will be sentenced next month.

"There was no doubt there was possession (of the weapons)," said juror Jennifer Eltringham, 53, of Angels Camp.

She said the guilty verdict was not easily reached. But after listening to more than a day's worth of testimony, combined with the judge's instructions, jurors found Wilmshurst guilty of the two counts.

Wilmshurst, 68, said after Friday's hearing that the verdict did not surprise him given California's strict gun laws.

"They're pretty tough in this state, right or wrong," he said. "They go against the other 49 states, but I happen to live in California."

A federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent reported the guns to state officials in January 2003 after finding them during a routine inspection on Wilmshurst's private property.

When state authorities returned to Angels Camp, they found 10 guns that are illegal to possess under California law, said Deputy Attorney General Aaron Maguire.

A jury of seven men and five women deliberated for about an hour Friday afternoon in Calaveras County Superior Court. A few people, including Wilmshurst's son, sat in the courtroom as a court clerk read the verdict.

Along with Sonora attorney Thomas Marovich, Wilmshurst represented himself in trial last Thursday and Friday.

He maintains that his federal gun import license supersedes state laws.

"California doesn't recognize anybody but California," he said after the trial.

Wilmshurst said he had the guns at home because he and his longtime friend, who died in Wyoming, were going to go into business together, selling the guns to law enforcement and airport security crews.

His friend died in 2002, the year before the weapons were found.

On Feb. 11, Wilmshurst said he filed an appeal of his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco so he can "get a reading on the Second Amendment as it applies to individuals in the United States."

A portion of the Second Amendment reads,

" ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Wilmshurst, who said he hopes his case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by a three-judge panel, was not sure when the panel will hear his case.

"It's due to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court," Wilmshurst said.

As for the state case, Thomas Smith, a visiting El Dorado County judge, set a deadline of today for Wilmshurst to schedule an interview with the Calaveras County Probation Department.

That interview will help determine his sentence. A sentencing hearing will be held at 9:30 a.m. April 21.

Maguire would not comment on the case or what sentence Wilmshurst could face.

-----------------------------------------------
Contact Mike Morris at mmorris@uniondemocrat.com

Charliegone
03-18-2005, 5:40 PM
Hmm interesting case.. wonder what will happen if it does get to the 9th circuit... I'm just wondering....and hoping....

1919_4_ME
03-18-2005, 6:13 PM
That sucks...:TFH:

icormba
03-18-2005, 7:09 PM
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
"...the right of the people"

Amendment II - Right to bear arms
"...the right of the people"

Amendment IV - Search and seizure
"The right of the people..."

rkt88edmo
03-18-2005, 8:30 PM
I wonder why there was a "routine inspection by the ATF" ?

drm600
03-18-2005, 8:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ROKIT88:
I wonder why there was a "routine inspection by the ATF" ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i thought i read somewhere that ffl holders are inspected by the atf once a year or something.

rkt88edmo
03-19-2005, 12:34 AM
Oops, I missed that part about his being an FFL. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

freonr22
11-03-2009, 2:56 PM
-1-
Filed 2/6/07;modification order not provided by court until 2/23/07
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
COPY
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Calaveras)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RICHARD E. WILMSHURST,
Defendant and Appellant.
C050103
(Super. Ct. No. F3229)
ORDER MODIFYING
OPINION AND DENYING
REHEARING
[NO CHANGE IN
JUDGMENT]
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on
January 8, 2007, be modified as follows:
In the fourth sentence of the first full paragraph on
page 5 of the opinion, the words “three submachine guns” shall
be deleted and replaced with the words “a machine gun and two
assault rifles” so that the sentence reads:
* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976.1, this
opinion is certified for publication with the exception of
sections IV, V, VI, VII and VIII of the Discussion.
-2-
“Under the bed and in a wooden footlocker were a
machine gun and two assault rifles; seven other illegal
assault weapons were in the storage area.”
This modification does not change the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
FOR THE COURT:
DAVIS , Acting P.J.
HULL , J.
ROBIE , J.


So was this the Final Verdict?

OlderThanDirt
11-03-2009, 3:02 PM
Under the bed and in a wooden footlocker were a
machine gun and two assault rifles; seven other illegal
assault weapons were in the storage area

If nothing else, guilty of lame firearms storage and security.

Untamed1972
11-03-2009, 3:07 PM
Maybe the guy shoulda thought twice about defending himself aye?

freonr22
11-03-2009, 3:09 PM
So I also read he ended up with a 3 year probation and had to sell his collection (I assume loss of rights) but He had an Import lic also class 3 i believe..

freonr22
11-03-2009, 3:10 PM
Maybe the guy shoulda thought twice about defending himself aye?

He had a law degree also

bodger
11-03-2009, 3:13 PM
I know he had an FFL and that subjects him to routine inspections, but, under his bed???

As was already stated, lame storage and security procedures. But the ATF looked under his bed?

halifax
11-03-2009, 3:17 PM
Under the bed and in a wooden footlocker were a
machine gun and two assault rifles; seven other illegal
assault weapons were in the storage area.”

My ATF inspector never asked to search anywhere else but my business gun safe. Didn't even want to look in my personal safe. I guess the importer license gives them greater latitude. Or maybe someone dropped a dime on him.

HondaMasterTech
11-03-2009, 3:21 PM
This man was obviously a dangerous person and shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

pwall
11-03-2009, 3:24 PM
This man was obviously a dangerous person and shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

you forgot the smiley! ;)

five.five-six
11-03-2009, 3:25 PM
This man was obviously a dangerous person and shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

+1..

Fjold
11-03-2009, 3:34 PM
He had a law degree also

Then he should have known the law better and he should have known not to represent himself.

OlderThanDirt
11-03-2009, 3:36 PM
I know he had an FFL and that subjects him to routine inspections, but, under his bed???

As was already stated, lame storage and security procedures. But the ATF looked under his bed?

Due to budget cuts ATF has had to assume some of the duties of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services. Probably just checking for bed bugs.;)

Sort of along the lines of having fire and EMT personnel report anything illegal they might see as part of a legal (invited) house entry.

anthonyca
11-03-2009, 3:42 PM
Under his bed? Did he give consent to search or did hey have pc? He had a resale FFL or a a C and R FFL? I am assuming that he had a commercial FFL class ? and was set up to sell out of his home and that is how they were able to look under his bed.

This is an example of why people with C and R FFL should take their weapons to the ATF office and NEVER let any LEO into your home with out a warrant. I also thought the ATF didn't care about Cali laws anyway?

bwiese
11-03-2009, 3:52 PM
This is an example of why people with C and R FFL should take their weapons to the ATF office and NEVER let any LEO into your home with out a warrant. I also thought the ATF didn't care about Cali laws anyway?

ATF in general "doesn't care that much". BUT...

...if they see something that's an AW they may well refer it to DOJ or local PD.

I think they know about OLLs now and don't busy themselves sorting trivialities.

Also, ATF vs DOJ has not been a loving relationship. DOJ FD has screwed up major ATF cases.

Mitch
11-03-2009, 3:53 PM
I also thought the ATF didn't care about Cali laws anyway?

According to the original article, ATF found the machine gun; DoJ came back and found the assault weapons.

dantodd
11-03-2009, 4:43 PM
Hello! McFly. ATF just saw no-no guns in your house. Do you think it might be a good time to dispose of them BEFORE the CA-DOJ comes knocking?

I'm not suggesting anyone go out and commit a crime but Jesus you have to be stupid to get caught, let off the hook, and NOT get rid of the evidence.

Ding126
11-03-2009, 5:41 PM
this is a case of " I'm only guilty if I'm caught" ? Being an FFL holder and educated in law, he has no excuse for not complying to Ca's "current" laws.
He thought he could bend or rather twist the law to suit his needs. Just more fuel for the anti's

pTa
11-03-2009, 6:27 PM
Anyone who would represent themselves in court has a fool for a client.



...Sort of along the lines of having fire and EMT personnel report anything illegal they might see as part of a legal (invited) house entry.

FUD, FIRE/ Emergency Medical is only required to report if soemone is sowing signs of physical abuse (including the elderly)

Mute
11-03-2009, 7:43 PM
Regardless of what I think about CA gun laws this appears to be a case of simple stupidity. Someone clearly missed the ride on the little yellow bus.

Ladyfox
11-03-2009, 8:40 PM
The part I'm really curious about is the "words “three submachine guns” shall
be deleted and replaced with the words “a machine gun and two
assault rifles”" portion of the court report. I mean, how did they come to the conclusion on these items and was this based on Federal or State guidelines?

Either way while I do feel somewhat sorry for the guy he was an FFL and really should have known better. They should have disposed of whatever the "machine gun" was and made the "assault rifles" CA legal which would have avoided all of this from happening.

CSACANNONEER
11-03-2009, 9:15 PM
The part I'm really curious about is the "words “three submachine guns” shall
be deleted and replaced with the words “a machine gun and two
assault rifles”" portion of the court report. I mean, how did they come to the conclusion on these items and was this based on Federal or State guidelines?

Either way while I do feel somewhat sorry for the guy he was an FFL and really should have known better. They should have disposed of whatever the "machine gun" was and made the "assault rifles" CA legal which would have avoided all of this from happening.

This was in '04. Long before OLLs were being built by all but a very very few.