PDA

View Full Version : Judge rules Police exempt from NFA


NSR500
11-02-2010, 1:41 PM
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/no-appeal-on-drew-peterson-gun-charge-dismissal.html

No appeal on Drew Peterson gun charge dismissal
November 1, 2010 3:50 PM |

Will County prosecutors have decided not to appeal a judge's decision to dismiss an illegal gun charge against former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson.

Judge Richard Schoenstedt ruled earlier this month that prosecutors had failed to prove Peterson's semiautomatic rifle wasn't protected under a federal law that gives police officers general immunity to own weapons that are illegal under state law. Authorities had charged Peterson in 2008 with possessing a Colt AR-15 with an 11-inch barrel that is illegal under state law.

State's attorney spokesman Charles Pelkie said "circumstances have changed" -- Peterson is now jailed on $20 million bail in the drowning death of his third wife -- and prosecutors didn't want to risk an appeals court decision "that would bind the entire state."

"The bottom line is, an illegal gun is not going back on the street," he said. Anyone who wanted to claim the gun from state police must show that it is registered under the National Firearms Act, something they won't be able to do, Pelkie said.

Peterson's attorney Joel Brodsky said the gun was never illegal but was pleased by the state's attorney's decision to let the case lie.

"That's the first smart move (State's attorney) James Glasgow has made in a long time," Brodsky said.

When asked if Peterson wanted his rifle back, Brodsky said he'd answer tomorrow -- after the deadline for prosecutors to file an appeal has passed.

-- Steve Schmadeke



What effects if any does this have on action against the NFA Registry?

VacaDuck
11-02-2010, 1:45 PM
That judge is an ***.

The police should never have special privileges. Laws should apply to all or none.

russ69
11-02-2010, 1:53 PM
In this case, the way I understood it was that he was allowed to own it as a police officer but when he was terminated, he didn't have the right to own it anymore. I don't think that is right. He was turned into an instant criminal when he got fired.
My personal feelings are that cops should be under the same laws as a private citizen but the reality of the situation is that in most cases there is no exposed risk of an ex-cop having what in some states might be illegal. Like I said they should not have special privileges but the risk of criminal use is very low.

Thanx, Russ

GaryV
11-02-2010, 2:04 PM
Like I said they should not have special privileges but the risk of criminal use is very low.

The risk for the average citizen is very low too (the vast majority of us never commit a violent crime), but that doesn't seem to count in our favor.

Glock22Fan
11-02-2010, 2:47 PM
The risk for the average citizen is very low too (the vast majority of us never commit a violent crime), but that doesn't seem to count in our favor.


I believe that there are stats that purport to say that police officers are more likely to commit firearms offenses than are licensed CCW holders.

yellowfin
11-02-2010, 4:44 PM
It's a step in the right direction. If they can say SOME people are exempt from the NFA, then that's at least an entry way for us to say EVERYONE is.

VacaDuck
11-02-2010, 4:48 PM
It's a step in the right direction. If they can say SOME people are exempt from the NFA, then that's at least an entry way for us to say EVERYONE is.

Hasn't worked for the approved handgun list.

Flopper
11-02-2010, 4:55 PM
It's a step in the right direction. If they can say SOME people are exempt from the NFA, then that's at least an entry way for us to say EVERYONE is.

Exactly what I was thinking.

This could actually work in our favor via an equal protection suit.

This could be interesting. . .

POLICESTATE
11-02-2010, 4:59 PM
Hasn't worked for the approved handgun list.

Not yet, be patient, the wheels of justice turn veeeeeery slowly.

nicki
11-02-2010, 5:06 PM
This is exactly the type of defendant we don't want for any gun case, especially a NFA case.

BTW, what exactly is the status with "NFA personally owned duty weapons" with regards to registration and disposition once an officer retires?

What if a officer retires, but stays on in a "reserve status"

Few years back I heard of a Arizona deputy who pulled someone over for a traffic stop, the driver came out blasting, the deputy rreturned fire with a personally owned UZI submachinegun.

It wouldn't surprise me if LEOs in other states, especially in rural areas where backup is very limited actually packed serious firepower.

Nicki

socalblue
11-02-2010, 5:06 PM
The whole issue was stupid to start. Yes, he had an SBR. Legal while he was a peace officer under BOTH state & federal law as it was tax stamped via the NFA. Now that he is no longer a peace officer the rifle is STILL legal under the NFA because he has the stamp.

Judge ruled, correctly I think, that the state can't retroactively remove the SBR approval (think about CA pulling a RAW registration after a peace officer retires - same idea). Once convicted of any felony things change.

If my assumption is in fact correct, the judge made zero ruling on the NFA, other than it potentially PROTECTS one against conflicting state laws.

Gray Peterson
11-02-2010, 5:14 PM
It's not an NFA case, per se. State law has a different firearms act than federal. They tried to make an issue over a threaded barrell and saying it was for putting on a suppressor. That doesn't make a firearm suppressor:

(e) As used in this section, the term “firearm” does not include— (1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html) of this title); and
(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html) of this title).

timdps
11-02-2010, 5:43 PM
It's a step in the right direction. If they can say SOME people are exempt from the NFA, then that's at least an entry way for us to say EVERYONE is.

That's what I was thinking. Equal protection...

tim

bigger hammer
11-02-2010, 6:35 PM
I believe that there are stats that purport to say that police officers are more likely to commit firearms offenses than are licensed CCW holders.

Never heard this before. Please show us those stats.

VacaDuck
11-02-2010, 6:40 PM
I'll support cops for the work they do, but they are no more deserving of special privileges than the guy that pulls slurpies at 7/11.

bwiese
11-02-2010, 6:59 PM
I haven't looked at case details but from the writing of the article [which could be way off - everything is an AK47 to half the reporters out there!] this is about inapplicability of *Illiinois* SBR law to this situation.

I do not see any *Federal* SBR charges here. Open question as to if those will get filed.

Many states, like CA, have bans on 'evil' guns (SBR/SBS/MG/cans) that somewhat track the Federal law.

What could be interesting is that if a cop couldn't be charged under state law for state-level violations on NFA-style firearms, then they could actually get NFA'd guns (trust or CLEO signoff if possible).

Window_Seat
11-02-2010, 7:14 PM
It's a step in the right direction. If they can say SOME people are exempt from the NFA, then that's at least an entry way for us to say EVERYONE is.

I tend to disagree more than agree with this. It's too difficult to tell when EP will apply to us, so I don't believe that LEOs should be able to enjoy having the "right" when us peasants are denied what is considered a "privilege".

OTOH, if we take it away from LEOs, they wouldn't waste any time giving it back to them via restoration of our RKBA in full.

And no, I'm not LEO bashing, let's not make this a LEO bash fest (again)...

That's what I was thinking. Equal protection...

tim

Again, yeah... but how long would it take?

When it comes to it being the most dangerous job, I think that trucking tops both career categories, so HAAAAAA... http://roundtable.truck.net/images/smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif

Erik.

NSR500
11-02-2010, 7:46 PM
From a case like this involving a cop and an NFA gun, it makes me wonder about Ajax's project linked here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=238977&highlight=ajax

In the Ajax thread most of the discussion is around CCW, but would that LEO credential open the NFA doors too?

timdps
11-02-2010, 8:01 PM
I tend to disagree more than agree with this. It's too difficult to tell when EP will apply to us, so I don't believe that LEOs should be able to enjoy having the "right" when us peasants are denied what is considered a "privilege".

Again, yeah... but how long would it take?
Erik.

The point is that it may give another possible point of attack on NFA rules.

bwiese
11-02-2010, 9:19 PM
The point is that it may give another possible point of attack on NFA rules.

Probably not.

This is not really an NFA case unless US attorney/BATF file charges.

This is about NFA-like aspects in IL law

Cokebottle
11-02-2010, 9:54 PM
That judge is an ***.

The police should never have special privileges. Laws should apply to all or none.
While I agree, this is a good thing, as it gives more ammo to fight the NFA under a number of grounds.

It wouldn't help much if the basis of the decision is that the NFA firearm is okay for on-duty use of a department-owned weapon, but if it is ruled that a cop can privately own an NFA firearm (and thus, retain it after retirement), then it's helpful.

fullrearview
11-02-2010, 9:58 PM
Hasn't worked for the approved handgun list.

Yet.....

hitman13
11-02-2010, 10:33 PM
Few years back I heard of a Arizona deputy who pulled someone over for a traffic stop, the driver came out blasting, the deputy rreturned fire with a personally owned UZI submachinegun.

It wouldn't surprise me if LEOs in other states, especially in rural areas where backup is very limited actually packed serious firepower.

Nicki
Many do pack serious firepower, and right fully so as a good amount of citizens pack SERIOUS firepower as well (as do a good amount of the criminals that the LEOs need to be policing).

I see no problems with my County Sheriff Deputies carrying / using personally owned NFA weapons, as long as their departments allow it. Hell, lots of citizens where I live carry NFA weapons as truck guns "just incase".

bigger hammer
11-03-2010, 6:53 AM
I'll support cops for the work they do, but they are no more deserving of special privileges than the guy that pulls slurpies at 7/11.

It's not about being "more deserving." It's about being tasked with a job that sometimes is made more efficient by the use of such tools.

hvengel
11-03-2010, 10:51 AM
Never heard this before. Please show us those stats.

I see you are fairly new here so perhaps you have not seen this info before. There have been numerous threads here about this and it is well documented that CCW holders have significantly lower arrest/conviction rates than police offers. Police officers have crime rates that are slightly lower then the general population were as CCW holders are much more law abiding than either the general public or police officers. The main sources for this information are reports issued by various state DOJ departments about CCW holders. Most of these date from the early period of CCW issuance (late 1980s through the 1990s). In most of these states the opponents of CCW issuance insisted that this type of information be gathered and published. Their thinking was that this would prove that CCW was a bad idea. It in fact proved exactly the opposite. In most cases the states that were doing these reports (Texas and Florida were two of these) stopped doing them because it was apparent that all these did was reinforce the arguments of CCW supporters. The assertion that CCW holders are more law abiding than police officers has been widely accepted as being true since the late 1990s.

Do some searches here or do some goggling and you will find lots of supporting information and you will not find anything to the contrary other than some unsupported assertions from anti-gun orgs.

Wherryj
11-03-2010, 11:24 AM
That judge is an ***.

The police should never have special privileges. Laws should apply to all or none.

I'd partially disagree. Police are the ones trusted to enforce the laws. As such, if there is any preferential dealing with respect to laws, police officers should be held to a higher standard.

That may sound anti-LEO to some, but I am pro-LEO. As a physician, I am held to a higher standard. The paramedic who was on break and didn't help someone at the NY coffee shop was held to a higher standard.

There is a precedent for a professional/person in a position of power to follow a higher standard.

I definitely disagree with allowing an officer to have special privileges unless that privilege is directly related to their "on the clock" duties.

Merle
11-03-2010, 1:12 PM
I'd partially disagree. Police are the ones trusted to enforce the laws. As such, if there is any preferential dealing with respect to laws, police officers should be held to a higher standard.

That may sound anti-LEO to some, but I am pro-LEO. As a physician, I am held to a higher standard. The paramedic who was on break and didn't help someone at the NY coffee shop was held to a higher standard.

There is a precedent for a professional/person in a position of power to follow a higher standard.

I definitely disagree with allowing an officer to have special privileges unless that privilege is directly related to their "on the clock" duties.

I disagree. When a person is held to a higher standard because of their occupation or training, then it's a slippery slope down towards the nationalization of talent.

"He's a doctor and he should have helped the poor guy"
"He's a scientist and he should have helped the country"
"He's a hard worker and should have helped grow food"

It begins to remind me a lot of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", where society thinks they suddenly have the right to take the effort and talent of certain individuals because they have the right and the person has the obligation to aid.

The freedom of choice for an individual is the last and ultimate right. You can choose to be free or die. If we start forcing people and enacting consequences based upon inaction, we remove the freedom to choose.

A police officer, doctor and paramedic are ultimately humans and humans make mistakes and have the right to say "no". We should not punish someone for exercising such a fundamental right.

bigger hammer
11-03-2010, 1:22 PM
I see you are fairly new here so perhaps you have not seen this info before.

You're right I've "not seen this info before."

There have been numerous threads here about this and it is well documented that CCW holders have significantly lower arrest/conviction rates than police offers.

Earlier I wrote, ...Please show us those stats. [Emphasis Added] I've still "not seen this info ..." Telling me that you believe that these stats exist is a far cry from showing them to us.

The main sources for this information are reports issued by various state DOJ departments about CCW holders.

Since you know where they come from it should be easy for you to show them to us, complete with links to the sources.

Most of these date from the early period of CCW issuance (late 1980s through the 1990s).

So, at best they're ten years old!?

In most of these states the opponents of CCW issuance insisted that this type of information be gathered and published. Their thinking was that this would prove that CCW was a bad idea. It in fact proved exactly the opposite. In most cases the states that were doing these reports (Texas and Florida were two of these) stopped doing them because it was apparent that all these did was reinforce the arguments of CCW supporters. The assertion that CCW holders are more law abiding than police officers has been widely accepted as being true since the late 1990s.

Accepted by whom?

Do some searches here or do some goggling and you will find lots of supporting information and you will not find anything to the contrary other than some unsupported assertions from anti-gun orgs.

The burden to prove that these stats exist lies with the person making the claim that they do. Telling someone else to do your research is just silly and inappropriate. You're the one making the claim, the burden to prove it is on you. If you're not up to it that's fine, but don't expect to be believed unless you show the sources. As always I'm happy to admit that I'm wrong when shown that I am. But your claim that this is the case, does not make it so.

leelaw
11-03-2010, 1:26 PM
a federal law that gives police officers general immunity to own weapons that are illegal under state law. Authorities had charged Peterson in 2008 with possessing a Colt AR-15 with an 11-inch barrel that is illegal under state law.

First, what law are they referring to?

Second, that gun isn't unlawful under state law, but federal as well (unless properly papered) so that's odd.