Assault Rifles Reported at Spenceville Range

[roostersgt]

Felon in possession is the real problem. For magazines, the state has to prove not only that the magazine was illegally imported, but that it happened within the statute of limitations. It's this latter part that makes magazine charges really hard to stick to anyone without color.

The state merely has to convince a group of gun hating jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed. Not a very difficult thing with the above fact pattern (6 year old purchasing mags?). The "story" is nonsensical.

Back to the Spencville fiasco. I read the firearms (AW's) were technically "abandoned", as no one was claiming them. The officers had every reason to run the serial numbers, regardless of whether or not they suspected them of being AW's. They could run them to determine ownership to assist in finding their owners, or to inventory them for later booking into "safe keeping". Once determined they were not RAW's, the investigation of the felony firearms crimes commences. Witnesses put both men in possession of the weapons. No violation of any 4th amendment exists, period. 4th amendment only protects people from UNREASONABLE searches/seizures.

[Citadelgrad87]

Are not.

Yawn.

[IVC]

The state merely has to convince a group of gun hating jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed.

And that it happened within last 3 years (I believe,) so the state would have to pinpoint when and how the crime occurred. The defendant could even show an old receipt, admitting the crime, but positioning it outside of the statute of limitations.

BTW, I wasn't defending the story. It's as good/bad as the "I found them in the desert," or the obnoxious "boating accident" memes. The point is that none of those stories would likely ever be told to a jury because the defendant simply wouldn't testify and would leave the state to have to settle for confiscation due to the inability to prove anything.

[IVC]

If they had statistics available the day after registration closed that showed only 10% were registered, I suspect that would be good enough to provide RS.

That's actually what we should've discussed all these pages instead of having a pissing contest - in a gun-hating state such as CA, at what point does something merely unusual become sufficient to raise to the level of reasonable suspicion?

What's important is not two felons getting popped, but how extrapolation of this framework applies to the rest of us. There were many threads about law abiding people being harassed during routine traffic stops because of gun cases (the single purpose container vs. generic container,) or because of questions such as "do you have a gun in your vehicle." There are many more examples, but they all have one thing in common: they hinge upon some aspect of gun ownership creating reasonable suspicion where consent for search is no longer required or where detention is justified.

[IVC]

Yawn.

Night night.

[roostersgt]

And that it happened within last 3 years (I believe,) so the state would have to pinpoint when and how the crime occurred. The defendant could even show an old receipt, admitting the crime, but positioning it outside of the statute of limitations.

BTW, I wasn't defending the story. It's as good/bad as the "I found them in the desert," or the obnoxious "boating accident" memes. The point is that none of those stories would likely ever be told to a jury because the defendant simply wouldn't testify and would leave the state to have to settle for confiscation due to the inability to prove anything.

You're most likely correct in the scenario described in your second paragraph. I sure wouldn't want to go through being arrested, paying a retainer and sweating out my defense for some stupid magazines that would likely be confiscated anyway, at the very least. The more incredible and unlikely the scenario, the more likely one is to be hassled by the state/feds. The more one tries to be smart / cute, the harder LEO's go in trying to make their lives miserable. Leo's love a challenging smart guy. This thread isn't about any other incident other than the two imbeciles who got arrested at Spenceville for their stupidity. It has nothing to do with gun cases in vehicles etc....

[roostersgt]

Not going to believe this but, I just met the guy and his wife who called the sheriff on the idiots at Spenceville. Was at Sportsmans Warehouse browsing the bulk rifle ammo section and overheard them telling a clerk about the incident. They said the idiots had a fully automatic AK with a huge drum and were emptying it down range, often while others were changing targets etc....

The caller was there for a "bachelor party" and said the idiots were firing wildly and couldn't control the muzzle, due to it being full auto. He said brass was hitting everyone and pelting their cars, which they hid behind while awaiting the sheriff for nearly two hours. He said they had to wait around another two hours to give witness statement, along with any others. The man and his wife still appeared to be pretty shaken up over the ordeal and believed the shooters to be druggie / cartel types, and complete idiots.

[jeffyhog]

Well that would explain a lot of questions brought up in this post if they truly had automatic weapons.

[mosinnagantm9130]

Not going to believe this but, I just met the guy and his wife who called the sheriff on the idiots at Spenceville. Was at Sportsmans Warehouse browsing the bulk rifle ammo section and overheard them telling a clerk about the incident. They said the idiots had a fully automatic AK with a huge drum and were emptying it down range, often while others were changing targets etc....

The caller was there for a "bachelor party" and said the idiots were firing wildly and couldn't control the muzzle, due to it being full auto. He said brass was hitting everyone and pelting their cars, which they hid behind while awaiting the sheriff for nearly two hours. He said they had to wait around another two hours to give witness statement, along with any others. The man and his wife still appeared to be pretty shaken up over the ordeal and believed the shooters to be druggie / cartel types, and complete idiots.

If that actually happened as they described, I think that's a pretty valid reason to call the sheriff.

[CBR_rider]

Not going to believe this but, I just met the guy and his wife who called the sheriff on the idiots at Spenceville. Was at Sportsmans Warehouse browsing the bulk rifle ammo section and overheard them telling a clerk about the incident. They said the idiots had a fully automatic AK with a huge drum and were emptying it down range, often while others were changing targets etc....

The caller was there for a "bachelor party" and said the idiots were firing wildly and couldn't control the muzzle, due to it being full auto. He said brass was hitting everyone and pelting their cars, which they hid behind while awaiting the sheriff for nearly two hours. He said they had to wait around another two hours to give witness statement, along with any others. The man and his wife still appeared to be pretty shaken up over the ordeal and believed the shooters to be druggie / cartel types, and complete idiots.

So wait, they aren't sellouts to the anti's, government agents, jealous of someone else who (possibly) had a RAW and they didn't, etc???? Well this is alot less controversial than so many of the scenarios presented by others here. You are no fun.

[Spyder]

Huh. Imagine that. A legitimate reason for a deputy to be called, exactly like was stated was quite likely to IVC dozens of times.

[wisardd1]

Gangsters don't go to the range. They tend to keep it in the neighborhood.!

[IVC]

Huh. Imagine that. A legitimate reason for a deputy to be called, exactly like was stated was quite likely to IVC dozens of times.

Read the thread. The stated reason for calling the deputy was different. Full auto is not even close to BB-less semi-auto.

If you can't let it go, at least try to stick to the facts.

[Citadelgrad87]

Read the thread. The stated reason for calling the deputy was different. Full auto is not even close to BB-less semi-auto.

If you can't let it go, at least try to stick to the facts.

You should take your own advice. Read this page, above, a poster spoke to the two individuals who say they called.

They called for full auto and idiocy, not a missing bullet button. The missing bullet button claim was pure speculation, and, apparently, wrong.

You may choose to disregard the story as it has been related, of course, there's no basis to do so other than your own bias, but wagging your finger at others and asking them to stick to the facts is silly at best, given what's posted above.

[IVC]

You should take your own advice. Read this page, above, a poster spoke to the two individuals who say they called.

They called for full auto and idiocy, not a missing bullet button. The missing bullet button claim was pure speculation, and, apparently, wrong.

The discussion from the past few pages was about the AW statute, exemption for RAWs and whether observing a configuration with features and without BB is sufficient to formulate RS or PC for search and running the S/N. It had nothing to do with full auto or whether speculation was right or wrong.

You are defending Spyder's post that "A legitimate reason for a deputy to be called, exactly like was stated was quite likely to IVC dozens of times." - show one post where I argued anything about full auto.

So, in addition to Spyder, you should also take my advice - at least read the thread if you want to keep your condescending tone.