41 monnths for an unregistered silencer

RwWilly · Aug 23, 2016

http://www.daggerpress.com/2016/08/...nced-for-possession-of-unregistered-silencer/

This dude broke about every law & the state allows him to cope a plea. Still a stiff sentence, but! Straw purchase, manufacturing and silencers.
A perfect nut for the gun control side to use as a poster boy.

outrider58 · Aug 23, 2016

RwWilly said:
http://www.daggerpress.com/2016/08/...nced-for-possession-of-unregistered-silencer/

This dude broke about every law & the state allows him to cope a plea. Still a stiff sentence, but! Straw purchase, manufacturing and silencers.
A perfect nut for the gun control side to use as a poster boy.

Meh, just a hobbyist. Nothing to see here... :sarcasm:

Unfortunately, the country is full of these guys, it seems.

BTW, love your suit... :brows:

adit · Aug 23, 2016

"Solvent Trap Adapter"....

babalou · Aug 23, 2016

Oh shiite

outrider58 said:
Meh, just a hobbyist. Nothing to see here...

Unfortunately, the country is full of these guys, it seems.

BTW, love your suit...

Hahaha here we go. Hahaha. Love your suit. Hahaha

Blacksmith101 · Aug 24, 2016

Looks like he was also making machine guns.....

.....the ATF purchased six automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles as well as two silencers from Candelario.

Seems he got off easy, probably a Clinton Foundation contributor.

Doctor_M · Aug 24, 2016

To me the manufacture and unlicensed sale of full auto rifles is a much bigger story than the solvent trap/fuel filter charge. He got off every easy if the article is accurate.

Mike · Aug 24, 2016

Basis for appeal of conviction:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

Well, we can dream, can't we?

Pushrod · Aug 24, 2016

Neither of those should be illegal. B.S. laws.

Lloyd · Aug 24, 2016

Pushrod said:
Neither of those should be illegal. B.S. laws.

I somewhat disagree.

He was selling them to who knows who, but more than likely people that we mostly agree are not responsible enough/ have a history of violent behavior.

For himself, perhaps, but selling to those who are criminals, not so much.

IMO he got off easy and he gives gun owners a bad rep and will likely increase the scrutiny on 80%

Mike · Aug 24, 2016

Pushrod said:
Neither of those should be illegal. B.S. laws.

Lloyd said:
I somewhat disagree.

He was selling them to who knows who, but more than likely people that we mostly agree are not responsible enough/ have a history of violent behavior.

For himself, perhaps, but selling to those who are criminals, not so much.

IMO he got off easy and he gives gun owners a bad rep and will likely increase the scrutiny on 80%

If someone is not "good enough" to possess a firearm, then they should not be free to roam the streets with the rest of us. So back to what Pushrod said.

nmyers · Aug 24, 2016

Seems odd that the only place we heard of this story is a 1-man blog. Nothing in the Baltimore Sun.

Also seems odd that headline seeker Rosenstein didn't refer the case to the feds for prosecution.

Also seems odd that someone who would do anything this stupid is smart enough to know how to convert a semi-auto AR to full auto.

I don't know, I would like to see another source for this article.

gorckat · Aug 24, 2016

nmyers said:
Seems odd that the only place we heard of this story is a 1-man blog. Nothing in the Baltimore Sun.

Also seems odd that headline seeker Rosenstein didn't refer the case to the feds for prosecution.

Also seems odd that someone who would do anything this stupid is smart enough to know how to convert a semi-auto AR to full auto.

I don't know, I would like to see another source for this article.

Looks like the Dagger is a copy paste from the .gov site:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/...after-pleading-guilty-possession-unregistered

Edit: It was already in US District court, so no referral to feds needed.

His local case history suggests he either has a good attorney, or someone at the fed level had them stet a bunch of charges to wrap this case up.

sbmike · Aug 24, 2016

Mike said:
If someone is not "good enough" to possess a firearm, then they should not be free to roam the streets with the rest of us. So back to what Pushrod said.

So if a felon completes his or her sentence and is freed, they should be able to go out and legally buy a firearm? Given the recidivism rate for the majority of criminals, do think that is a wise concept?

Mike · Aug 24, 2016

sbmike said:
So if a felon completes his or her sentence and is freed, they should be able to go out and legally buy a firearm? Given the recidivism rate for the majority of criminals, do think that is a wise concept?

No "early release" programs. If they return to the crime, never release program levied.

janklow · Aug 25, 2016

Mike said:
No "early release" programs. If they return to the crime, never release program levied.

...didn't really answer his question, though

Lloyd · Aug 25, 2016

Mike said:
If someone is not "good enough" to possess a firearm, then they should not be free to roam the streets with the rest of us. So back to what Pushrod said.

Duly noted, but we all know how well that has been working. We have to work in world we live, and not some hypothetical utopia.

My statement stands...

sbmike said:
So if a felon completes his or her sentence and is freed, they should be able to go out and legally buy a firearm? Given the recidivism rate for the majority of criminals, do think that is a wise concept?

This

eruby · Aug 25, 2016

babalou said:
Hahaha here we go. Hahaha. Love your suit. Hahaha

Hannibal Lecter apporves.

sbmike said:
So if a felon completes his or her sentence and is freed, they should be able to go out and legally buy a firearm? Given the recidivism rate for the majority of criminals, do think that is a wise concept?

Yes.

davsco · Aug 25, 2016

Mike said:
If someone is not "good enough" to possess a firearm, then they should not be free to roam the streets with the rest of us.

yep if they can't be trusted with (or to abstain from) guns or violence, they should remain in jail. don't infringe on us law-abiding folks' 2A rights because you want to let violent criminals out of jail but still don't trust them.

j_h_smith · Aug 25, 2016

He's a playa. I did a search on his name and brought up his facebook page. There are a few pictures of him with an AR15. But mostly he's a lady's man. I wonder how much sleep he's going to get in those 41 months. Interesting thing, his sister is now posting updates on his FB page and she said he was facing 10 years. Does that sound about right? Seems a little light to me.

aireyc · Aug 27, 2016

Anybody who thinks physical items can be banned in any capacity is no better than the antis as far as I'm concerned. How do people not realize that if you think you should deny someone access to something, you're no different than the very people you fight against? You just want to ban a different set of things under the premise that "MY BANS/RESTRICTIONS WILL ACTUALLY DO GOOD" while dismissing someone else's view that is essentially the same. Until people wake up to the fact that the left and right are very similar in logic, we're going to keep circling the drain. So basically that means forever.

41 monnths for an unregistered silencer

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Eats Bacon Raw

ReMember

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Certified Mad Scientist

Propietario de casa, Toluca, México

Master Blaster

Ultimate Member

Propietario de casa, Toluca, México

Active Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Propietario de casa, Toluca, México

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics