Analysis of the Bob Stewart Raid
By Nancy Johnson - Attorney at Law - Posted: 06.22.00 http://www.sierratimes.com/ednj062200.htm
The Maddi Griffin gun case bears an uncanny resemblance to the hydroponics store cases of the early nineties. If the federal
governement is true to form, the Bob Stewart arrest may be just the beginning of a nasty precedent
being set. I served as a defender of one of those victims; a gentle woman
whose family's picture was hung in the Human Rights and Drug War exhibit
that was seen throughout the U.S. As Mikki Norris, Chris Conrad, and
Virginia Resner so aptly described this investigation:
"The targets were hydroponics stores and their customers all over the country. They would copy down the license plate
numbers of customers, follow and spy on them, steal their garbage, and subpoena utility bills to check for high electrical
usage."
(M. Norris, C. Conrad & V. Resner, Shattered Lives, Portraits from Americas Drug War, Creative Xpressions, El Cerrito, CA
(1998)).
Out of 83 raids, only 5 people testified (under threat of long prison terms) that they were personal friends of the Tuckers who knew that they were using the
equipment to grow marijuana. This formed the basis for a conspiracy conviction. But then at sentencing, they were sentenced for plants grown by people who
never said more to them than "do you take American Express?"
In the Bob Stewart case, the sale of the kits to assemble an unserviceable firearm is on a par with the sale of hydroponics to grow strawberries. Yes, it is possible
to do something else with it, but the owner has no way of knowing which of his customers are of that mindset.
There was a time in our not-too-distant history when the Supreme Court refused to allow the government to extend its tentacles quite so far. In United States v.
Falcone, 311 U.S. 205 (S. Ct. 1940), the defendants had been convicted of conspiracy as a result of mass distributing products such as sugar, yeast and cans
during Prohibition. They knew that some of their products would be used in illicit distilleries, but did not know specifically which buyers ran illegal distilleries.
The quantities and identity of the products were such as to put the distributors on notice that the products could be used for such purposes.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's reversal of the defendant's conviction because "the act of supplying or some other proof must import an
agreement or concert of action between buyer and seller, which admittedly is not present here." The Court's holding requires a showing by the government
that the accused specifically knew (not merely suspected) that the products sold would be used to further an illegal conspiracy:
"The gist of the offense of conspiracy as defined by 37 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 88, is agreement among the conspirators to commit an offense attended
by an act of one or more of the conspirators to effect the object of the conspiracy. Those having no knowledge of the conspiracy are not conspirators; and one
who without more furnishes supplies to an illicit distiller is not guilty of conspiracy even though his sale may have furthered the object of a conspiracy to which
the distiller was a party but of which the supplier had no knowledge."
This case was limited but never expressly overruled.
Now we are faced with yet another stretch in the Stewart case. "To say these weapons aren't meant for firing is a joke," a BATF agent said. The kits require
assembly of various parts that, when retrofitted, form a single-shot rifle capable of firing four-to-five inch shells. The shells are capable of firing up to 3,000
meters and can penetrate an inch and a half of steel, Mangan said. (Arizona Tribune, July 20, 2000).
"We see no legitimate use for a gun like this unless you're in the military," he said. "No vest in the world could protect a law enforcement officer from a gun like
this."
I am concerned that Mr. Stewart will suffer a fate similar to the Tuckers. I know what the Constitution says. If it applied in federal court these days, there would
be no need to write this. Perhaps they already have a few customers who will testify (in exchange for leniency of course) that Mr. Stewart explained to them how
to have the guns retrofitted, or perhaps they will find such people in the course of their investigation. But if he is convicted, he will be sentenced for every single
weapon he sold as though
he personally retrofitted it for them. He could be in prison for life.
Let's make this clear: This is not what I want to see happen. This is just another example of the fact that we are losing our Second Amendment Rights. Read
on...
It did not take a computer scientist to predict that the tyranny of the drug war, like that of prohibition, would soon expand to other areas. They always start with
an unpopular victim. But most conservatives were asleep at the switch on this issue because we do not like drugs. Some, Mr. Larry Pratt for instance, along with
this author, tried to warn others just how dangerous the drug war was.
Perhaps if we fought as hard for the issues that are not our own we could win this battle. If only it was not too late.
The ugly precedent here is that like the IRS, OSHA, BLM and the FDIC, the ATF has joined the ranks of alphabet soup agencies who engage in rule-making by
fiat. Meaning: no notice; no comment, just that anything they deem illegal...is. Even if it was legal when you bought it. Nice weapon to use in the anti-gun war
when you can't get a bill past the House of Representatives.
Final note to those who purchased those kits: Due to the fact that records may have been stolen from the Stewart residence, if (read: when) their investigation
continues, expect a visit from your local jackboot.
Remember: they are allowed to lie to you, you are entitled to legal counsel, and you have the right to keep your mouth shut.
Nancy Johnson
NORML Board Member, FIJA Board member
By Nancy Johnson - Attorney at Law - Posted: 06.22.00 http://www.sierratimes.com/ednj062200.htm
The Maddi Griffin gun case bears an uncanny resemblance to the hydroponics store cases of the early nineties. If the federal
governement is true to form, the Bob Stewart arrest may be just the beginning of a nasty precedent
being set. I served as a defender of one of those victims; a gentle woman
whose family's picture was hung in the Human Rights and Drug War exhibit
that was seen throughout the U.S. As Mikki Norris, Chris Conrad, and
Virginia Resner so aptly described this investigation:
"The targets were hydroponics stores and their customers all over the country. They would copy down the license plate
numbers of customers, follow and spy on them, steal their garbage, and subpoena utility bills to check for high electrical
usage."
(M. Norris, C. Conrad & V. Resner, Shattered Lives, Portraits from Americas Drug War, Creative Xpressions, El Cerrito, CA
(1998)).
Out of 83 raids, only 5 people testified (under threat of long prison terms) that they were personal friends of the Tuckers who knew that they were using the
equipment to grow marijuana. This formed the basis for a conspiracy conviction. But then at sentencing, they were sentenced for plants grown by people who
never said more to them than "do you take American Express?"
In the Bob Stewart case, the sale of the kits to assemble an unserviceable firearm is on a par with the sale of hydroponics to grow strawberries. Yes, it is possible
to do something else with it, but the owner has no way of knowing which of his customers are of that mindset.
There was a time in our not-too-distant history when the Supreme Court refused to allow the government to extend its tentacles quite so far. In United States v.
Falcone, 311 U.S. 205 (S. Ct. 1940), the defendants had been convicted of conspiracy as a result of mass distributing products such as sugar, yeast and cans
during Prohibition. They knew that some of their products would be used in illicit distilleries, but did not know specifically which buyers ran illegal distilleries.
The quantities and identity of the products were such as to put the distributors on notice that the products could be used for such purposes.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's reversal of the defendant's conviction because "the act of supplying or some other proof must import an
agreement or concert of action between buyer and seller, which admittedly is not present here." The Court's holding requires a showing by the government
that the accused specifically knew (not merely suspected) that the products sold would be used to further an illegal conspiracy:
"The gist of the offense of conspiracy as defined by 37 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 88, is agreement among the conspirators to commit an offense attended
by an act of one or more of the conspirators to effect the object of the conspiracy. Those having no knowledge of the conspiracy are not conspirators; and one
who without more furnishes supplies to an illicit distiller is not guilty of conspiracy even though his sale may have furthered the object of a conspiracy to which
the distiller was a party but of which the supplier had no knowledge."
This case was limited but never expressly overruled.
Now we are faced with yet another stretch in the Stewart case. "To say these weapons aren't meant for firing is a joke," a BATF agent said. The kits require
assembly of various parts that, when retrofitted, form a single-shot rifle capable of firing four-to-five inch shells. The shells are capable of firing up to 3,000
meters and can penetrate an inch and a half of steel, Mangan said. (Arizona Tribune, July 20, 2000).
"We see no legitimate use for a gun like this unless you're in the military," he said. "No vest in the world could protect a law enforcement officer from a gun like
this."
I am concerned that Mr. Stewart will suffer a fate similar to the Tuckers. I know what the Constitution says. If it applied in federal court these days, there would
be no need to write this. Perhaps they already have a few customers who will testify (in exchange for leniency of course) that Mr. Stewart explained to them how
to have the guns retrofitted, or perhaps they will find such people in the course of their investigation. But if he is convicted, he will be sentenced for every single
weapon he sold as though
he personally retrofitted it for them. He could be in prison for life.
Let's make this clear: This is not what I want to see happen. This is just another example of the fact that we are losing our Second Amendment Rights. Read
on...
It did not take a computer scientist to predict that the tyranny of the drug war, like that of prohibition, would soon expand to other areas. They always start with
an unpopular victim. But most conservatives were asleep at the switch on this issue because we do not like drugs. Some, Mr. Larry Pratt for instance, along with
this author, tried to warn others just how dangerous the drug war was.
Perhaps if we fought as hard for the issues that are not our own we could win this battle. If only it was not too late.
The ugly precedent here is that like the IRS, OSHA, BLM and the FDIC, the ATF has joined the ranks of alphabet soup agencies who engage in rule-making by
fiat. Meaning: no notice; no comment, just that anything they deem illegal...is. Even if it was legal when you bought it. Nice weapon to use in the anti-gun war
when you can't get a bill past the House of Representatives.
Final note to those who purchased those kits: Due to the fact that records may have been stolen from the Stewart residence, if (read: when) their investigation
continues, expect a visit from your local jackboot.
Remember: they are allowed to lie to you, you are entitled to legal counsel, and you have the right to keep your mouth shut.
Nancy Johnson
NORML Board Member, FIJA Board member