BATF RAIDS MAADI-GRIFFIN (part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John/az2

New member
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20000621_xex_batf_raids_g.shtml


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>BATF raids gun-kit
manufacturer
Seller of .50-caliber rifle
parts held without bail

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Ed Oliver
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com


Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms raided the Mesa, Ariz., home and workshop of a manufacturer who makes .50-caliber rifle kits, holding the man without bail at the Durango Jail in Phoenix.

BATF spokesman Tom Mangan told WorldNetDaily that Robert Stewart was arrested Friday for felony possession of firearms after agents found 38 weapons, including machine guns, inside his home.

Stewart's Maadi-Griffin .50-caliber rifles are shipped to customers as a parts kit, the assembly of which requires a small amount of machining. The kit guns are significantly cheaper than assembled rifles and come without serial numbers.

According to Mangin, the BATF Firearms Technology Branch in Washington, D.C., determined that the kits Stewart is selling are firearms because they are easily assembled into guns. Because Stewart had a previous felony conviction for possession of a machine gun, he is not allowed to own or possess any firearms, according to federal law.

"That was basically the premise for obtaining a search warrant to get inside his residence," Mangan explained.

"Once we did get inside, agents found a number of guns. We found six machine guns, including one Uzi, a Sten gun and one street sweeper," Mangan said. "There were approximately six .50-caliber kit guns in various stages, some complete, some not complete. There were 17 rifles and eight pistols, including semiautomatics and revolvers."

When asked if the weapons found by the BATF belong to Stewart, Mangan said that remained to be determined, but that the issue was irrelevant because Stewart is a convicted felon and is not supposed to have any weapons at all inside his home.

"If he's a felon, he shouldn't be possessing a .22-caliber pistol, let alone having machine guns inside his residence." Mangan said the issue as to whether the kits were legally firearms or not will make a unique case because it is a gray area of the law.

Stewart's wife, Naomi, and his attorney, James Burgess, did not return calls.

WorldNetDaily spoke to the well-known and highly-decorated former Green Beret/talk show host, Bo Gritz, who is a friend of the Stewarts. Mrs. Stewart, who was briefly handcuffed during the raid, told Gritz the federal agents were at the house from 7 a.m. until about 5:30 p.m., and confiscated all their records and inventory, according to Gritz. Bob Stewart was taken away at about 4 p.m.

According to Gritz, Naomi Stewart said that when the BATF claimed to find about 40 guns in their house, her husband Bob whispered into her ear: "Those are not our guns; they're planting those guns."

Gritz told WorldNetDaily the Stewarts were living in Utah about six years ago when Bob Stewart was featured on two magazine covers with his self-designed rifle. The BATF subsequently raided his store and asked him to stop building the Maadi-Griffin. He refused to comply, based on the Second Amendment.

A couple of days later, according to Gritz, two men entered Stewart's shop with an AR-15 and asked him to "tighten the scope." As soon as Stewart applied a screwdriver to the weapon, the two men pulled out their ATF badges and arrested him because the AR-15 had been modified to fire fully automatically.

"Now they had him working on an illegal machine gun," said Gritz. "His wife told me they didn't have a lawyer, and the government talked them into plea bargaining."

The resulting felony charge made Stewart unable legally to possess a firearm, leaving him facing a 10-year sentence for each gun reportedly found in his home on Friday.

Gritz said Naomi Stewart told him that the BATF threatened her with a paper allegedly containing her signature, which could serve as evidence that the Stewarts were manufacturing machine guns. Mrs. Stewart has her parents staying with her in case the BATF decides to come back and arrest her.

Gritz said Bob Stewart makes $144 per gun. He praised the Maadi-Griffin as "an awesome gun" that is made of the finest materials and craftsmanship, yet is affordable. He believes that combination made it only a matter of time before the ATF came to get Stewart.
[/quote]

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Now they had him working on an illegal machine gun," said Gritz. "His wife told me they didn't have a lawyer, and the government talked them into plea bargaining."[/quote]

So, what they're telling me is: he understands the Second Amendment, but he hasn't quite gotten to the Sixth Amendment yet? Hmm.

Now that we've heard one side of the story, what does the other side have to say about the 1993 arrest?

He pled guilty to a felony. If he's in the Firearms business he bloody well ought to kow what pleading guilty to a felony meant, but he pled anyway.

Then he proceeded to thumb his nose at the government.

And you're hyperventilating because he got busted?

Now he seems to be trying to do what he should have done the first time he got arrested. I don't think he's got a snowballs chance, but I wish him luck.

LawDog
 
Anyone who thinks that local LEO's won't willingly participate in increasingly oppresive gun control enforcement, just read any of "IT'S THE LAW"dog's posts in part I of this topic.

And he's "on our side"!
 
score:
3000 un registered 50BMG rifles now registered and prepped for confiscation

1 second amendment advocate in jail

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson

One of the three judges asked: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is
consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can
restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position
of the United States?"

Government attorney William B. Mateja replied simply: "Yes".

The judge then asked: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not
in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

The response was: "Exactly.[/quote]

-dZ
 
I agree with LawDog on this one. Being stupid is not a defense. If the 1993 incident is true, he should have fought it. The fact that he didn't means that he is a fool. He didn't, he plead out to a felony. He made his bed, he can sleep in it. For all those who call for enforcement of existing laws, this is one of them. Convicted felons can't own guns and to make it worse he admitted to committing the felony. It also sounds like he had other unregistered machine guns in his possession this time along with an unregistered destructive device (the Streetsweeper). If he has regular firearms in his home those could belong to his wife. As G. Gordon Liddy says, 'Mrs. Liddy has one of the finest German Lugar collections around'.
 
DON'T TURN THIS INTO A LEO FLAME-FEST!

All I'm saying here is that it's time to stop trying to play both sides. We can't and stay integral to what we say we believe.

So what if he admitted working/owning a machine gun. That is not the ultimate issue.

The fact that our government has taken these steps toward registration and confiscation is the issue, that they feel they need to prosecute (pursecute) someone for a victimless crime...

He should not be in jail, he should not have to appear in court, the "case" should be summarily dismissed and the ATF should receive a legal wedgie by being dissolved.

Unless he really did violate someone elses rights! It is the victimless crimes that are empty actions.

Who did he hurt? Just answer that ONE question.

....oh, wait a minute, I just had an epiphany...

There is indeed a victim; It's the government. They are crying because their "right" to absolute rule was stepped on, and now they are crying out for retribution in the court of "law" of their own making.

So there are no victimless crimes after all...

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
[Assuming story is true] Well, he's a hero and martyr in my mind, but the problem is HE PLEA-BARGAINED TO A FELONY!! LawDog is correct that he made his big mistake there, and should have fought the system hard THEN! The law making him a felon is/was unconstitutional, not to even mention the complete entrapment that occurred. But never ever ever plea to something you're not guilty of, unless you're prepared to face the consequences. Once you're convicted, it's over, and you can't go back and re-litigate the conviction, no matter how unconst. (with rare exception). I support this guy and his ideals 100%, because he's done nothing but exercise his constitutional right, but acknowledge that if he loses (and he probably will), it's because of a mistake he apparently made.
 
I think everyone has lost sight of the fact that most of these so-called "gun laws" are bogus. Sure, they exist, but this guy is getting railroaded pure and simple. I mean, is possession of a piece of metal a trifle different from a few other pieces of metal reason to go to jail for ten years? I mean really? And who's to say the ATF didn't plant evidence? It's not like that would be anything new for these vermin.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:
It also sounds like he had other unregistered machine guns in his possession this time along with an unregistered destructive device (the Streetsweeper)[/quote]

So?

Is a confession under duress or compulsion still a confession? Did he plead "guilty" because that was a battle he did not want to fight at the time?

Do we, or do we not believe what the Constitution says?

If we do, then stand behind it! Even if he did plead out to a felony on a possession/altering charge, SO WHAT!

What part of "shall not be infringed." (written AND adopted well before 1993) do you not understand?

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Reluctantly, I must agree with LawDog and Futo on this one. The gentleman shot himself in the foot (pun intended) back in '93. Nonetheless, the question begs asking, why did the BATF wait so long to take action? The guy hasn't exactly been doing business out of the trunk of his car in dark alleys for the past four years or so...

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
 
mk86, they're on a roll now. They have perceived public and fedgov support that they couldn't have gotten 7 years ago.

Yeah, Bob screwed up by pleading guilty to a bullsh!t charge in 1993. SFW? That doesn't change the fact that he harmed no one and therefore committed no crime.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A couple of days later, according to Gritz, two men entered Stewart's shop with an AR-15 and asked him to "tighten the
scope." As soon as Stewart applied a screwdriver to the weapon, the two men pulled out their ATF badges and arrested
him because the AR-15 had been modified to fire fully automatically.

"Now they had him working on an illegal machine gun," said Gritz. "His wife told me they didn't have a lawyer, and the
government talked them into plea bargaining."

The resulting felony charge made Stewart unable legally to possess a firearm, leaving him facing a 10-year sentence for
each gun reportedly found in his home on Friday.[/quote]

How does this "story" compare to this?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert D. STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 94-4048.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
Oct. 14, 1994.

Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Bruce S. Jenkins, J., of illegally possessing and transferring machine gun, and defendant appealed his sentence. The
Court of Appeals, McKay, Circuit Judge, held that although transcript of sentencing hearing revealed some ambiguity, taken as whole, transcript indicated that district court fully understood extent of its
discretion to give downward departure from sentencing guidelines and properly exercised that discretion.
Affirmed.

*1449
Hakeem Ishola (Earl Xaiz, on the briefs), of Yengich, Rich & Xaiz, Salt Lake City, UT, for defendant-appellant.
Matthew R. Howell, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Scott M. Matheson, Jr., U.S. Atty., and Paul M. Warner, Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief), Salt Lake City, UT, for plaintiff-appellee.

*1450
Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

McKAY, Circuit Judge.
[1][2] The defendant, Mr. Stewart, appeals the sentence imposed on him for illegally possessing and transferring a machine gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2). Mr. Stewart claims in
his appeal that the sentencing judge, believing he had no discretion at all, improperly failed to exercise the discretion available to him to give a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. In a
recent case, we observed, "the district courts have become more experienced in applying the Guidelines and more familiar with their power to make discretionary departure decisions under the Guidelines."
United States v. Barrera-Barron, 996 F.2d 244, 246 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 937, 114 S.Ct. 358, 126 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993). Thus, there must be substantial evidence in the record to support a claim
that the trial court misunderstood the extent of its discretion. See United States v. Rodriguez, 30 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir.1994). Our review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals some ambiguity,
but, taken as a whole, indicates that the court fully understood the extent of its discretion and properly exercised it.
The facts in this case are undisputed. Mr. Stewart, a gun collector, was requested by undercover police officers to obtain and deliver to them five World War II era "sten" machine guns, purportedly to be
sold to another gun collector. Mr. Stewart purchased gun kits through a mail order magazine, constructed the guns, and delivered them as specified.
At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Stewart argued that he should receive a downward departure under § 5k2.11. This section, known as the "intended use" exception, allows a downward departure where the
conduct does "not cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the offense at issue." United States Sentencing Comm'n Guidelines Manual, § 5k2.11, at 368-69 (1994).
Mr. Stewart argued that his conduct fell within this exception because he thought the guns were going to a legitimate collector, and because the type of gun involved is not an effective weapon and is
generally purchased solely as a collector's item. For these reasons, Mr. Stewart did not believe that any violent crimes and/or loss of human life would result from his sale of the weapons.

Some of the court's language could be read to suggest that the court gave inadequate consideration to this argument. However, read in its entirety, the transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that the
court fully understood the nature of its discretion and gave full consideration to Mr. Stewart's arguments before ultimately rejecting them.
Mr. Stewart's counsel points out several excerpts from the sentencing hearing transcript that he claims indicate the court's refusal to consider his motion. Most notably, the court seemed at one point to
suggest that § 5k2.11 was "mere verbiage."
Mr. Xaiz: (Referring to another case) It expressly relied on 5k2.11 which again is the lesser harms section that talks about the fact that--and this, I believe, Your Honor, is the basis for making exception to
the rule in this case, is that his conduct did not violate the spirit of the law or, as they say in the guideline, did not threaten the harm sought to be avoided here.
THE COURT: Well, now, he either violated the statute or he didn't.
Mr. XAIZ: He did violate the statute.
THE COURT: Then we ought not to temper something like that with what is essentially verbiage. It seems to me that we've either got a statutory violation or we haven't.
Transcript of Proceedings--Sentencing, at 13-14.
The court also used language such as "I'm required" and "I have no choice."

It is clear from the context, however, that these words indicate the court's general dissatisfaction with the sentencing guidelines rather than a misapprehension of them.
The bulk of the evidence indicates that the court gave full consideration to Mr. Stewart's motion, and indeed was looking for a way to reduce his sentence. After counsel's initial explanation of the motion,
the court stated, *1451
"I haven't seen anything here in a specific nature that I can use as a basis for a finding." Tr. at 12. Shortly thereafter, the court told counsel, "it's your job to assist me in giving me a basis for making
findings as to matters not considered by the Sentencing Commission." Tr. at 14.
The court went to considerable lengths to explore the merits of Mr. Stewart's claims, asking a number of questions designed to elicit responses that would establish the appropriateness of applying the
intended use/lesser harms exception.
THE COURT: Now, this defendant was a collector?
Mr. Xaiz: Yes, Mr. Stewart was a collector.
THE COURT: But in this instance, he wasn't acting as a collector.
Mr. Xaiz: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: How many guns did he modify?
Mr. Xaiz: There were five.... He constructed five guns.
THE COURT: And he sold five guns?
Mr. XAIZ: That's correct.
Tr. at 7-8.
After asking counsel to recapitulate his argument on § 5k2.11 ("Okay. Now, tell me again your theory on that." Tr. at 15), the court made several comments which revealed that it did not think that a
downward departure was appropriate under this exception.
When told that Mr. Stewart believed that the gun would not be used on the street, the court asked, "How does he know?" The court continued, "You put it (a gun) in commerce. It's going to end up
somewhere, and it isn't necessarily going to end up in a file case someplace or display case somewhere." Tr. at 17. Upon being told that it wasn't a functional weapon, the court remarked, "I take it it shoots
live bullets." Tr. at 18.
These and other passages from the transcript indicate that the court gave full consideration to Mr. Stewart's argument and properly exercised his discretion to deny the downward departure. Any
ambiguities arise from the court's overall discontentment with the guidelines, and clearly do not rise to the level required by United States v. Rodriguez for this court to find an abuse of discretion.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
END OF DOCUMENT
[/quote]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Anyone who thinks that local LEO's won't willingly participate in increasingly oppresive gun control enforcement, just read any of "IT'S THE LAW"dog's posts in part I of this topic.

And he's "on our side"![/quote]

*sigh*

Now where, exactly, do you pull -quote"willingly participate in increasingly oppresive gun control enforcement"unquote- out of me pointing out that the man had been convicted of a felony several years previously?

LawDog
 
I still find it curious that BATF waited so long to take action. Something stinks here. While Coinneach's "perceived public and fedgov support" theory has at least some merit, there's more to it than that. What, I don't know. There are at least three sides to this story - Stewart's, the government's, and the truth (probably somewhere in between).

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
 
A note about LawDog - I only know him through this forum, but I suspect he'd turn in his badge before he'd "willingly participate in increasingly oppresive gun control enforcement" ala confiscation, et al.

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top