Judge clears Illinois officer of gun charge

So, if I found myself in jail, charged with a law that is vague to my understanding, would it be a defense for me at trial....I think not.
Click to expand...
Read my comment fully and read the judges comments fully
Herndon wrote that the federal law granting that authority was too vague in
this instance to support the charges against Vest.
Click to expand...
Herdon made no mention of Vest's mental ability to understand but on the vagueness of the law which makes the law hard to understand

The law was so poorly written, according to the judge's reasoning, that it was not reasonably possible for the accused to understand the vague intricacies of it.
The same findings would apply to any defendant, as written by the judge.
If you run afoul of a law that a judge cannot even decipher then you too will get off.
At the very least if you can find a lawyer good enough to convince a judge of that then you will get off
Defendants are released every day on lame technicalities like this, but you have to see past your prejudice to accept that.

What is the square root of X ?

Are you ignorant because you can't answer that question or can you not answer the question because the information necessary to answer the question is not available?
 
Do not believe me? try to get an answer about "fannypack carry" in Illinois. Another member of this board ISP2605 stated that when he was employed by the state police that they asked all 102 states attorneys in Illinois how they handled the law. None would give an answer to the state police who were supposed to enforce the law.
Click to expand...
Who has tried to get an answer from a judge in the same manner that Vest got an answer from a judge?
Do we know that a finding of unconstitutionally vague would not be assigned to a "fanny pack carry" case ?

If he didn't understand what he was doing was against the law, why did he falsify documents to obtain the gun?
Click to expand...
Where has it been established that he falsified documents?
That issue was part of the charge by the prosecution and part of the defense.
The judge apparently saw the documents as part of the vagueness of the law
 
Are you ignorant because you can't answer that question or can you not answer the question because the information necessary to answer the question is not available?
Click to expand...


Not ignorant at all. I know if it was a citizen, non LEO, the trial would not have gone that far. Citizen would have already been convicted...slam dunk..
 
I know if it was a citizen, non LEO, the trial would not have gone that far. Citizen would have already been convicted...slam dunk..
Click to expand...
And how could you possibly KNOW that.
Have you been diggin under the rabbit cage for mind reader pills ?

Vest's argument basically is that the law contradicts itself in his case, the judge agrees and found the law unconstitutionally vague as it applies to him.

Unconstitutional laws are struck down all the time
 
Although the transfer records appear to indicate that the machine gun
was registered to the Illinois State Police, the Government bases its prosecution upon
the theory that Vest allegedly “illegally utilized Illinois State Police letterhead to
compose a letter to obtain the . . . machine gun,” as well as “illegally utilized an
Illinois State Police Tax Exception Letter in conjunction with the illegal[ly] composed
letter on the ISP letter head” (Doc. 21, Ex. 2, p. 2 - ATF Investigation Report).
Accordingly, the Government contends Vest lacked authority to purchase the
machine gun on behalf of the Illinois State Police, and therefore illegally possessed
the weapon.
Click to expand...

http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/06-30011_US_v._Vest_-_order_granting_MTDs.pdf

There is more to this than meets the eye. I stand by my original opinion. If this were a non LEO, he would be in the gray bar hotel by now..

Lots of good info on the link liliysdad provided. The info is almost as interesting as some of the comments from LEO's over there.

liliysdad, saw your posts overthere, you get it, thank you for speaking your mind.
 
I read that also and the key words in you quote are
the Government bases its prosecution upon
the theory
Click to expand...
and
the Government contends
Click to expand...
As I said this is the basis of the givernment case that the judge ruled against therefore

I stand by my original opinion. If this were a non LEO, he would be in the gray bar hotel by now..
Click to expand...
And I stand by my original response to that opinion
Common sense tells us that the outcome would have to be different because the basis of the judge's decision is that as a LEO the law was vague concerning Vest.

How can some thing so simple be so hard for some to understand?
 
I personally find it hard to believe the officer in question didnt know he had to register the gun for official use, or how to do it.A quick google search led me to ATF Form 10, which is the form used by a governmental agency to register NFA weapons for official use. If he DIDN'T fill out and send in the form, then there is NO excuse about a "vague law" or that the info is difficult to find, and the guy is guilty in my opinion,as I found it in about 30 seconds, and I'm not a LEO firearms instructor.
If the problem was that he filed the form, but someone later decided that he wasnt the "authorized official" the form requires, and the BATFE approved it anyway, then I would say he did nothing wrong as it would be a vague departmental policy issue within his agency, and he would really only have violated his departments policy (not a crime, just an internal administrative issue between him and his agency) and it was the BATFE's mistake for approving the form without doing thier homework, and the guy shuldn't be held responsible legaly.

Hard to say for sure as I couldn't really find out EXACTLY what was/wasn't done by the officer and/or his department.

here's the ATF Form 10 if anyone's interested:
http://www.titleii.com/pdf/form10.pdf
 
Thanks for the link.I apparently missed it when it was posted a few replies ago.My bad.Sounds to me like the law is vague enough for him to be clear on 2 of the 3 charges, but I dont really see where it says wehter the failure to register charge comes from the fact it was registered to the department, but the govt. is saying that doesnt count as the weapon was his due to what they consider an unauthorized transfer, or if it wasnt registered at all.If he registered it to the department, I'd say he should be 100% cleared based on the info, but if he didn't register it at all, then I think he should still have to answer for that as he could easily find out it had to be regisered.
So unless it's in there and I missed it, if he registered it to his department, he should be 100% innocent, but if he didn't register it at all, he broke the law and should have been able to know that with little effort. As to the "authority" issue, I think if he did have his immidiate superiors ok to purchase, that could reasonably qualify under the wording of the law, as it doesnt say it has to be authorized by the chief, captain, the attorney general, etc, so an ok from his superior seems like a reasonable assumption he had the "authority" required.
 
Other than the opinion of some that this is cops

get away with what we can't. Where is the real crime? failure to fill out government paper work? He didn't pay the right tax?

Seems like the weapon was only used for education of other officers.
 
I would feel better about Vest if he took the defense that the law was unconstitutional for all, but I can't say that I would so I can't fault him too much
But then again I would not break a law that required an extended state vacation as the penalty.
If I was unsure of my standing I would write the aforementioned letter to the ATF and keep a copy with the gun if it seemed to favor me.

But the bottom line is he found an attorney who found a loophole ,exploited it and was able to convince the judge that he was not full of crap.
Anyone here can do the same thing if they can find that loophole, and that lawyer

Personally I think Vest and his lawyer really are full of crap, but that's how our system works.
If there isn't a law expressly forbidding it then it is not forbidden, and most laws have loopholes, you just have to find them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top