Weapons get DOT officers sacked

Oatka

New member
This happened almost a year ago and it's just being printed now?

Sounds like SWAT wannabees: "Someday, he thinks, the DOT might organize a SWAT team."
Why would the Department of Transportation need JBTs?
http://www.herald.com/thispage.htm?content/today/docs/003345.htm

Weapons get DOT officers sacked
2 fired, 1 demoted for rifle purchase
BY ARNOLD MARKOWITZ

amarkowitz@herald.com

A lieutenant and an officer in a state police agency have been fired and a sergeant demoted because of an under-the-table purchase of forbidden assault rifles, which one of them used -- against the rules -- during an off-duty traffic assignment last July 4.

The Florida Department of Transportation kicked out Lt. Juan Konieczny and officer Jorge Fernandez de Lara. Sgt. Daniel Starling was reassigned to patrol as a rank-and-file officer. All three are appealing.
They worked in Miami-Dade County at the DOT's Motor Carrier Compliance Office. That force polices commercial trucking for safety violations. Sometimes it gets involved in criminal investigations. For three arrests in 1997, Fernandez de Lara was named Officer of the Year.

The weapons that cost the men their jobs are Colt AR-15s, semiautomatic rifles commonly used by police SWAT teams. The DOT has no SWAT team. It even forbids its officers to carry ``long arms'' -- rifles and shotguns -- on duty or in their police vehicles.

Konieczny, who organized the purchase of eight AR-15s, said some officers wanted to buy their own and learn on their own to use them. Someday, he thinks, the DOT might organize a SWAT team.

``They're saying I falsified something to obtain weapons,'' Konieczny said Friday. ``I never intended falsifying anything. . . . I didn't gain anything by it.''
According to his letter of dismissal from DOT Assistant Secretary Ken Morefield, Konieczny wrote letters on DOT stationery to Lou's Gun Shop in Hialeah authorizing 11 officers to buy AR-15s.

Federal law says those can be sold only for law enforcement use.
Konieczny signed the letters as his agency's ``Miami district commander,'' a job that doesn't exist.

He said it was an honest mistake; it should have said supervisor instead of commander.
Col. Graham Fountain, chief of the DOT police, didn't go for the explanation. He recommended that Konieczny be fired for providing false information to obtain firearms, misuse of his position, falsification of records, conduct unbecoming a public employee and other violations.
Starling's demotion letter listed most of the violations charged to Konieczny, but he said his participation was innocent, too.

``Lt. Konieczny asked me to contact the dealer and ask what had to be in the letter. He told me, and I gave it to the lieutenant. Later he gave me an envelope to take to Lou's Gun Shop, and that was done. That was it.''

The envelope contained 11 letters authorizing officers to buy AR-15s. Eventually, eight of them did, for about $800 each. Konieczny said he didn't buy one. Neither did Starling.

Officer Fernandez was fired for several violations, the most serious one unlawful possession of an assault weapon. He bought it innocently, he said: ``I wasn't really too go-for-it with the idea, but I said, `OK, if everybody's going to get one, I'll get one, too.' ''

Fernandez knew letters of authorization were required, but he says he and the other buyers didn't know how Konieczny was handling that.

``If we had known, the rifles never would have been purchased,'' he said.
The other buyers were not disciplined. There was no evidence that they used the rifles on the job, Assistant Secretary Morefield said.
The police picked up their AR-15s at Lou's in June 1999. Nothing happened until the night of July 4, when Fernandez, Konieczny and two other DOT officers took an off-duty traffic control job in Miami Beach. They were hired by Cafe Cristal, a now-defunct South Beach business notorious for disturbances and occasional gunfire. Miami Beach Police turned down the traffic job, but they went there late that night when a patron shot up the place.

The gunman ran outside. Fernandez grabbed his new AR-15 from the trunk of his patrol car, jacked a bullet into the firing chamber and ran after the shooter. He felt pretty good about getting him to surrender without firing a shot, but no one awarded Fernandez a medal.

Miami Beach Police, although not ungrateful, wondered out loud what a trucking safety officer was doing with a SWAT gun. The DOT investigated. Down went Konieczny, Starling and Fernandez.

Fernandez, 28, has been a DOT officer since 1995. He is appealing his firing only to clear the stain from his record. If reinstated, he plans to quit. Konieczny, 35, has 12 years invested in the DOT police. He said he wants his job back to keep. Starling, 44, with DOT since 1995, intends to stay no matter what.

``I'm not going to hang my head,'' he said. ``I know I didn't do anything wrong. I'll continue to work hard to show them they were wrong.''

Copyright 2000 Miami Herald



------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
Miami Beach Police, although not ungrateful, wondered out loud what a trucking safety officer was doing with a SWAT gun.
So thats what they call em now!
 
I didnt know AR-s were illegal in Florida. And since when does any SWAT team use semiauto's? Sounds like this wannabe flasified papers to get Class 3 stuff without having to go through the $200 tax and CLEO letter BS. Major felony for you or me, but just a slap on the wrists for them.

------------------
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes."
-R.A. Heinlein
 
Umm, I don't think they were class III's. The pre-ban style AR's are still manufactured for law enforcement use, at a price considerably below the normal market price. I know several LEO's who have taken advantage of this. The only difference is, they did it with the approval of the Chief or Sheriff.

As far as the DOT "needing" a SWAT team, there are thousands of SWAT teams in depts. across the country that probably aren't justifiable.

Sounds like a politically motivated firing to me.
 
I think the weapons they got were LE only config. Bayo lug, FS, etc. That is what I would think at least..
 
Regardless, the real issue is that the LEOs in question broke the rules of their department, and the laws of the nation. So... They were fired. Prosecution will more than likely be forth coming. I agree on both counts.
 
"The weapons that cost the men their jobs are Colt AR-15s, semiautomatic rifles.."

Hmm, when we buy them they are called "assault rifles" by the media.

Coincidence?

CMOS :mad:

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!
 
This is too funny... Federal LEO's treated like common citizens! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :)

Konieczny, who organized the purchase of eight AR-15s, said some officers wanted to buy their own and learn on their own to use them. Someday, he thinks, the DOT might organize a SWAT team.

Hmmm... i wonder what gave them this idea???

The gunman ran outside. Fernandez grabbed his new AR-15 from the trunk of his patrol car, jacked a bullet into the firing chamber and ran after the shooter. He felt pretty good about getting him to surrender without firing a shot, but no one awarded Fernandez a medal.

"Officer Tackleburry! Put Down That Weapon!!!"

Could you imagine watching this unfold? You're sitting on the patio of a friendly pub, enjoying a diet coke ( ;)), and you hear a commotion comming down the street. You look up to see a man running by, and then see a police officer running affter him with a M-16 ASSAULT RIFLE with a great big s&!t-eating grin on his face. Holy S&!t! "Check Please!"

Guess what guys, when the GGG (Great Gun Grab) begins, we're screwed. DOT officers with SWAT TEAMS? I cant wait until we start having "no-knock" traffic stops. You know, when you're happily driving down the road, completely unconcerned. Then this deuce-and-a-half slams you from behind and a Ford Expidition hits you from the drivers' side and forces you to the side of the road. Only later you find out that you had a break light out.



------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

~USP

"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765
 
They broke the law. They used dept. letterhead to get LEO weapons and then used them in violation of the regs. Because they couldn't be legally used for duty use, they couldn't legally be obtained. These officers should face the same penalty as anyone who falsifies a letter authorizing their purchase.
 
Florida DOT is a state agency. They are responsible for enforcing the commercial vehicle codes of the state.

If the guys were lucky then the feds didn't prosecute them for violation of the 1994 AWB. They can count their lucky stars Reno was in Washington and still wasn't the local DA.
 
You are missing my point guys, why should those weapons be illegal to obtain outside of LEO use???? hmmmm? Were they full-auto? No. They were cosmetically evil. As such, the State DOT guys (thanks for the correction) were treated like common citizens in that they were not allowed to purchase or possess.

The same way I, an opressed subject in the USSR of Massachusetts, am not allowed to purchase a new Glock 27 because I am not an LEO.

Yes, they broke the law in falsifying records to obtain them, but consider the law forcing them to resort to the falsification.

If i had a Cop friend write me a permission slip to purchase a Glock 27, i'd be guilty of the same crime. Does it make any sence? No. Is it constitutional? No.

I would love to see them be prosecuted, so they would have to fight the original friggin law. INSTEAD we have yet another case where an unconstitutional law is allowed to exhist because of the reluctance of the current administration to enforce them, thereby not allowing us to prove we are right.



------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

~USP

"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by USP45:
This is too funny... Federal LEO's treated like common citizens! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :)
[/quote]

BAAAAAAA!

:D :D :D

Skyhawk
 
"jacked a bullet into the firing chamber"

Jacked?

Maybe they should have reworded the next sentense to read: "He felt pretty good about getting him to surrender without popping a cap in his A$$"

For once, I agree with the prosecution, sort of. At least they're being held to the same stupid laws as the rest of us serfs.
 
USP45

I think we all are assuming that everyone knows we oppose this law and consider it an abomination. With that in mind, frankly, if the law exists, I want it enforced equitably. That means, no special favors for LEOs who break the law.
 
Besides falsifying a letter that stated they were for "duty and not for personal use" both the officer and the chief have to certify this "under penalty of perjury" they also used a department vehicle on a private security contract at a night club.

I guess that would have been okay if the ARs hadn't been involved. :(

Last year I bought a Colt 6920 Law Enfocement Carbine on a letterhead and I had to sign the on duty statement along with my chief. If their department forbade them from carrying long arms, how could it have been for "on duty use"? Any word on if the US Attorney is going to prosecute on perjury charges?

It seems to me like we have too many armed agencies who enforce too many diverse areas of the law.

Jeff
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buzz_knox:
USP45

I think we all are assuming that everyone knows we oppose this law and consider it an abomination. With that in mind, frankly, if the law exists, I want it enforced equitably. That means, no special favors for LEOs who break the law.
[/quote]

I agree with you to the extent that at this stage, our only option for repealing these laws is enforcement, until they are enforced against the 'wrong' person, and they fight and win in superior court.

I also agree with you that the laws should be applied evenly to all.

But i still think it's funny that the LEO's in this instance are being treated like citizens. (I bet these guys simply didn't get along with their superiors, and that is why they didn't get permission for the rifles in the first place.)

I should appologize a bit as i've been quite bitter since the M******* AG Reilly made it illegal for me to buy a Glock/HK/Sig/Beretta/1911.

------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

~USP

"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765

[This message has been edited by USP45 (edited June 06, 2000).]
 
I say screw 'em. Nail the leos to the wall for violating the law. Hopefully, in court, the law will be thrown out on constitutional grounds and everything will be OK.
Fat Chance, but I can dream.
 
I agree ... they should have prosecuted these LEO's. I don't believe for a moment that most of these guys didn't understand exactly what they were doing.

And, perhaps via that prosecution, the ugly truth of the so-called 'assault weapons ban' would be exposed.

At least they received some sanction ... but, if any civilians had tried this, they'd have been happy to put us away for many, many years. Let's not forget that.

Regards from AZ
 
Jeff, you raised an interesting question. What if these LEOs, and the others around the country who are surely doing the same thing, aren't being prosecuted because the Feds DON'T want to expose the truth about "assault weapons?" The cops' attorneys would have to address the false sense of an abnormally dangerous/criminal weapon in front of a jury and that would make the news.
 
Oops. He accidentally wrote on the letterhead that he was the "commander", rather than a "supervisor" (which he knew would be the difference between getting them and not getting them), and it was just an honest mistake. Yeah, right. I think one knows when one is the commander. Treated like the subject he now is.

Actually, I really don't blame these guys at all for trying to clandestinely exercise their unconstitutionally-infringed right to KBA, no matter their occupation. In fact, more power to them in that regard. HOWEVER, the JOB regulations state "No long guns" - he broke their rules, regardless of the type of long gun, and should therefore take the firing like a man. It may be a horse of a different color, RKBA-wise, if he had had the rifle in his vehicle for his own personal protection only, but the situation changed when he retrieved the gun and pursued the subject in defense of the PUBLIC, in his role at the time of a quasi-public officer (private security but using public officer indicia and authority)

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited June 07, 2000).]
 
Back
Top