Huh?
Via Kevin comes this:
If Sahlin had gone to trial and been convicted on two indictments, he faced a mandatory sentence of 30 years for using a machine gun in the robbery — on top of a sentence for bank robbery. In exchange for his plea, the government dropped the machine gun charge and substituted the lesser charge of using a firearm during a crime of violence.
Sahlin’s lawyer, federal defender Bjorn Lange, said if the case had gone to trial, a jury would have had to decide whether the weapon could be converted into a machine gun and therefore fit the legal definition of a machine gun; Lange contended it wasn’t.
The prosecutor said the U.S. government’s position was that it was a machine gun and Sahlin knew it was a machine gun.
Government information describes the weapon as a Colt M16A1, 5.56-caliber semiautomatic assault weapon. Ollila said it had been a machine gun when owned by the military and had been converted into a semiautomatic for local police.
Let me repeat: whether the weapon could be converted into a machine gun and therefore fit the legal definition of a machine gun
A gun is a machine gun or it isn’t. He had an AR15 that had the auto sear and selector switch removed. I guess I have a machine gun at home then. Mind you, I don’t have any parts to turn it into one but since the possibility to convert it exists (as it does with all semi-autos), law enforcement can trump up a machine gun charge?
It is illegal to have a rifle and the parts to convert it to a machine gun. However, one can own a rifle or the parts to convert one, just not both. Absent from the story is whether or not he actually possessed the parts.
Update: This is my 1,000th post. Jebus!
September 25th, 2003 at 9:17 pm
as important, perhaps, is the legal definition of machine gun in this instance.
an AR15 is a magazine-fed assault rifle. you’re space limited to 20 or 30 rounds before reload, and (to me, at least) that doesn’t fit the definition of machine gun. there’s a difference btwn full auto assault rifles and belt-fed, crew-served machine guns.
I suppose the legal definition is whatever the prosecutors want it to be to maximize their leverage over a defendant…
September 25th, 2003 at 10:30 pm
Actually, the legal definition of a “machine gun” has morphed to the point that possession of an M-16 auto-sear can get you charged with having a “machine gun.”
September 26th, 2003 at 3:56 am
Not to play the devil’s advocate or anything, but I’ve learned to think twice and listen once to anything reported in the “news”:
Might the point be, that he had a gun that could AND WAS retrofitted as a machine gun?
Granted, this is pure speculation on my part….which goes, again, to my cynicism toward news reporting.
September 26th, 2003 at 8:17 am
CJ implies a good point, there’s not enough info in the story.