The bad news is an otherwise completely law-abiding 70-year old who hasn't harmed anyone in any way is going to jail for 7 years for buying an M14 in the 1980s. The good news is they didn't ram his house with a tank and burn him and all his family and children and grand children to death. Let's hear a nice round of applause for the ATF, or BATF, or BATFE or executors of Fast and Furious or whatever you want to call them. Just a few commonsense gun safety regulations being enforced to assure public safety.

Silver Star Vietnam vet gets 7 years for decades-old purchase of M14

https://www.foxnews.com/us/vietnam-war-hero-sentenced-to-7-years-for-decades-old-rifle-purchase-report

A decorated Vietnam veteran and firearms collector was sentenced to seven years in federal prison Wednesday for a decades-old purchase of a rifle.

Alfred Pick, 70, purchased the M14 -- a fully automatic weapon illegal to own -- at a Ft. Worth gun show in the early 1980s, the Dallas Morning News reported.

The rifle, which had a scratched-off serial number, was similar to the one Pick used as an Army lieutenant in Vietnam, where he earned a Silver Star after participating in more than 100 combat missions and his brief time as a POW.

"The man is a Silver Star winner, he saved lives, he took care of his wife, he’s been in custody for a year, I would think that when a man turned 70 and is an American hero you don't destroy the rest of his life for one mistake," Mark Shackelford, a friend, told KDFW-TV.

Shackelford called the weapon the "piece de resistance" of Pick’s collection, adding that "He had shown it to me. I've never seen it taken out of the case.

The bad news is an otherwise completely law-abiding 70-year old who hasn't harmed anyone in any way is going to jail for 7 years for buying an M14 in the 1980s. The good news is they didn't ram his house with a tank and burn him and all his family and children and grand children to death. Let's hear a nice round of applause for the ATF, or BATF, or BATFE or executors of Fast and Furious or whatever you want to call them. Just a few commonsense gun safety regulations being enforced to assure public safety.

But what about his dog?

I'll betcha there is more to this story than is being divulged.

I'll betcha there is more to this story than is being divulged.

You mean this?

The raid and arrest on Pick’s Plano home came two weeks after his wife of 40 years died of cancer. They were using marijuana, which authorities found and added another criminal charge.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/10/17/decorated-vietnam-veteran-pow-sentenced-to-7-years-for-mistake-made-decades-ago/

You mean this?

The raid and arrest on Pick’s Plano home came two weeks after his wife of 40 years died of cancer. They were using marijuana, which authorities found and added another criminal charge.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/10/17/decorated-vietnam-veteran-pow-sentenced-to-7-years-for-mistake-made-decades-ago/

====
 Yeah I know it makes the ATF and the Judge look bad.
But they slammed the door pretty hard. I still think there is a backstory, but we may never know about it.

How did they find a rifle 40 years later with no serial number? 

====
 Yeah I know it makes the ATF and the Judge look bad.
But they slammed the door pretty hard. I still think there is a backstory, but we may never know about it.

What specifically leads you to posit a "backstory"? Is it something other than a "seemingly" "harsh" penalty for a victimless crime?

Do you also believe there are "backstories" to Ruby Ridge and Waco and Fast and Furious? You rule out pure incompetence, corruption and/or evil intent?

How did they find a rifle 40 years later with no serial number?

I read one source that said ATF got a "tip". He had obviously shown that rifle to people as part of his collection. Maybe one of them or someone they told about it was just doing their civic duty in order to preserve public safety. I mean he'd gone about 45 years with the rifle without harming anyone, but who knows... he could flip out at any time and go on a rampage... and the rampage would be way worse if he used that M14 rather than any of the other 13 guns in his collection, I'm sure. 

Hopefully a pardon comes along

I read one source that said ATF got a "tip". He had obviously shown that rifle to people as part of his collection. Maybe one of them or someone they told about it was just doing their civic duty in order to preserve public safety. I mean he'd gone about 45 years with the rifle without harming anyone, but who knows... he could flip out at any time and go on a rampage... and the rampage would be way worse if he used that M14 rather than any of the other 13 guns in his collection, I'm sure. 

=====

This is what I was thinking. Somebody ratted him out. Maybe he pissed off the wrong person.
 The harsh penalty could be some liberal politician up for reelection trying to look tough on crime.
That's why I think there is more that we just don't know about.
 
 I can tell you that decades ago, I have a friend who was busted by ATF for converting AR15's and he never spent a day in jail.
 

=====

This is what I was thinking. Somebody ratted him out. Maybe he pissed off the wrong person.
 The harsh penalty could be some liberal politician up for reelection trying to look tough on crime.

But it's not a scary black rifle. 

=====

This is what I was thinking. Somebody ratted him out. Maybe he pissed off the wrong person.

Yeah, why I keep my online identity very private.  I know at least one local liberal moonbat that would SWAT me in an instant should she find out who I am.

She frequently makes comments about me stockpiling guns in what I assume is an attempt to get local HPD interested in who I am.

Got to keep things private in this farqued up world.

Unless he took it to the range and someone wrote down his plate #

Unless he took it to the range and someone wrote down his plate #

The article said it was part of a collection, and his friend never saw him take it out of its case.

Doesn't sound like he was shooting it -- ever.  If he was, I don't think it would have taken 30+ years to get caught.

Looking at it from the outside, he bought what he had to have known was an illegal fully automatic weapon without going through the legal process.  It had a scratched-off serial number.  He decided to buy it anyway. 30 years ago or 30 days ago is irrelevant since he still possessed it.

He got away with it for about 30 years. He should be rethinking who his friends are.  I'm sure by now, he knows who made that "tip".

The article said it was part of a collection, and his friend never saw him take it out of its case.

Doesn't sound like he was shooting it -- ever.  If he was, I don't think it would have taken 30+ years to get caught.

Looking at it from the outside, he bought what he had to have known was an illegal fully automatic weapon without going through the legal process.  It had a scratched-off serial number.  He decided to buy it anyway. 30 years ago or 30 days ago is irrelevant since he still possessed it.

He got away with it for about 30 years. He should be rethinking who his friends are.  I'm sure by now, he knows who made that "tip".

Show me the man, I'll show you the crime.

Show me the man, I'll show you the crime.

Not all of us knowingly commit felonies.  You pays your money, and you takes your chances.

Not all of us knowingly commit felonies.  You pays your money, and you takes your chances.

I don't think law enforcement or adjudication requires that felonies be committed "knowingly".

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
by Harvey Silverglate (Author), Alan M. Dershowitz (Foreword)

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.

* * * * *
Besides that, there's the more general principle that the idea of a victimless crime is an oxymoron. If there is no victim, there is no real crime.

I don't think law enforcement or adjudication requires that felonies be committed "knowingly".

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
by Harvey Silverglate (Author), Alan M. Dershowitz (Foreword)

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.

* * * * *
Besides that, there's the more general principle that the idea of a victimless crime is an oxymoron. If there is no victim, there is no real crime.

Saying there is no victim is a rationalization.  If you know it's illegal to speed, and you get a ticket, I don't think the judge will entertain the "nobody got hurt" defense.

As for knowingly, I'm referring to this specific case.  You can post all you want about the overly regulated lives we lead, but that's not this case's problem.

The law he broke was passed in 1934.  He bought the gun in the 1980s.  He didn't try to get a tax stamp to do a legal transfer likely because he knew that scratched off serial number would be a real problem -- chances are the seller would have backed out if he even mentions filing the paperwork.

He knew it was a shady deal when he made it. He had to have known he needed a tax stamp before taking possession.  Having used the weapon in the service, he knew it was full auto.

I don't think there's any reasonable doubt he broke the law knowingly.

It's not a "rationalization" to question the principle that a crime must involve harm to someone. Your example of speeding could possibly be an exception as in the cases of "justified" dangerous behavior that has a demonstrable  higher than average probability of resulting in injury. Even that's a very slippery slope (Is consuming cannabis or alcohol a demonstrable danger?). And, as the book I referenced above makes the point, with the volume of laws on the books and their sometimes almost arcane detail, it's likely almost everyone violates the law, even at the felony level, on a regular basis... and is thus subject to arrest and prosecution should, for any reason at all, the government decide to "target" a particular person. Thus the Stalin "secret police" Lavrentiy Beria quote "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime". I.e. Everyone is guilty of something, and if you want someone "out of the way" we will be able to arrest and prosecute them for something to get that job done."

I contend that the NFA (and the GCA 1968) is a preposterous violation of individual liberty that is protected by the constitution. Maybe, maybe, someone wants to argue about where "the line" "should" be drawn... but it sure as hell can't be justified at "suppressors". And I'd argue it can't be drawn at "automatic", nor the length or a barrel nor overall length either. Absurd. "Intolerable Acts".

I'd hope that in the case we are discussing that jury nullification could have been in effect, but apparently it wasn't a jury trial, but decided by a judge. There isn't that much difference between the guys in the black robes and the guys who bring the people before the black robes. Whatever Pick's motives or intentions were or weren't, he never harmed anyone, and shouldn't lose his freedom for simply possessing some item that someone somewhere thinks he isn't entitled to possess either at all, or unless he jumps through hoops and pays them money. How can these people have even the slightest sense of wonder about why people disrespect the law?

It's not a "rationalization" to question the principle that a crime must involve harm to someone. Your example of speeding could possibly be an exception as in the cases of "justified" dangerous behavior that has a demonstrable  higher than average probability of resulting in injury. Even that's a very slippery slope (Is consuming cannabis or alcohol a demonstrable danger?). And, as the book I referenced above makes the point, with the volume of laws on the books and their sometimes almost arcane detail, it's likely almost everyone violates the law, even at the felony level, on a regular basis... and is thus subject to arrest and prosecution should, for any reason at all, the government decide to "target" a particular person. Thus the Stalin "secret police" Lavrentiy Beria quote "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime". I.e. Everyone is guilty of something, and if you want someone "out of the way" we will be able to arrest and prosecute them for something to get that job done."

I contend that the NFA (and the GCA 1968) is a preposterous violation of individual liberty that is protected by the constitution. Maybe, maybe, someone wants to argue about where "the line" "should" be drawn... but it sure as hell can't be justified at "suppressors". And I'd argue it can't be drawn at "automatic", nor the length or a barrel nor overall length either. Absurd. "Intolerable Acts".

I'd hope that in the case we are discussing that jury nullification could have been in effect, but apparently it wasn't a jury trial, but decided by a judge. There isn't that much difference between the guys in the black robes and the guys who bring the people before the black robes. Whatever Pick's motives or intentions were or weren't, he never harmed anyone, and shouldn't lose his freedom for simply possessing some item that someone somewhere thinks he isn't entitled to possess either at all, or unless he jumps through hoops and pays them money. How can these people have even the slightest sense of wonder about why people disrespect the law?

You know there are more kinds of laws than just the ones that protect people from physical harm.  You're arguing for anarchy -- no regulations unless lack of one physically harms someone.

If you take one example, vehicle safety checks, you could argue it's just a money grab.  But, the state doesn't make money from it. It reimburses the safety check station operators for their cost -- not much profit on a $20-ish expense.

What the regulations do is try to ensure people take responsibility for their car's maintenance, thus increasing safety for everyone on the road.  Fewer blown tires at highway speeds, fewer operators driving at night with non-working lights, fewer people caught in the rain with wipers that don't clean the window .... all valid concerns for every driver if safety is the issue.

You can keep going deeper into the anarchist rabbit hole if you want.  I posted my opinion.  It's tough he got caught, but if we're going to preach about "legal consequences", we have to be consistent.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

BTW, the defendant pleaded "Guilty", so there really wasn't anything for the judge or jury to decide beyond sentencing.