Jump to content

1928 Thompson Found Behind Closet


Recommended Posts

In my line of work in the ER, I come across local officers and state troopers all of the time. I have yet to come across one that wasn't courteous, professional, and enjoyable to talk to.

 

Even the odd occasion when I have been pulled over, I have always experienced courteous behavior. Maybe its because I try not to act like a jerk, but I believe most officers do try to be pros and I admire the work that they and folks in the armed forces do.

 

This type of "pig" talk is truly juvenile...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know there are bad ones out there, but the officers I have come to know and respect have provided unending support of my interests, and I theirs. One of them I consider a good shooting buddy and he drove me out to pick up one of my Thompsons. They enforce the law and if we didn't have them we'd be up a creek. Freddie, welcome to the board, but hope you can appreciate that and respect the tone expressed by our fellow members.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all beat poor Freddie up a little bit, the punk tucked his tail and ran . http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding little Freddie's rant, I'd like to see him recite that same verse on a city bus, in a church, at a grocery store, on the sidewalk in front of the hardware store, at the farmer's front door, addressing the 1st grade class, how about the VFW Hall, or you name it, the list goes on. My advice is, put a sock in it with that brand of 'merde'. Others here have expressed their positive views regarding law enforcement personnel. I heartily agree with them. OK, I'm done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freddie didn't run. He went to work today. Now he's home.

 

Having participated on other boards for years, I'm quite familiar with forum etiquette, and wouldn't be surprised if I were banned for what I said. However, since I do not plan on posting outside this thread, there's really no pressing need for that. I simply happened to come across a link to this site last night and thought I'd enjoy passing an hour or two reading about one of my favorite subjects, then move on.

 

Unfortunately, the first thread I opened was this one. And I was so offended by what I read that I let loose with both barrels, so to speak. It's that simple. What I said was intended to apply only to those to who it applies, and I said as much.

 

What we have here, in this story, is abuse of power. To be fair, whatever abuses are suffered by the citizens of Illinois with respect to firearms ownership are due to either their ignorance of natural rights, or to apathy. Or both. They elect politicians who are willing to pass these immoral laws, and I assume they are not disappointed by the results. I'm not pointing a judgmental finger at Illinois. The same slide into tyranny is happening lots of other places, including where I live.

 

But what we also have here, in this story, is something that, for some reason, offends me even more than abuse of power: arrogance. It's one thing to be screwed by someone in a position of power; it's quite another to see a smirk on his face while he's doing it. And that's exactly what this sheriff is doing--he's smirking. Several of you folks people here seem to consider the finder of the firearm naive for calling the cops in the first place, or before he'd hired an attorney. Why? Don't you trust the cops? Actually, no, you don't, not when it comes right down to it. Some of you think he either shouldn't have called the cops at all, or should have retained an attorney beforehand.

 

But that's not what happened. Mr. Good Citizen, Mr. Respect-the-Law, did what any good law-abiding citizen should do (wink). He called a peace officer to make sure everything was be on the up and up. In return, he got his find confiscated, and got to watch a smirking sheriff gush about his new sweet-shooting prize. Not even a thank you. That's arrogance. If you all can't see that, and understand the danger it poses, then I guess I can understand the offense taken at my post. Some of you guys seem more ticked off at the media misinformation than you do with what precipitated it. I can't understand that, especially considering the subject of the this forum.

 

Well, there ya go. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE
Several of you folks people here seem to consider the finder of the firearm naive for calling the cops in the first place, or before he'd hired an attorney. Why? Don't you trust the cops? Actually, no, you don't, not when it comes right down to it. Some of you think he either shouldn't have called the cops at all, or should have retained an attorney beforehand.

I think most of those who commented about the finder's naivity were in disdain of our current MG law, not so much its enforcers. You do make a point though, in this particular case there appears to be an undue arrogance/ ignorance on the part of the chief, deciding to keep the bullets, or even the stripped parts. Maybe the show is still out concerning these items. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

A link to an earlier version of that article was posted before. What doesn't make sense in the article is that the ATF Agent says he could register the weapon with ATF. How can he register the weapon with ATF is it isn't already registered? I thought they weren't taking anymore registrations? An unregistered weapon can be registered on a Form 10, but that is a dead-end registration. A Class 3 Dealer could take possession of it, but the finder can't get it back for two reasons: Form 10's can only go to Law Enforcement or Government Agency and Illinois doesn't allow individual transfer/possession. I suppose the dealer could sell it on behalf of the finder to a law enforcement agency, but what law enforcement agency is buying 60 year old Thompson submachine guns for it's arsenal at big bucks? How much are post 1986 Dealer Samples going for? I suppose something is better tham nothing for the finder, but he can't keep it as the article seems to suggest.

 

Which brings me to another point. The previous post by Freddie reveals more about his feelings about law enforcement than his understanding of Federal Firearms Registration. Whether he likes it or not the Will County Sheriff was doing his job. The gun is probably unregistered and Illinois doesn't allow possession. So what else was he supposed to do?

 

As a retired law enforcement officer, I don't agree with Illinois' position on firearms and I also don't admire the politicians that have allowed our individual rights to be eroded and are attempting to remove firearms from law abiding citizens. Let's face it, the criminals don't turn in their weapons and couldn't care less about laws regulating firearms. The only people restrictive firearms laws affect are the legitimate guys that enjoy firearms for shooting or collecting.

 

I understand Freddie's frustration about government intruding on our constitutional guarantees but his vitriol at the law enforcement officers that recovered the weapon are woefully misdirected. His post wasn't even worth getting excited about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (full auto 45 @ May 5 2005, 07:56 AM)
Maybe it's not over for the owner yet.

It appears that the gun is in the possession of the ATF. The agent seems to be implying that if the gun (if not stolen or used in a crime & is registered) would be returned if the finder complies with standard NFA laws. It would seem to me that the only roadblock is Illinois law. If the finder took up residency in an NFA friendly state, it should be returned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lancer,

 

I keep raising the same question. How does he register the gun if it isn't already registered? If you know of some way do do this please enlighten us and I don't mean a Form 10 registration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the key here is what the agent DIDN'T say. The first thing the ATF would do would be to check the registry. If it was'nt registered they would have simply said it was an illegal mg and would not be returned. They didn't say that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ACARLG @ Apr 30 2005, 02:26 PM)
But ATF special agent Thomas Ahearn said Mayes, who says he holds a firearm owner's identification card, might be able to get the weapon back.

Ahearn said Mayes would have to go through a background check, register the gun with the ATF, find a federal firearm licensee to take temporary possession of it and get a letter from either his local police chief or mayor approving the sale of the gun.

Lancer,

 

Please believe me, I am not trying to be argumentative, but the above qoute is directly from the previous posts on the newspaper article. The Agent refers to registering the gun with ATF. The only way I know is on a Form 10 for a previously unregistered gun. Even if he lived in an NFA friendly state an individual can't get transfer on a Form 10.

 

If the gun was registered why did the previous onwer have it hidden behind a closet and why wasn't it sold or handed down to heirs prior to this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (gijive @ May 5 2005, 09:34 AM)
The Agent refers to registering the gun with ATF. The only way I know is on a Form 10 for a previously unregistered gun.  Even if he lived in an NFA friendly state an individual can't get transfer on a Form 10.

If the gun was registered why did the previous onwer have it hidden behind a closet and why wasn't it sold or handed down to heirs prior to this?

gijive,

I agree that if it is not registered, their is no way for an individual to get it registered. I think when the agent said "register the gun with the ATF" he meant register it in the finders name. If it wasn't already registered why would they even talk about the finder getting it back?

 

As for why someone would hide it away, who knows but stranger things happen every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the guy the best of luck on getting the 28 back, but people usually don't hide SMGs in walls if they are registered!

 

I doubt that it is registered. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norm,

 

I know a guy that has a secret room in his house full of his c&r gun collection. His wife would probably divorce him if she knew of the arsenal that was hiding right under her nose! She made him get rid of his guns years ago. Others may bury guns. After all what you don't have can't be taken. I realize the scenario is a bit different with a registered NFA weapon since there is a record of your ownership. But if someone was just looking for a good spot to hide thier gun I guess it worked pretty good for 65 years. If it was a safe in the house I am sure it would have been gotten to by now (pretty much the first place a thief would look for your guns). Who knows what went on.

 

Damon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gijive:

 

"The previous post by Freddie reveals more about his feelings about law enforcement than his understanding of Federal Firearms Registration. Whether he likes it or not the Will County Sheriff was doing his job. The gun is probably unregistered and Illinois doesn't allow possession. So what else was he supposed to do?"

 

GJ's point is worth considering. So let's consider it. The question he asked was: What else was he supposed to do?

 

Since I do not know GJ, I can assure him I intend no disrespect when I say that his is a question I'd expect from a *law enforcement* officer. I'm actually old enough to remember when cops were called Peace Officers. And I do believe there's a difference, which difference is neatly summed up in the titles. The one enforces, the other mediates. The one is concerned only with the letter of the law, the other with both the letter and the spirit. In both cases the law is ultimately enforced--but not necessarily fulfilled. Yeah, I know, this sounds like a load of crap in an age where we have gang bangers organizing across state lines and ragheads blowing up skyscrapers, doesn't it? Besides, when all is said and done, the law is still the law.

 

But it's not. A load of crap, that is.

 

What else was the sheriff supposed to do, you ask? I don't know, maybe communicate to Mr. Law-Abiding Citizen what he intended to do with the firearm, and why he intended to do it? You know, simple courtesy? But courtesy is not what law *enforcement* is about, is it? His job was to simply to enforce the law, darn it. Good law, bad law, it makes no difference. Enforcement is all that matters, and if Mr. Law-Abiding Citizen expected anything more, that's his problem.

 

Of course, in real life, we all know that's a crock. Cops cover for other cops all the time. I know it from firsthand experience, and so does GJ, if he is what he says he is. They tend to cut more slack for pretty girls and old ladies than for dudes with 'tudes. Prosecutors make deals in back rooms. Scumbags plea-bargain and don't get what they deserve. Judges ignore this or that in one case, and then don't ignore this or that in another. Politicians wheel and deal and posture and compromise, sometimes out of principle, but usually just to get reelected. That's how things work in real life. Anyone who thinks otherwise can mow my lawn for a year and earn a Boy Scout badge.

 

Check this out. Here's what GJ said:

 

"As a retired law enforcement officer, I don't agree with Illinois' position on firearms and I also don't admire the politicians that have allowed our individual rights to be eroded and are attempting to remove firearms from law abiding citizens. Let's face it, the criminals don't turn in their weapons and couldn't care less about laws regulating firearms. The only people restrictive firearms laws affect are the legitimate guys that enjoy firearms for shooting or collecting."

 

So we have it from GJ himself that he doesn't agree with these laws, and yet he's apparently defending the *law enforcement* officers who uphold them. How's that work, GJ? In your book, does "just doin' my job" cut the mustard? Is that a good enough excuse for anyone doing something that might be questionable, or does it only apply to law enforcement officers whose job is to enforce the law, be it immoral or otherwise? These law enforcement officers--were they forced at gunpoint to take their job, or did they CHOOSE to take it? Or does the difference even matter to you?

 

Ah, screw it. Let's just get down to brass tacks here, GJ. If you were still an LEO and your state passed a law banning outright civilian possession of any and all firearms, would you enforce it without regard to circumstances? Would you enforce the law? I'd like to hear where your loyalties lie. After all, you're the expert when it comes to law enforcement issues.

 

Also, if you do think there's a line somewhere in the sand, where do you draw it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freddie,

 

Actually, I agree with some of your points regarding the state of law enforcement today as it applies to the all-to-common phrase, "We're just doing our job." I am also old enough to remember when police officers had discretion and if the situation warranted they could always "look the other way." Maybe if that gun had been found in the 1950's or even into the 1960,'s the responding officer could have just told the guy that found it to put it in a safe place and forget you called us.

 

Unfortunately, in today's climate that just isn't the case. Police departments operate under city, village and county administrations where liability, political correctness and public relations is the rule, not the exception. Law enforcement officials aren't going to stick their neck out with the threat of an over-zealous news media's penchant for creating the news, instead of just reporting it. Do you really think the elected Sheriff of Will County would be backed by the politicians of Illinois for sticking up for the "little guy" that just was trying to do the right thing?

 

The legislators (politicians) make the laws, the police just enforce them. When you are sworn to enforce the law sometimes you just can't abide by your personal beliefs, you have to do things that are personally unpleasant. That is the nature of the job.

 

There are probably several members of this Board that would agree with your position about individual rights and the fact that absolute power corrupts. You lost the argument, however, when you reverted the 1960's "Pigs" reference and the inference that the police are inherently evil and merely exist to make your life miserable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GJ: "You lost the argument, however, when you reverted the 1960's "Pigs" reference and the inference that the police are inherently evil and merely exist to make your life miserable."

 

Actually, it wasn't an argument. It was a rant. This is an argument.

 

Nor did I infer that police are inherently evil. What I said was: "Not all cops are pigs. But these cops are Pigs, and give every good one a bad name."

 

I commend you, however, for your level-headed responses. Though I disagree with your positions, you've shown a certain restraint that I can respect. But I still think there's nothing that will clean out rusty pipes like an occasional rant. My opinion.

 

GJ: "Maybe if that gun had been found in the 1950's or even into the 1960,'s the responding officer could have just told the guy that found it to put it in a safe place and forget you called us."

 

Glad you agree that times change. Prepare for a further on-going continuation of more of the same.

 

GJ: "Unfortunately, in today's climate that just isn't the case. Police departments operate under city, village and county administrations where liability, political correctness and public relations is the rule, not the exception. Law enforcement officials aren't going to stick their neck out with the threat of an over-zealous news media's penchant for creating the news, instead of just reporting it. Do you really think the elected Sheriff of Will County would be backed by the politicians of Illinois for sticking up for the "little guy" that just was trying to do the right thing?"

 

From what I'm reading, your bottom line here seems to be that cops should do what it takes to cover their own asses, especially elected cops. But I'm curious: In what sense, then, might we differentiate elected LEOs from the average don't-bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you scumbag politician? Cuz I'm not seeing much difference.

 

MJ: "The legislators (politicians) make the laws, the police just enforce them. When you are sworn to enforce the law sometimes you just can't abide by your personal beliefs, you have to do things that are personally unpleasant. That is the nature of the job."

 

Boy howdy, now see, this is what really gets to me, eats at me, and incites me. This is the kind of head-up-the-ass thinking that inspires my occasional full-throttle rants, the most recent of which seems to have breathed new life into this particular thread.

 

Let me get this straight, MJ. Are you saying, with a straight face, that if politicians declare it to be, it's the duty of a cop to enforce it? Forty years ago, we might have agreed on this, but you yourself acknowledged the changes that have occurred since then. Forgive me, but you have just identified yourself not only as an enemy of liberty, but a stooge of tyrants.

 

Politicians make the laws, LEOs just enforce them.

 

Really? Even immoral laws? Who forced these enforcers to enforce immoral laws? No one. Which must mean the enforcers of immoral laws are voluntarily doing so. And you're actually defending such behavior? Here, on THIS board?! Do you have even a clue how low an opinion the average sheeple holds of full-auto firearms, let alone of those who would own them, for any reason?

 

Check it out: MJ says that "sometimes you just can't abide by your personal beliefs." Oh, really? Well, let me tell you something Mr. retired LEO. As far as I'm concerned, and for what little it's probably worth to you, I consider anyone who would voluntarily enforce a law that contradicts those unalienable rights for which our Founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, The Enemy. That's just my personal belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Freddie @ May 6 2005, 01:00 AM)

Really? Even immoral laws? Who forced these enforcers to enforce immoral laws? No one. Which must mean the enforcers of immoral laws are voluntarily doing so. And you're actually defending such behavior? Here, on THIS board?! Do you have even a clue how low an opinion the average sheeple holds of full-auto firearms, let alone of those who would own them, for any reason?

Freddie,,

 

Since you are new to the Board, maybe you should read some of the prior posts and get a feel for the kind of topics that are normally discussed. The spirit of this Board is usually to extoll the virtues and share information on the Thompson submachine gun. It occasionally sparks discussion on the erosion of our rights as gun owners, as it has in this thread. If you are looking for a Board that supports your "rants", as you call them, maybe you should look elsewhere.

 

You apparently didn't grasp the subtleties of my previous posts and I am going to follow the Board Adminstrators advice and not "feed the trolls." If you think I am the enemy, then I really believe you missed the whole point of the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a troll. A troll baits, and I'm not baiting. Or at least that's not my intention. A troll distracts as many posters as possible, and I'm not doing that, because I've restricted my posts to just this thread.

 

At any rate, we've played this to the end. I appreciate the responses, and understand the criticisms, given my initial post. I'll leave y'all to your discussions. But permit me a parting shot.

 

There is no such thing as a private, peaceful gun community, neither out there in the real world, nor here on the web. Those days are gone, and times will catch up soon enough to folks who don't realize that. Sometime, back a few years ago, someone flipped a switch and things changed, almost overnight. What was, is not, and will never be again. There is coming a day, sooner than later, when the grays will disappear and everything that truly matters will be either black or white. There will be no middle option, no neutral corner, for men of principle. Don't blame me for the weather report. I'm just a messenger. And here's my message: John Brown wasn't crazy. Ask him yourself, cuz he's headed back this way.

 

Later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (TommyGunner @ May 5 2005, 11:55 AM)
I know a guy that has a secret room in his house full of his c&r gun collection. His wife would probably divorce him if she knew of the arsenal that was hiding right under her nose! She made him get rid of his guns years ago. Others may bury guns. After all what you don't have can't be taken.

But why bother owning them then? Sorry, but if I can't show it in public without being tapped by John Q Law, to me, it's not worth the money or worry, even if someone gave it to me!

And as for the wife doing that, well, I had a log talk with my wife after 6 months of the wedding, she wanted me to give up the guns and all my WW2 collection. I told her this is who I was, take it or leave it.

She took it.

And yes, I'd have left her if she hadn't. It would have broken my heart, but I don't believe one person should force another to change everything they are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...