Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

1928 Thompson Found Behind Closet


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 05 May 2005 - 09:08 AM

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.
  • 0

#62 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fremont, Ohio

Posted 05 May 2005 - 09:17 AM

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.
  • 0

#63 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 05 May 2005 - 09:34 AM

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?
  • 0

#64 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fremont, Ohio

Posted 05 May 2005 - 09:49 AM

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.
  • 0

#65 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 05 May 2005 - 09:52 AM

Lancer,

Good point. We'll see what happens.
  • 0

#66 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 05 May 2005 - 11:04 AM

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. sad.gif
  • 0

#67 TommyGunner

TommyGunner

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Olivebridge, NY
  • Interests:The Tommy Gun (duh)
    Fedora Linux
    Hunting

Posted 05 May 2005 - 11:55 AM

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
  • 0

#68 Freddie

Freddie

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 09:25 PM

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?

  • 0

#69 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 05 May 2005 - 09:55 PM

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.
  • 0

#70 Freddie

Freddie

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 May 2005 - 01:00 AM

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.
  • 0

#71 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 06 May 2005 - 06:21 AM

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.
  • 0

#72 Freddie

Freddie

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5 posts

Posted 07 May 2005 - 01:36 AM

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.
  • 0

#73 wildwilly2002

wildwilly2002

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 80 posts
  • Location:TUCSON ARIZONA

Posted 07 May 2005 - 08:21 AM

Great debate! good points on both sides.
  • 0

#74 LIONHART

LIONHART

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 2785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.

Posted 07 May 2005 - 11:23 AM

QUOTE (wildwilly2002 @ May 7 2005, 08:21 AM)
Great debate! good points on both sides.

Couldn't agree more!
  • 0

#75 p51

p51

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 70 posts

Posted 08 May 2005 - 10:02 PM

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...
  • 0

#76 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 08 May 2005 - 10:19 PM

QUOTE
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.



Funny you should say that.

After one bad marriage, I made sure that the first picture my fiencee (now wife) saw was a picture of me holding my 27A1 Thompson. She knew from the start that I am pro-gun. Everything else about me that I considered "non-negociable" was exposed very early also (such as, I absolutly HATE yard work!)

My ex-wife always used to say "those things are evil!" Then when we divorce, she refuses to let me have my dog?! Now what (or who!) is evil! dry.gif

Norm


  • 0