Any truth to this?

0

03roushs1

Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
335
Likes
4
Location
Upstate NY
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
I was watching a History Channel show on the AK-47. It was going throught the development of the weapon and how and when it was used for the first time. You know, normal history channel stuff. Anyway, as then went to a commercial , that have that screen where the narrator reads of some bit of trivia related to the topic. This one said that there has been only one crime commited with a legally owned machine gun in the united states since 1938 and the perpetrator was a police officer. sounds pretty interesting to me. Seems to fit our arguement that the legallly owned guns are not the ones used in crimes. i just don't if it is true as they said it, or if the history channel misrepresented/misunderstood the facts.
 
I don't know about "only one crime", but there has only been one murder committed with a legally owned fully automatic firearm in the US, and that committed by a corrupt cop. I read somewhere that there may have been a second one recently, but I don't have any documentation on that.

Ken
 
One known case for certain...

" Since 1934, only one legally owned machinegun (of some 100,000+)
has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a
law enforcement officer. On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran
of the Dayton, OH police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32,
used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 cal. submachinegun to kill a
police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller
pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to
18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machineguns does
not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies".

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/talk-politics-guns/pro-gun-faq/part2

There's a second cite of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime , but the following article seems to be the only reference that I can find...

http://members.cox.net/arporro/photos/Shooting.pdf
 
Although I'd like to believe otherwise, I just don't see how "the only person to commit a crime with a machine gun was a rogue police officer" will help us to have a sensible discussion about guns and crimes with a non-believer in the Second Amendment.

Sad but true.
 
I was not trying to use it as an argument in the traditional sense. I was more interested in the accuracy of it. I understand where you are coming from. It really does not make a good case for us "normal people", when clearly you can not trust even an LEO, right. I was just curious.
 
Cross-X said:
Although I'd like to believe otherwise, I just don't see how "the only person to commit a crime with a machine gun was a rogue police officer" will help us to have a sensible discussion about guns and crimes with a non-believer in the Second Amendment.

Sad but true.
Click to expand...

One problem with that is the inevitable anti-gun argument that the registration, authorization from a local law enforcement official and the extensive background check requirements for NFA related firearms is proof that stricter gun control laws do work. Examining other factors such as cost, limited supply and the federal tax as doesn't weigh very much in favor of the pro-2nd amendment side either.
 
Well, since they're always putting in an exemption for police in every damn gun control law they dream up (otherwise they'd never stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing them), it's a nice little factoid to have. "Why do you insist on applying these laws only to us and exempting the police, when the record clearly shows that 100% of victims killed with legally owned machineguns over the past 70 years have been murdered by the police?" If that doesn't slow 'em down for a bit, then apply OC liberally. [wink]

Ken
 
KMaurer said:
Well, since they're always putting in an exemption for police in every damn gun control law they dream up (otherwise they'd never stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing them),....
Ken
Click to expand...

Someone give that man a cigar. [smile]
 
KMaurer said:
Well, since they're always putting in an exemption for police in every damn gun control law they dream up (otherwise they'd never stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing them), it's a nice little factoid to have. "Why do you insist on applying these laws only to us and exempting the police, when the record clearly shows that 100% of victims killed with legally owned machineguns over the past 70 years have been murdered by the police?" If that doesn't slow 'em down for a bit, then apply OC liberally. [wink]

Ken
Click to expand...

At least the full-auto laws only contain an official posession and use exemption for a police. A badge does not allow a LEO to buy and posess a personal non-transferrable full auto. Many of the handgun posession bans, as well as carry bans, extend the "police exemption" to off duty police and their personal weapons.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
At least the full-auto laws only contain an official posession and use exemption for a police. A badge does not allow a LEO to buy and posess a personal non-transferrable full auto. Many of the handgun posession bans, as well as carry bans, extend the "police exemption" to off duty police and their personal weapons.
Click to expand...

Rob, I think you are wide of the mark, at least as far as Massachusetts goes. Unless a police chief makes it a condition of employment that a police officer own large capacity mags and be armed and required to carry those large cap mags while off duty, I'm not sure an officer's private possession of such mags would be permitted under controlling Massachusetts law.

Here is the MA statute:

CHAPTER 140. LICENSES

SALE OF FIREARMS

Chapter 140: Section 131M. Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
At least the full-auto laws only contain an official posession and use exemption for a police. A badge does not allow a LEO to buy and posess a personal non-transferrable full auto. Many of the handgun posession bans, as well as carry bans, extend the "police exemption" to off duty police and their personal weapons.
Click to expand...

Machine guns, semi-automaticj assault weapons, large capacity feeding devices ... They're all the same thing; I know because the Brady Bunch told me so. [wink]

Ken
 
Back
Top Bottom