Barnstable Man Charged With Firearm Trafficking

[The_Chuck88]

BOSTON – A Barnstable man was charged on Tuesday, June 15th in connection with selling three “ghost guns” to an undercover officer.

Jacob Linhares, 34, was charged by criminal complaint with one count of dealing firearms without a federal license. Linhares was detained following a detention hearing yesterday before U.S. District Court Chief Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley.

According to the criminal complaint, between May 25 and June 10, 2020, Linhares, sold three Privately Made Firearms (PMF) that he had personally fabricated to an undercover officer. PMFs are firearms that are not made by firearm manufacturers; instead, firearm manufactures sell individual buyers firearm parts, and the buyer uses various firearm drilling tools to construct and assemble the parts into a functional firearm. PMFs are also known as “ghost guns” because they are not serialized, and are thus, untraceable.

Barnstable Man Charged with Firearm Trafficking

BOSTON – A Barnstable man was charged on Tuesday, June 15th in connection with selling three “ghost guns” to an undercover officer. Jacob Linhares, 34,

www.shorenewsnetwork.com

 

[Lowbird]

That “arsenal” picture they used isn’t any common “ghost” gun they’ve paraded out before. Methinks they’re moving the goal posts. Unless the used a stock photo. If they’re 80s, here’s hoping he scratched something on them before selling.

 

[milktree]

Wait... what law do they think he broke?

It's 100% legal to sell three guns to someone, and it's 100% legal to build your own guns, and it's 100% legal to sell the guns you built. (as long as you're not "in the business of manufacturing and selling guns")

 

[76Too]

Wait... what law do they think he broke?

It's 100% legal to sell three guns to someone, and it's 100% legal to build your own guns, and it's 100% legal to sell the guns you built. (as long as you're not "in the business of manufacturing and selling guns")

Prove it.

 

[snax]

That “arsenal” picture they used isn’t any common “ghost” gun they’ve paraded out before. Methinks they’re moving the goal posts. Unless the used a stock photo. If they’re 80s, here’s hoping he scratched something on them before selling.

I think that's some kind of stock photo.
I

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Prove it.

Hopefully they will in court

 

[Chevy 2 65]

That “arsenal” picture they used isn’t any common “ghost” gun they’ve paraded out before. Methinks they’re moving the goal posts. Unless the used a stock photo. If they’re 80s, here’s hoping he scratched something on them before selling.

That "arsenal" sucks, dude needs to up his collection. but, I think he is done buying guns...

 

[Mtn_Guy]

Wait... what law do they think he broke?

It's 100% legal to sell three guns to someone, and it's 100% legal to build your own guns, and it's 100% legal to sell the guns you built. (as long as you're not "in the business of manufacturing and selling guns")

If you’ve finished building an unserialized frame or receiver it is illegal to sell unless you’re an 07 FFL manufacturer and it bears the appropriate markings (serial, city/state, etc, manufacturer)

depending on how he sold the firearms may be an issue as well. If not sold on a bill of sale or legally transferred through eFA10, for example…

 

[Mesatchornug]

If you’ve finished building an unserialized frame or receiver it is illegal to sell unless you’re an 07 FFL manufacturer and it bears the appropriate markings (serial, city/state, etc, manufacturer)

depending on how he sold the firearms may be an issue as well. If not sold on a bill of sale or legally transferred through eFA10, for example…

this is not true.

It's illegal to manufacture for the purpose of selling if unlicensed. It's perfectly legal to make your own firearms, then later decide they bore you and sell them.

 

[soam]

this is not true.

It's illegal to manufacture for the purpose of selling if unlicensed. It's perfectly legal to make your own firearms, then later decide they bore you and sell them.

Beat me to it.

 

[76Too]

Hopefully they will in court

That’s my point...this is the problem.

These turds can arrest you without consequence and put you through the ringer legally. You pay out of pocket for your own legal fees and your tax dollars help pay for the entire process against you.

 

[Mtn_Guy]

this is not true.

It's illegal to manufacture for the purpose of selling if unlicensed. It's perfectly legal to make your own firearms, then later decide they bore you and sell them.

Beat me to it.

The semantics you’re debating is “intent” — did someone manufacture for the purpose of selling, or was it for private use. A one-off frame transferred between friends is one thing, three frames sold to a complete stranger (undercover) as in the case of the article is different in my opinion — we can disagree on that one and I won’t be offended at all…

I think three firearms sold between strangers may be considered “for the purposes of selling…” as a result, an 07 FFL would be required. But you can roll those dice if you want, I’m out.

 

[FiremanBob]

If the "undercover officer" made false statements to the poor guy about the legality of what they were doing, he should face appropriate judgement - equal punishment by the system, or if the system fails, by the People.

 

[drgrant]

Wait... what law do they think he broke?

It's 100% legal to sell three guns to someone, and it's 100% legal to build your own guns, and it's 100% legal to sell the guns you built. (as long as you're not "in the business of manufacturing and selling guns")

Lol making 80s without an FFL for resale is a bold faced felony. Profit motive is easily shown.

The first thing every 80% guide says is "don't sell the shit that you build" and there's a very good reason for this.

 

[Mesatchornug]

The semantics you’re debating is “intent” — did someone manufacture for the purpose of selling, or was it for private use. A one-off frame transferred between friends is one thing, three frames sold to a complete stranger (undercover) as in the case of the article is different in my opinion — we can disagree on that one and I won’t be offended at all…

I think three firearms sold between strangers may be considered “for the purposes of selling…” as a result, an 07 FFL would be required. But you can roll those dice if you want, I’m out.

I agree that in this example it's relatively easy to get at intent. It seems pretty clear that he was manufacturing. My point is simply that it is generally legal to sell unserialized, homemade firearms if not as part of a business venture.

Similarly, I agree that it gets even easier to jam him up if he didn't eFA10 them.

If the "undercover officer" made false statements to the poor guy about the legality of what they were doing, he should face appropriate judgement - equal punishment by the system, or if the system fails, by the People.

I'm pretty sure you know this, so I'm singing to the choir, but that's not really how this works. Cops can lie to you. They don't have to tell you that they're cops. They can do all sorts of mean nasty things that don't rise to the level of entrapment.

Until we the people convince our betters to change the law and protect us from ladder climbing and manufactured stings, this will remain the case.

 

[FiremanBob]

I know the legalities, but prefer correct moral judgements over corruptly passed "laws".

 

[Hoover]

Lol making 80s without an FFL for resale is a bold faced felony. Profit motive is easily shown.

The first thing every 80% guide says is "don't sell the shit that you build" and there's a very good reason for this.

I’m sure they have plenty of recorded conversations and this guy was bragging about building them to sell. If you wanted to get his intent, after the undercover bought these 3, tell him they look great and you’ll buy a dozen more if he can make additional ones. The guy would probably see dollar signs and jump at it.

Someone who gets themselves into this jam will probably have a big mouth and be very boastful of what they can make/do.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

That’s my point...this is the problem.

These turds can arrest you without consequence and put you through the ringer legally. You pay out of pocket for your own legal fees and your tax dollars help pay for the entire process against you.

It's not the justice system. it's how much can you pay system or who you know system.

Perfect song for the system

Halls of justice painted green, money talking
Power wolves beset your door, hear them stalking
Soon you'll please their appetite they devour
Hammer of justice crushes you, overpower
The ultimate in vanity
Exploiting their supremacy
I can't believe the things you say
I can't believe, I can't believe the price
You pay, nothing can save you

 

[drgrant]

I know the legalities, but prefer correct moral judgements over corruptly passed "laws".

Most gun control is fundamentally morally bankrupt. I don't think any here disagree with that, or at least not most of us.

On the other hand in the real world, on the ground, where tyrants have created shitty gun laws, and a shitty gov enforces them, this guy is screwed. Cops are allowed to lie to people, that's not new.

 

[milktree]

If you’ve finished building an unserialized frame or receiver it is illegal to sell unless you’re an 07 FFL manufacturer and it bears the appropriate markings (serial, city/state, etc, manufacturer)

depending on how he sold the firearms may be an issue as well. If not sold on a bill of sale or legally transferred through eFA10, for example…

They didn't charge him with failing to report the transaction.

The semantics you’re debating is “intent” — did someone manufacture for the purpose of selling, or was it for private use. A one-off frame transferred between friends is one thing, three frames sold to a complete stranger (undercover) as in the case of the article is different in my opinion — we can disagree on that one and I won’t be offended at all…

I think three firearms sold between strangers may be considered “for the purposes of selling…” as a result, an 07 FFL would be required. But you can roll those dice if you want, I’m out.

Is three a magic number? Why three? Why not five? Or two?

I can easily imagine building up a few 80% guns, realizing I didn't care for them (tuning, I did a crap job, not into ARs or "Glocks" anymore, whatever) and selling them, even all to the same person who thought they could make them work right or have fun with them.

Lol making 80s without an FFL for resale is a bold faced felony. Profit motive is easily shown.

Easily asserted, sure. You're assuming (probably correctly) that this guy was making them for resale. But how do you prove that? Do you have to keep them for a magical period of time? Do you have to shoot them a certain number of rounds? It'll probably come out in court that the cop said, "can you make me three?" and the guy said, "sure!" and he'll get convicted. But his dumb-ass speaking isn't the same thing as it obviously being a felony just because he made a/some 80% guns and sold them.

The first thing every 80% guide says is "don't sell the shit that you build" and there's a very good reason for this.

It's bad optics.

 

[kevin9]

Easily asserted, sure. You're assuming (probably correctly) that this guy was making them for resale. But how do you prove that?

Don't know about this case, and I'm not debating what should or should not be illegal, but given current laws, I'll observe that many people are stupid enough to easily incriminate themselves (ex. ""You ought try this gig Mr. Undercover-Policeperson. I'm clearing $x000 a year making and selling these things!").

 

[drgrant]

Easily asserted, sure. You're assuming (probably correctly) that this guy was making them for resale. But how do you prove that? Do you have to keep them for a magical period of time? Do you have to shoot them a certain number of rounds? It'll probably come out in court that the cop said, "can you make me three?" and the guy said, "sure!" and he'll get convicted. But his dumb-ass speaking isn't the same thing as it obviously being a felony just because he made a/some 80% guns and sold them.

If i was going to hazard a guess the UC put him up to it and he made the guns for him.

If it wasn't trivially easy to bag people on this then none of the 80% people would strongly suggest not to sell the created guns. There are very good reasons that's a prevailing caution obeyed by most builders. Probably gobs of case law, too. Going back way before "ghost guns" were even a thing.

There's also a possibility a CI ratted to the authorities as having bought guns from this guy. So they set him up.....

 

[Palladin]

I’m sure they have plenty of recorded conversations and this guy was bragging about building them to sell. If you wanted to get his intent, after the undercover bought these 3, tell him they look great and you’ll buy a dozen more if he can make additional ones. The guy would probably see dollar signs and jump at it.

Someone who gets themselves into this jam will probably have a big mouth and be very boastful of what they can make/do.

this

 

[CATI]

Would be a nightmare to have a real “arsenal” picture when you actually have a interesting collection in this state

 

[Dennis in MA]

If you’ve finished building an unserialized frame or receiver it is illegal to sell unless you’re an 07 FFL manufacturer and it bears the appropriate markings (serial, city/state, etc, manufacturer)

depending on how he sold the firearms may be an issue as well. If not sold on a bill of sale or legally transferred through eFA10, for example…

Sure.

BUT. . . . . what if he had 3 guns he found that fell off a truck and was selling them to some guy off EFA10?

The "crime" isn't making guns. It's violating the stupid registry here. Ghost gun is an ancillary issue. They could have just as easily "stung" him with Glocks or Taurii.

Which is why the whole ghost gun thing is moot. "They are not allowed to possess guns." "Any guns??" "Yes." "So if he had a non-Ghost gun. . . . that'd be illegal too, right?" "Well, um. . . . . . ghost guns are scary."

 

[drgrant]

For thr love of god.....

This is a federal case, lets stop conflating MA FA10 bullshit with it. None of that matters.
Cwithe.

 

[Mtn_Guy]

For thr love of god.....

This is a federal case, lets stop conflating MA FA10 bullshit with it. None of that matters.
Cwithe.

people take the phrase “…for example…” rather literally around here… apparently…

 

[Hoover]

Sure.

BUT. . . . . what if he had 3 guns he found that fell off a truck and was selling them to some guy off EFA10?

The "crime" isn't making guns. It's violating the stupid registry here. Ghost gun is an ancillary issue. They could have just as easily "stung" him with Glocks or Taurii.

Which is why the whole ghost gun thing is moot. "They are not allowed to possess guns." "Any guns??" "Yes." "So if he had a non-Ghost gun. . . . that'd be illegal too, right?" "Well, um. . . . . . ghost guns are scary."

its a federal case. The crime isn’t making guns, it’s being in the business of selling gun without an FFL.

they probably didn’t pick this guy’s name out of a hat. They sent an UC etc because he got on their radar. Do you really this these were the first 3 he made and sold? He probably made and sold others and someone got arrest for drugs, or DUI etc had one of these 80’s and ratted him out

 

[CrackPot]

They didn't charge him with failing to report the transaction.

Since the all the charges are federal in US district court, charging him with violations of MA law is not possible. Common confusion around here is to mix up federal and state laws. Different laws enforced by different people at different times for different reasons.

 

[Palladin]

its a federal case. The crime isn’t making guns, it’s being in the business of selling gun without an FFL.

they probably didn’t pick this guy’s name out of a hat. They sent an UC etc because he got on their radar. Do you really this these were the first 3 he made and sold? He probably made and sold others and someone got arrest for drugs, or DUI etc had one of these 80’s and ratted him out

This.

Barnstable/Hyannis.....the Chelsea of the Cape