Student gun sales armed N.J. gang, authorities say

[LARED]

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/7473686.htm

An indictment alleges collegians were used to funnel dozens of weapons from an Ohio store to Newark.
By Troy Graham
Inquirer Staff Writer

Federal prosecutors in New Jersey have indicted the owner of an Ohio gun store and three members of a violent Newark street gang in the first gun-trafficking case of its kind.

The merchant sold guns to intermediaries, all of them students or former students at Wilberforce University, a small private school in Ohio. The students then funneled the guns to the Double ii Bloods street gang, authorities said.

The case, which will be heard in New Jersey, is the first time that federal prosecutors in one district have charged a licensed gun dealer from another state in a gun-running conspiracy. The indictments were returned Friday and unsealed yesterday.

"We intend to sit this Ohio gun dealer in front of a jury at the same defense table as the leader of one of New Jersey's most violent gangs," said U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie of Newark. "Enough is enough. This is our warning shot to gun dealers in other states."

This may be a very interesting case on a number of levels

The dealer is already scheduled to appear in Federal court in Ohio. Why do the Feds in NJ feel it is needed to bring him to NJ as well. Maybe to set a precedent?

Also consider

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[MrBenchley]

1. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=28643#28648

[LARED]

2. I'd like to see this post stay up

with the MOD's are ok with it. I think there are some potentially important constitutional issues at play. Plus it seems out of place in the daily Guns in the News whinefest.

[MrBenchley]

3. I don't see why...

"I think there are some potentially important constitutional issues at play."
I don't...it's a Federal offense, and clearly the DOJ prosecutors can decide where the culprits should be tried.

"it seems out of place in the daily Guns in the News whinefest"
It's about guns and it's in the news...Seems that it fits the bill...

[dougmalloy]

11. question of venue

"It's a Federal offense, and clearly the DOJ prosecutors can decide where the culprits should be tried."

They can decide which district to file the charge, but the defendant can challenge venue, and ultimately it is up to the presiding judge - not the prosecutor - as to where the defendant is tried.

[iverglas]

4. jurisdiction (edited0

As I understand it, the charge is conspiracy:

The case, which will be heard in New Jersey,
is the first time that federal prosecutors in one
district have charged a licensed gun dealer from
another state in a gun-running conspiracy.

The question is whether the party to the conspiracy who performed his part of it in State A may be charged/tried in State B, where the act that he and his co-conspirators conspired to commit was committed.

I did a quick google for conspiracy jurisdiction "act in furtherance".

Just looking at the results list without going any further, I see:

"Arizona has jurisdiction over a conspiracy when an act in furtherance of that conspiracy occurred within this state ..."

"... of this state conspires with another outside of this state and an overt act in furtherance of the ..." (Vermont)

"... An agreement made in another jurisdiction to engage in or ... is punishable herein only when an overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy is committed ..."

"... state conspires with another outside of this state and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is committed ..." (Minnesota)

(The search results are here)

The charge doesn't seem to be any different from what we might see if "X" in New York and "Y" in Nevada conspired to defraud a Las Vegas casino, and "Y" pulled it off. I think that this sort of jurisdiction over co-conspirators in another jurisdiction is very often assumed.

The Canadian Criminal Code says about the same (criminal law is under federal jurisdiction in Canada, so the reference is solely to foreign jurisdictions):

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec465.html

(4) Every one who, while in a place outside Canada, conspires with any one to do anything referred to in subsection (1) in Canada shall be deemed to have conspired in Canada to do that thing.

(5) Where a person is alleged to have conspired to do anything that is an offence by virtue of subsection (3) or (4), proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether or not that person is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada, and the accused may be tried and punished in respect of that offence in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.

Unless you're gunning for the entire law of conspiracy, I think this argument is doomed. Now, you could do that -- challenge conspiracy laws under that provision of the US constitution. I'd bet it's been done at some time, though.

I googled again for conspiracy jurisdiction "impartial jury of the state" (lifting a phrase to see whether that provision of the US constitution had been argued against conspiracy laws) -- search results here. I have to get back to work, but somebody might have a browse there and see what may have been said on the point.

.

edit: ah, I see, it's a federal charge. (These things confuse me; all criminal charges are federal here.) So it isn't a matter of the state where the overt act was committed taking jurisdiction over the out-of-state act of conspiracy.

The conspiracy itself is presumably an offence, so the prosecution could presumably be in the state in which "X" participated in it, and not in which "Y" committed the overt act (unlawfully supplying guns, I assume).

Any US criminal lawyers around? (Canadian criminal law actually never was my specialty anyhow.) I'd think there might be a principle that trials of co-conspirators should take place together, even for their own protection -- if they weren't severed, then none of them could be compelled to testify against the others, for instance.

Fascinating legal tidbits ...

.

[DoNotRefill]

5. In order for this to stick....

There'd have to be some evidence that the person conspired to ship the guns to a different state.

We haven't seen the evidence in this particular case.

The article states that they think they can show the dealer conspired to facilitate straw purchases. That's a federal crime. The issue that will come up is if the dealer conspired to have the guns shipped to New Jersey illegally, which is also a separate and distinct Federal crime, and is within the Government's scope of authority under the ICC. This would be an entirely different conspiracy than the straw purchase conspiracy.

Unless there's something more going on here than is stated in the article, I don't think the prosecution will be able to show this. It'd be interesting to know what kinds of guns were involved. If there were handguns involved, it'll be interesting to see if the dealer filed the appropriate Federal paperwork for 2 or more purchases of a handgun within a 5 day period by one buyer.

To be honest, from reading the article, it sounds like there's more than a little grandstanding going on by the prosecutor. Of course, we don't have anything near all of the facts.

If I was advising the dealer, I'd strongly suggest that the trials be severed. There's a whole lot of "guilt by association" in not severing the trials, and it sounds like they have a very good case against the gangmembers.

[MrSandman]

9. If they can show the

dealer knew the strawmen were non-residents, they will have a good chance of making the interstate conspiracy stick whether he knew the intended sts of destination.

I would hope that the individual purchasers are held accountable since they have demonstrated a callous disregard of law leading to deaths.

[Fescue4u]

6. Thats alot of guns

Thats makes me wonder. Legally, I can walk into a gun shop today and buy 26 copies of xyz model pistol.

Now for collectors, its not unusual to buy multiples. A few nice pieces I've bought 2..1 to shoot and 1 to keep.

But 26? Anyway that leads me to my question.

I walk in say gimme 26 glocks. Clearly something is fishy is going on here, but absent any evidence (other than the quantity) that this is a strawman sale...is the dealer AUTOMATICALLY guilty of supporting strawman sales just because of the quantity??

Seems like more evidence than quantity would be needed.

[slackmaster]

7. Unless your state law prohibits it, you can but it has to be reported

If you sell more than one handgun to any nonlicensee during a period of 5 consecutive business days, the sale must be reported on ATF Form 3310.4, Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers, and forwarded to the ATF office specified on the form no later than the close of business on the day the second handgun was sold. A copy of the form must also be sent to the state police or the local law enforcement agency where the sale occurred. A copy must also be kept in the records of the dealer. <18 U. S. C. 923( g)( 3), 27 CFR 178.126a>

See http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#f5

If your dealer fails to submit the form he or she is in deep shit.

BTW I am a collector of mostly C&Rs. California's "one handgun per month" law will be a pain in the rear if I ever wish to buy a pair of matched pistols or a diptych. I might be forced to get a C&R FFL to get around that one.

[1a2b3c]

8. Why have you not gotten one yet?

A C&R that is.

[slackmaster]

10. Because California law nixes many of the benefits

A California "cruffler" cannot use the C&R FFL to import C&R handguns from other states, for example. It does allow for rifles and shotguns. I may get one if my hobby takes a more serious turn some day, but right now I'm too busy working for a living.