Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Posted by: kwflatbed

By Tim O'Neil

St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
Copyright 2006 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
All Rights Reserved


Charges that an Illinois State Police sergeant illegally possessed a machine gun were dismissed Wednesday by a federal judge, who ruled that the law was "unconstitutionally vague" as applied to him.
In federal court in East St. Louis, U.S. District Judge David R. Herndon dropped the charges against Sgt. James V. Vest of O'Fallon, Ill., who was lead rifle instructor for the department's District 11 in the Metro East area. Herndon's 26-page order says the confusion is over the federal law's exception for police officers, and whether Vest could reasonably be expected to know whether he was breaking the law.
Vest was one of four people, including two other Illinois state troopers, separately accused in January of illegally possessing machine guns. Such fully automatic weapons are banned by federal law except for certain uses, such as by the military and police agencies, or by people with a special license, which the four did not have.
A machine gun fires multiple rounds with one squeeze of the trigger.
How Herndon's ruling would affect the other cases was unclear Wednesday, partly because the charges against them are not identical.
Two other defendants, State Police Special Agent John Yard of Collinsville and Dr. Harold Griffiths of Spaulding, Ill., have similar constitutional claims pending before U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan in East St. Louis.
The remaining defendant, Senior Master Trooper Greg Mugge of Jerseyville, pleaded guilty July 25 of possession of an unregistered machine gun. His lawyer, John Delaney Jr., said Wednesday that he was studying the Vest case ruling.
Clyde Kuehn, one of Vest's lawyers, said Wednesday "was a very relieving and happy day" for his client. Vest remains on administrative leave.
The four were charged after investigations by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It was not clear at the outset what triggered the probe. None of the four was accused of using the weapons in any crimes.
U.S. Attorney Randy Massey, whose office brought the charges, declined Wednesday to discuss Herndon's ruling. Massey's office had opposed Vest's motion to dismiss.
The charges carry a maximum prison term of 10 years and a fine of up to $250,000, although federal guidelines call for less when defendants have no criminal records.
The case against Vest concerned an M-4 machine gun, essentially a short-barrel form of the standard M-16 military weapon, that he bought in 1998 and used in his state police training classes. The charges allege that he lacked authority from the state to buy or possess the weapon.
Vest argued that he bought and used it under the "law enforcement exception" in the federal law.
Herndon noted that the prosecution never claimed that Vest ever used the M-4 for anything but official purposes. The judge said the government argued that a law enforcement agency, not a single police officer, has the authority to permit possession of a machine gun.
But Herndon wrote that the federal law granting that authority was too vague in this instance to support the charges against Vest.
"How would a police officer/lead rifle instructor such as Vest ever know whether his possession of a machine gun or other prohibited weapon was legal, as there is no guidance under the (statute) as to what constitutes proper authority," the judge wrote.
Given that Vest apparently used it only for law enforcement purposes, Herndon said, charging him "seems to go against the purpose" of the federal law.



Copyright © 2006 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy

---

Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Shouldn't have been charged in the first place!!

---

Posted by: Killjoy

Ditto. What, is the ATF so hard-up for cases that they have to sling mud at cops? Go after the crooks!

---

Posted by: SOT

Actually on this one he prolly should have been charged and he should have gone to jail. The form requesting the firearm transfered to his department was a forgery --- which proves intent. He made up the letterhead and the signed document and sent it in to get the firearm transfered. The gun was paid for by himself (does happen and not a big deal). But the fact that he lied on a letter to purchase then never registered the firearm to his agency, that's where the problem lies.
If I were to do that as a dealer, I'd be in jail faster than you can say spit....

---

Posted by: NFAfan

Double standard if I ever, ever, saw one. That case was a conspiracy that was followed through with multiple crimes committed.

"How would a police officer/lead rifle instructor such as Vest ever know whether his possession of a machine gun or other prohibited weapon was legal, as there is no guidance under the (statute) as to what constitutes proper authority," the judge wrote.

How?? You call the BATFE and ask....thats how, just like everyone else who owns or deals with machineguns does. Those cops knew exactly what they were doing.........breaking the law.

---

Posted by: 94c

if the judge says the law is vague that's good enough for me.

---

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser