Keycard Auto Sear

[camo556]

I am more interested whether the ATF charged the customers. Clearly some of them used the "simple garage tool" (I assume a Dremel) to make the giggle plate.

Seems like the ATF would be just as eager to break that news.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Back at #35 and finiancial activities , by no means are the two necessarily linked .

Most businesses that " cut a fine line a bit too far on the wrong side " with Taxes , are doing legit actual business activity , other than the taxes .

OR , this guy could have been merely wanting to shield the privacy of himself and his customers , while intending to pay the taxes when due .


But yeah , Smokey makes a valuable point about when " something " legally becomes *SOMETHING * .

Home Depot , Lowes , every local Hardware store , every auto parts store , most garages , half the gas stations are all chock full of Supressor Components , is ATF raiding and shutting down 25% of the retail sector ?

 

[camo556]

Maybe. Part of the charges include the fact that he structured $68,000 in deposits to his credit union in an attempt to avoid their reporting the transactions. If true, seems like he very much knew what he was doing was in the wrong.

Back at #35 and finiancial activities , by no means are the two necessarily linked .

Most businesses that " cut a fine line a bit too far on the wrong side " with Taxes , are doing legit actual business activity , other than the taxes .

OR , this guy could have been merely wanting to shield the privacy of himself and his customers , while intending to pay the taxes when due .

No. For those who are not aware, structuring your deposits to avoid bank reporting requirements is itself illegal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring

It can also be evidence of intent of another crime, however structuring is itself illegal.

I could not find the details lazarus referenced in #35, but if he structured his deposits he's going to jail on that alone. It's also easy to prove.

So don't do this.

edit: legitimate businesses don't structure their deposits. Not a lot of people even know it's a crime.
It's a huge red flag for money laundering. Which makes me think that there is more here than the media reports indicate.

 

[Doctor_M]

You guys are way offbase about coat hangers being used take machine guns... according to Planned Parenthood, they will all be used for back alley abortions... so many wrinkled jackets in the future.

 

[Ponder_MD]

I am more interested whether the ATF charged the customers. Clearly some of them used the "simple garage tool" (I assume a Dremel) to make the giggle plate.

Seems like the ATF would be just as eager to break that news.

LMAO..."Giggle plate." I'm stealing that.

 

[john_bud]

There is an additional twist... a gun channel youtuber (CRS Firearms) from Wisconsin started a "go fund me" for the guy. Apparently he had never met him, just wanted to help increase awareness about his situation and provide funds for legal expenses. Altruistic intent.

ATF performed an armed raid his home. Forced his spouse to testify about the relationship to the accused. In Florida. Wouldnt let her tele testify in Wisconsin. Had to be in Florida. A big expense for a young couple with child.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Yeah , yeah , " delibertly " avoidance of reporting is a violation itself . Malum Prohibitum .

Still isn't necessarily not intending to pay proper taxes when actually due , or that underlying business activities are shady .

It's it's illegal to drive with broken muffler and taillight out in and of themselves . But doing so isn't necessarily because you knew you had untaxed whiskey and a dead hooker in your trunk .

 

[camo556]

If you want privacy, dont hand your details to a third party. You have literally ZERO expectation of privacy in bank records: https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/credit-banking-finance/bank-records-and-financial-privacy-laws.html

Z E R O

Congress giveth privacy in bank records, and they can take it away.

There are no legitimate reasons to be structuring deposits. "I want to go to the bank 34 times for the exercise" is not a thing. If you want privacy, or dont like the rules, the banking system was never for you.

Creating 1552 cards as a profoundly creative supporter of the 2a who wants to undermine the Hughes Amendment is one thing. Own it. Here he was money laundering. Something else is going on. I wonder who turned him in. Not his customers, thats for sure.

 

[camo556]

Also, the reality is that if you create one giggle card for your own personal use in your backyard, the ATF is never coming for you. They just don't have the time. They prosecute barely 40 people for illegal suppressors a year. The caliper police will not be coming to check the length on your form 1. If you post instructions and an STL file on the internet, you will have a valid 1A defense and still wont attract enough attention to merit a raid. I am not advocating breaking the law. Just stating reality. This guy is not worth defending, hes a tard.

 

[Crazytrain]

If you want privacy, dont hand your details to a third party. You have literally ZERO expectation of privacy in bank records: https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/credit-banking-finance/bank-records-and-financial-privacy-laws.html

Z E R O

Congress giveth privacy in bank records, and they can take it away.

There are no legitimate reasons to be structuring deposits. "I want to go to the bank 34 times for the exercise" is not a thing. If you want privacy, or dont like the rules, the banking system was never for you.

Creating 1552 cards as a profoundly creative supporter of the 2a who wants to undermine the Hughes Amendment is one thing. Own it. Here he was money laundering. Something else is going on. I wonder who turned him in. Not his customers, thats for sure.

Financial privacy is something that SHOULD be. Just like, in theory, we are supposed to have medical privacy. If we aren't violating the rights of others, what we do should pretty much be our own business. If I didn't invite you in to my life, stay the eff out of it. This is a pretty good reason to dismantle our current financial system. KYC/AML laws are great in theory in that they are there to make it easier to detect and stop illegal activity...but the potential abuses of any government power aside, the convenience of law enforcement should not trump my rights to privacy. As far as I'm concerned, they should have to make their cases the old fashioned way. I'd rather the criminals have an easier time structuring their financial lives than having my rights to privacy violated every time I make a financial transaction.

I don't know that he was money laundering. You don't know he was money laundering. That means turning dirty money into clean money. Perhaps he was trying to avoid IRS notice. Maybe his tinfoil hat was on too tight. I don't know. He may have just wanted to keep his business his business. If some other criminal enterprise comes to light then we may know something. Otherwise...big assumptions here. The mere argument that he appears to be hiding something means he is hiding something is a load of BS.

He was advertising his autokeycard on the somewhat prominent (and goofy) youtube channel CRS Firearms. That is not exactly keeping things on the down low. I'm sure the AFT keeps tabs on these channels. If they aren't, I'm sure the anti-gun groups are always watching and are perfectly anxious and willing to report anybody who appears to be exercising too much freedom.

There doesn't seem to be too much written about this case that I've run across. He's accused of manufacturing machine guns, which is obvious ******** by any common sense understanding of the term machine gun. Apparently he's accused of structuring his deposits in a way to avoid notice, which if the gains are not ill-obtained (and outside of the "Machine Gun" manufacturing I'm not aware of any other accusations), is at worst a paperwork violation, and, frankly, it should be none of the feds effing business. I suppose if it turns out he is guilty (he shouldn't be, but with the offensively tyrannical world we live in today, he easily could be found so), then the bank deposit thing could be used as evidence of knowing illegality. But, otherwise, if shouldn't even be a thing.

Is this guy a "tard"? Maybe. But where do you draw the line in the sand? My line is at the Constitution. Hell, as time goes on I think the Constitution wasn't strict enough in protecting our natural rights. Until I hear something else, as far as I'm concerned he most certainly is worth defending.



As an aside, I've noticed my posts appear very angry of late. That's because I've been very angry of late. I have this feeling that our liberty is being compressed and I don't like it. I don't like it at all. There are two states that man can exist. Freedom and Slavery. Slavery is the default position. It's easy and often comfortable, at least for awhile. Freedom is a constant, miserable, but absolutely worthwhile struggle. Whether or not Kris Ervin is an ideal representative of our side doesn't really matter. If we just site back and condemn him just because he is a "tard" (not my word) for exercising what should be a protected activity, we are willingly taking a big step away from freedom and embracing slavery. We need to be especially aware and protective of the rights of those we don't necessarily like.

 

[jrumann59]

The whole key-card thing is a load of ********. A quirky youtuber used to advertise them. I was tempted to buy one once as a "screw you" to The Man, but The Man has the keys to a cage I have no interest in seeing the inside of. I always figured that sooner or later the guy would get busted. If buying one is a "screw you", can you imagine how insulted the the AFT must have been by the sheer gall of someone actually selling the damn things.

In the end it is stupid. He etched a piece of metal with the outline of a lightning link. While I've never seen one in person, it seems clear that it can't just be punched out, and must actually be machined. Well...hell. You don't need the "auto-key card" to do that. I doubt it saves any effort.

No, the only reason to sell or buy one of these things is as a political statement. Call it a non-violent protest. I respect the dude for doing it. I sure as hell wouldn't.

Clearly, he should get off. But in this messed up world we find ourselves in, I wouldn't be surprised to find him sentenced to a century in the clink. The bureaucracy and our psychopathic elected elites are pushing and pushing trying to control their biggest threat, the citizenry. What they don't seem to understand is that people can only be pushed so far before they start pushing back. To quote Fred Thompson as Admiral Painter in Hunt for Red October: "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

He is paying for his intent. Same as if I sell a Kilo of Powdered sugar to an undercover cop.

 

[lazarus]

Funny thing...I don't give a crap about how he made his deposits. I don't really like the whole KYC thing anyhow, and think it definitely leans tyrannical. I think the rights of citizens to do their own thing without excessive oversight trumps law enforcements responsibilities at anti money laundering, but that is just me. Even so...what's it prove? Maybe he's a tax cheat. Arrest him for that if you must (but, even then, only if he actually cheated on his taxes, not because he acted suspicious making $9,999 deposits). Maybe he just didn't want to engage in additional governmental snooping. Who knows?

When you say "If true, seems like he very much knew what he was doing was in the wrong" I think we also have to ask what defines "wrong". Illegal? I think that is a pretty marginal call under current laws, and shouldn't even be an issue under the Constitution. I can't believe he was expecting to fly under the radar. He was advertising on at least one YouTube channel. Not exactly stealthy. Immoral? Based on what concept? What makes it wrong? Just because the psychopaths in government think it's a bad thing, and perhaps he was hoping to avoid notice (maybe...though he was public enough I can't believe he thought the Eye of Sauron wouldn't spot him eventually) it doesn't automatically become wrong.

It's possible he was prepared to financially defend himself, but I understand that the government confiscated all his money making paying for legal services difficult.

At the very least I see his arrest affecting his first amendment rights (this is a printed/etched picture of a part, not a part in itself), second amendment rights (even if the ridiculous notion that a representation of a part of a gun is in and of itself a freakin' machine gun, the way I read the 2nd amendment, it shouldn't matter), and sixth amendment rights (what ever happened to a speedy trial?). I'm not really up to speed on the case, but I'd bet money another amendment or two might be implicated as well.

No, even if the real intent was to have people cut these things out and turn their rifles in to machine guns, I just don't see how that is his responsibility. A law might be broken using components he supplied; but that is on the shoulders of the people breaking the law. You could just as easily go after Dremel for selling tools used to cut out the stupid part. This is the same BS that is used to go after gun manufacturers when their guns are used in a crime, or 80% manufacturers because they put together a kit of parts. It's all BS.

I'm a pretty law abiding fellow. But I still get nervous whenever I see a cop. I'm not at all confident that if I have to ever defend myself that I won't be the one arrested. Heck, I keep my mouth freakin' sealed at family events because those liberal loonies are likely to think I'm a dangerous gunny who should be red flagged for my own protection (I asked my sister-in-law, a well compensated corporate attorney BTW, if she was a communist after she went on an epic anti-freedom rant regarding the evils of capitalism, republicans, and those who refuse to wear masks. She had to think for a solid minute before responding that she didn't think so, that she was probably more socialist). Being afraid of your government when all you really want to do is be left alone is a real problem to me.

I have not heard of any of his links being used in crime. Even if they were, that would be on the one's committing the crimes (I'm not talking possessory crimes here, but rather real, honest to God violations of the rights of others kinds of crimes). Liberty must be the default position. This, to me, seems very tyrannical by nature, and whether or not the courts agree, a violation of Constitutional protected natural rights.

Okay. I’ll bite. He knew what he was doing was likely violating the NFA or could be construed by the government to be violating the NFA and thus structured his financial transactions to hide some of his activity. The purpose of financial disclosure laws isn’t just anti-money laundering but also to find patterns likely to be involved in other crimes.

Maybe he was dodging paying taxes to.

But when it comes down to it, no, you’ve got no legal right to full privacy in your financial dealings as it respects your business dealings or tax liabilities and the law has never to the best of my knowledge ever said you do have that right nor have the courts traditionally ruled you do.

So following financial disclosure laws are entirely righteous as far as the law has always held. Same with paying your taxes.

Which he is charged with. And of course also the NFA violations. Which I wish were BS. But just because I wish something was crap doesn’t make it so. Unless you are ignorant of the law, deliberately skirting the edges of it also means you might step in it. I believe that is the winning stupid prizes part of playing stupid games.

I hope he gets off at least on the NFA violations.

But it is disingenuous to say he didn’t know what he was doing. Or wasn’t structuring his business with the knowledge that he thought it was possible what he was doing was illegal.

As for privacy in financial dealings. Yeah sure, in an ideal world. That doesn’t exist. Our social contract says we have a government for the betterment of everyone and to enable that government taxes have to be paid. We decided a very long time ago on how those taxes are levied and the only way to ensure everyone actually pays what they owe is by not allowing that privacy in financial dealings.

Otherwise long history says the majority of people won’t be fully honest and a large minority won’t be remotely honest in what they owe.

So that ideal world doesn’t exist.

 

[Crazytrain]

Okay. I’ll bite. He knew what he was doing was likely violating the NFA or could be construed by the government to be violating the NFA and thus structured his financial transactions to hide some of his activity. The purpose of financial disclosure laws isn’t just anti-money laundering but also to find patterns likely to be involved in other crimes.

Maybe he was dodging paying taxes to.

But when it comes down to it, no, you’ve got no legal right to full privacy in your financial dealings as it respects your business dealings or tax liabilities and the law has never to the best of my knowledge ever said you do have that right nor have the courts traditionally ruled you do.

So following financial disclosure laws are entirely righteous as far as the law has always held. Same with paying your taxes.

Which he is charged with. And of course also the NFA violations. Which I wish were BS. But just because I wish something was crap doesn’t make it so. Unless you are ignorant of the law, deliberately skirting the edges of it also means you might step in it. I believe that is the winning stupid prizes part of playing stupid games.

I hope he gets off at least on the NFA violations.

But it is disingenuous to say he didn’t know what he was doing. Or wasn’t structuring his business with the knowledge that he thought it was possible what he was doing was illegal.

As for privacy in financial dealings. Yeah sure, in an ideal world. That doesn’t exist. Our social contract says we have a government for the betterment of everyone and to enable that government taxes have to be paid. We decided a very long time ago on how those taxes are levied and the only way to ensure everyone actually pays what they owe is by not allowing that privacy in financial dealings.

Otherwise long history says the majority of people won’t be fully honest and a large minority won’t be remotely honest in what they owe.

So that ideal world doesn’t exist.

Okay. First I think the rules and laws are wrong and I was ranting about that. From the beginning...

In my very humble opinion, all of the financial disclosure laws, are wrong and should fall under the fourth amendment. You don't (or at least shouldn't) lose your right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects just because you are using a bank. If there is evidence of a crime, the authorities can go ahead and get a warrant. At that point it doesn't really matter how deposits are structured. The banks shouldn't be mandated to rat out their customers. This isn't about a BS social contract. No, this is about control.

The NFA (and GCA for that matter) should be ruled unconstitutional in its' freakin' entirety based on the second amendment. Will it ever happen? Probably not, but we can only hope.

But even with the NFA, you cannot honestly claim that a freakin' picture on a piece of aluminum is a machine gun. That is stretching the definition way beyond anything remotely reasonable and, at least to me, appears to be an abuse of power. But then, I suppose the whole NFA is an abuse of power by trying to use the power of taxation as a backdoor gun ban.

As to "But it is disingenuous to say he didn’t know what he was doing. Or wasn’t structuring his business with the knowledge that he thought it was possible what he was doing was illegal." I think that is entirely wrong. He probably knew he was at risk. Perhaps he thought he was reducing his risk by doing whatever it was he was doing with his money. But you are throwing a presumption of guilt out here. As mentioned above, I don't think the NFA charge is valid, although the ATF and many in government (possibly including the courts) might wish it was and act according to those wishes. Even if he thought he was breaking the NFA law (unlikely, since if that was his intent he would have actually finished machining the parts), I don't think he actually was. If I'm right, then it shouldn't matter how or why he deposited his funds, whether or not it looked suspicious.

We are free, or we are not.

By the way, that "Social Contract" you mentioned which is supposed to be for the betterment of everyone, should not, ever, require that we give up our basic rights. And I strongly dispute that the government is holding up their side of the bargain anyhow.

 

[camo556]

Nothing screams "privacy" like setting up a website and selling parts to 1552 of your closest friends.

 

[Crazytrain]

Nothing screams "privacy" like setting up a website and selling parts to 1552 of your closest friends.

Capitalism

 

[wabbit]

He is paying for his intent. Same as if I sell a Kilo of Powdered sugar to an undercover cop.

This reminds me of a funny incident I had with TSA at Dulles airport. I was flying back to the middle east and had a bag of powdered sugar from Walmart in my carry on luggage and the TSA agent's eyes opened real wide when he saw the bag of white powder after openning my luggage. He broke out the drug test kit and was really disappointed it was just a bag of sugar. I had an hour to kill before my flight was boarding so I just enjoyed the comedy show put on by the TSA agent and his supervisor. Our tax dollars at work.

 

[lazarus]

Okay. First I think the rules and laws are wrong and I was ranting about that. From the beginning...

In my very humble opinion, all of the financial disclosure laws, are wrong and should fall under the fourth amendment. You don't (or at least shouldn't) lose your right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects just because you are using a bank. If there is evidence of a crime, the authorities can go ahead and get a warrant. At that point it doesn't really matter how deposits are structured. The banks shouldn't be mandated to rat out their customers. This isn't about a BS social contract. No, this is about control.

The NFA (and GCA for that matter) should be ruled unconstitutional in its' freakin' entirety based on the second amendment. Will it ever happen? Probably not, but we can only hope.

But even with the NFA, you cannot honestly claim that a freakin' picture on a piece of aluminum is a machine gun. That is stretching the definition way beyond anything remotely reasonable and, at least to me, appears to be an abuse of power. But then, I suppose the whole NFA is an abuse of power by trying to use the power of taxation as a backdoor gun ban.

As to "But it is disingenuous to say he didn’t know what he was doing. Or wasn’t structuring his business with the knowledge that he thought it was possible what he was doing was illegal." I think that is entirely wrong. He probably knew he was at risk. Perhaps he thought he was reducing his risk by doing whatever it was he was doing with his money. But you are throwing a presumption of guilt out here. As mentioned above, I don't think the NFA charge is valid, although the ATF and many in government (possibly including the courts) might wish it was and act according to those wishes. Even if he thought he was breaking the NFA law (unlikely, since if that was his intent he would have actually finished machining the parts), I don't think he actually was. If I'm right, then it shouldn't matter how or why he deposited his funds, whether or not it looked suspicious.

We are free, or we are not.

By the way, that "Social Contract" you mentioned which is supposed to be for the betterment of everyone, should not, ever, require that we give up our basic rights. And I strongly dispute that the government is holding up their side of the bargain anyhow.

But as pointed out, structured deposits are illegal. Which is one of the crimes he is charged with. It’s perhaps not the hardest thing in the universe to structure your deposits to avoid reporting requirements from the bank. But you kind of have to be aware of those reporting requirements and know you are intentionally trying to avoid them*. With about as much research as one likely does to understand the reporting requirements on the bank, you’ll also find the information that structuring deposits to avoid said reporting requirements is a crime.

Perhaps there is a small sliver of people that wouldn’t actually realize that. But it’s going to be relatively small.

“I don’t want the government to find out about my large deposits. So I’ll structure them to be smaller. That can’t possibly be illegal”.

Here is the issue though. You are dealing with an outside entity. You are still secure in your persons and effects. But you’ve got no control over the back records. Hell, you’d not have control over your health care records either. HIPPA limits what can be shared and with whom. But you don’t have a constitutional protection on your health care records. If someone else holds them, you don’t have a right to privacy under the 4th amendment.

Now, that someone else might have a right to privacy and not reveal it. But if that someone else is a business entity, they don’t have the same constitutional protections that a person does. And even if it is a person they can choose to tell anyone anything if they want.

Want something to be covered by the 4th? Don’t tell anyone else about the thing. And especially don’t tell a business about it.

*Also if one were a slightly brighter bulb, they’d also realize many/most financial organizations have decent algorithms to look for structured deposits and withdrawals. As part of their reporting requirements are that. It isn’t just the money limits, they are required to report any transactions or patterns of transactions that appear suspect.

 

[gwfrench]

structured deposits
However, DoJ has a policy (as of 2015) of not charging structured deposits alone as a crime unless there is evidence of criminal activity. And, yes, structured deposits are still illegal under the law.
It may still cause you headaches if you have to show where the money came from.
source: https://reason.com/2015/03/31/doj-introduces-new-restrictions-on-asset/

 

[huesmann]

Is it a felony to have a metal coat hanger?

The current Supreme Court will probably make that so...

 

[777GSOTB]

He'll never bring a constitutional argument into his trial, as it's beyond the scope of his pleadings...He has about a 6% chance of winning his case though, and that's better than nothing.