Brown Supporter Gerhard's detention order 09/25/07

[Dezcad]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 07-cr-168-01-PB
Jason Gerhard

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
In accordance with Section 3142(f) of the Bail Reform Act,
18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., a hearing was conducted on
September 25, 2007, for the purpose of determining whether to
detain defendant, Jason Gerhard, who has been indicted on one
count of conspiracy to prevent officials of the United States
from discharging their duties, one count of conspiracy to commit
offenses against the United States, five counts of carrying and
possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence and
one count of accessory after the fact.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b), a court, in making a
determination regarding detention, must evaluate the risk of the
defendant’s flight, the risk to the safety of any other person,
and the risk to the safety of the community. In circumstances
when detention is not mandated by the court, the court is
nonetheless empowered to impose conditions on release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c).

Pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) a court,
in assessing the risks noted in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b), shall
consider the following: (1) the nature and circumstances of the
offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence as to guilt;
(3) the history and characteristics of the accused, including
family ties, past history, financial resources and employment;
and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger t
o any person or the community that would be posed by a release.
During the course of a hearing conducted pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3142, the government typically retains the burden of
persuading the court that “‘no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure’ the defendant’s presence at
trial.” United States v. Perez-Franco, 839 F.2d 867, 870 (1st
Cir. 1988)(quoting United States v. Palmer-Contreras, 835 F.2d
15, 17-18 (1st Cir. 1987)); United States v. Patriarca, 948 F.2d
789, 793 (1st Cir. 1991). For its part, the government is
required to offer a preponderance of the evidence to prove risk
of flight. See Patriarca, 948 F.2d at 792-93. Facts necessary
to find that no combination will reasonably assure the safety of
any person and the community require satisfaction of the “clear
and convincing” standard. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2).

In the case at hand, the indictment itself constitutes
probable cause to believe that the offenses charged have been
committed and that the defendant has committed them.
Here, I find that the government has met its burden with
regard to risk of flight or danger to the community.
Specifically, the nature of the offenses include crimes of
violence. The evidence, as proffered, is substantial.
It includes providing and assisting others in providing
to the Browns Serbu .50 caliber rifles. This is a weapon
which should only be for military use and which can blow holes
in tanks, planes and armored vests. He also provided other rifles to
the Browns. He shares their baseless nonsensical views and supports
the Browns. Although he has family ties in Long Island, his propensity
for guns and pipe bombs, together with his espoused views make him a
danger to the community.
Considering the very long sentence he is looking at, he is also a risk of flight.

I am satisfied from the representations and documents
offered during the hearing that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community.
Upon full consideration of the arguments offered by the
government and defense, I am satisfied that the
defendant poses a risk of flight or danger to the community.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained
pending trial.

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney
General or his designated representative for confinement in a
corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from
persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody
pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable
opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On
order of a court of the United States or on request of an
attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the
corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United
States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection
with a court proceeding.
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
James R. Muirhead
United States Magistrate Judge

[Harrison Bergeron]

Is it legal to own a .50 cal weapon?

[BBFlatt]

Is it legal to own a .50 cal weapon?

Yes, in many places in the U.S. (but not, I think, in California).

Picture of a .50 Cal BMG (Browning Machine Gun) round with other rifle rounds and a $1 FRN for size comparison:

[BBFlatt]

More info from Wikipedia:

The specified maximum diameter of an unfired .50 BMG bullet is .510 inch; while this appears to be over the .50 inch (12.7 mm) maximum allowed for non-sporting Title I small arms under the U.S. National Firearms Act, the barrel of a .50 BMG rifle is only .50 inches across the rifling lands, and slightly larger in the grooves. The oversized bullet is formed to the bore size upon firing, forming a tight seal and engaging the rifling, a mechanism which in firearms terms is known as engraving. Subject to political controversy due to the great power of the cartridge (it is the most powerful commonly available cartridge not considered a destructive device under the National Firearms Act), it remains popular among long-range shooters for its accuracy and external ballistics. While the .50 BMG round is able to deliver accurate shot placement (if match grade ammunition is used) at ranges over 1,000 yards (900 m), smaller caliber rifles produce better scores and tighter groups in 1000 yard competitions.

Since the adoption of .50 BMG rifles by military sniper units, there has been a growing gun control movement in some states, including California, New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Illinois, to ban civilian possession of .50 BMG rifles and ammunition. Bill AB50 in California, passed in 2004, known as the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004 classifies all .50 BMG rifles of any action type as assault weapons, which are illegal to import into the state or transfer to any but a state agency or dealer licensed to purchase them. The bill's sponsor, California Assemblyman Paul Koretz, claimed that the .50 BMG "would be an ideal choice for use in an act of terrorism."

However, .50 BMG caliber rifles are considered by some gun experts to be a poor choice because of their size, weight and cost. The considerable size and weight of .50 BMG rifles, high cost, and lack of concealability make them a poor choice for criminal use. With lengths usually between four and five feet and weighing 20-40 pounds (a large .50 caliber rifle weighs slightly less than an olympic sized barbell), they are unwieldy and difficult to conceal.

After AB50 was passed, Barrett proceeded to cease sales and service of .50 BMG rifles to California law enforcement agencies. An official press release from the owner of Barrett Firearms can be found on the company's website, as follows: "The California legislature has banned the .50 BMG from the good citizens of the state of California, violating their rights and the constitution of our republic. Therefore, Barrett will not sell to or service any California government agencies."

In response to legal action against the .50 BMG in the United States and Europe, an alternative chambering was developed. The .510 DTC Europ uses the same bullet, but has slightly different case dimensions. .510 DTC cases can be made by fire-forming .50 BMG cases. The new round has almost identical ballistics, but because of the different dimensions, rifles chambered for the .50 BMG cannot fire the .510 DTC, and therefore do not fall under many of the same legal prohibitions. Barrett offers a similar alternative, the .416 Barrett, which is based on a shortened .50 BMG case necked down to .416 caliber (10.3 mm).

[Prof]

More info from Wikipedia:

The specified maximum diameter of an unfired .50 BMG bullet is .510 inch; while this appears to be over the .50 inch (12.7 mm) maximum allowed for non-sporting Title I small arms under the U.S. National Firearms Act, the barrel of a .50 BMG rifle is only .50 inches across the rifling lands, and slightly larger in the grooves. The oversized bullet is formed to the bore size upon firing, forming a tight seal and engaging the rifling, a mechanism which in firearms terms is known as engraving. Subject to political controversy due to the great power of the cartridge (it is the most powerful commonly available cartridge not considered a destructive device under the National Firearms Act), it remains popular among long-range shooters for its accuracy and external ballistics. While the .50 BMG round is able to deliver accurate shot placement (if match grade ammunition is used) at ranges over 1,000 yards (900 m), smaller caliber rifles produce better scores and tighter groups in 1000 yard competitions.

Since the adoption of .50 BMG rifles by military sniper units, there has been a growing gun control movement in some states, including California, New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Illinois, to ban civilian possession of .50 BMG rifles and ammunition. Bill AB50 in California, passed in 2004, known as the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004 classifies all .50 BMG rifles of any action type as assault weapons, which are illegal to import into the state or transfer to any but a state agency or dealer licensed to purchase them. The bill's sponsor, California Assemblyman Paul Koretz, claimed that the .50 BMG "would be an ideal choice for use in an act of terrorism."

However, .50 BMG caliber rifles are considered by some gun experts to be a poor choice because of their size, weight and cost. The considerable size and weight of .50 BMG rifles, high cost, and lack of concealability make them a poor choice for criminal use. With lengths usually between four and five feet and weighing 20-40 pounds (a large .50 caliber rifle weighs slightly less than an olympic sized barbell), they are unwieldy and difficult to conceal.

After AB50 was passed, Barrett proceeded to cease sales and service of .50 BMG rifles to California law enforcement agencies. An official press release from the owner of Barrett Firearms can be found on the company's website, as follows: "The California legislature has banned the .50 BMG from the good citizens of the state of California, violating their rights and the constitution of our republic. Therefore, Barrett will not sell to or service any California government agencies."

In response to legal action against the .50 BMG in the United States and Europe, an alternative chambering was developed. The .510 DTC Europ uses the same bullet, but has slightly different case dimensions. .510 DTC cases can be made by fire-forming .50 BMG cases. The new round has almost identical ballistics, but because of the different dimensions, rifles chambered for the .50 BMG cannot fire the .510 DTC, and therefore do not fall under many of the same legal prohibitions. Barrett offers a similar alternative, the .416 Barrett, which is based on a shortened .50 BMG case necked down to .416 caliber (10.3 mm).

The article is quite accurate, but does not fully emphasize the size of the various .50 BMG rifles available. These are designed for extremely long ranges (the new Barret .416 is even more accurate than its .50 rifle and other manufacturers make rifles designed to fire these and similar cartridges at up to 2,000 meters. These guns are huge, bi-pod/tripod mounted weapons, usually meant to be fired by a team -- spotter and gunner. They are also very expensive. They are to bulky to be shoulder fired, and, absent some sort of anti-aircraft mount of the type seen on jeeps and other vehicles in WWII, cannot be used to attack aircraft. All are either single shot, bolt action, or semi-auto, and are simply not suitable to acquire and track and hit airplanes.

Of course, with the proper federal license, in Texas and other states, a person can acquire fully automatic Browning .50 machine guns, M-60 machine guns (.308/7.62 mm NATO), but the cost very high and licensing is limited.

In other words, these guns are not good terror weapons.

Rifles which make great terror weapons include most "assault" rifles, which can easily be converted from semi to fully automatic (i.e., various versions of the M-16). A good pump or semi-auto 12 ga. shotgun, with 3" chambers, loaded with high brass shells containing "00" buck shot, is almost as effective at short range. (Each of the individual pellets--there are 12 to 15-- in the cartridge is a .32 cal. slug.) Better still, stolen dynamite or homemade nitrogen fertilizer/diesel bombs will take out an entive federal office building (Ok. City).

Legislators and gun-control advocates are generally given to "picking" on guns like this, but ignore very real threats such as the wide availability of quality shotguns and rifles on the open market or on the private and unregulated resale market.

Any good deer rifle, in .308 or 7mm or 7mm mag is accurate up to 700 or so yards in the hands of a competent rifleman, and will take out a human wearing a "bullet proof" vest, at that range. Such a rile, about $6-700 with a decent scope, loads about 4 rounds, and can knock out the engine on a police car and will pierce automobile/pick up body panels with ease. It will probably pierce most police "armored vehicles or at least knock those vehicles out.

But, if we want to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals, we're probably going to have to change the 2nd Amendment.

Before we go to all of that trouble, we should ban the sale of nitrogen fertilizer and diesel fuel and the use of jet airplanes.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

I am at a loss. How does the mere mention of firearms bring forth 2nd Amendment rants?

My position: When society breaks down to the point where we need to be heavily armed (think Omega Man and Road Warrior...but not Water World) I can rest assured that all the military hardware and equipment I need I can get it from my local warlord or strip off the dead hotheads who spent millions of Loonies (the only surviving post-Illuminati money) preparing themselves for the day the "government" comes for them.

[Prof]

At the Battle of Belleau Woods in WWI, the Germans were very surprised when as they advanced on fresh US tropps (US MArines actually), the Germans began dropping from accurate rifle fire at 700 yards.

The US Maines were using the '03 Sprinfield .303 calibre, bolt-action rifle. Eventually they ended up using the Germans for target practice.

The .50 calibre rifle ban here in CA is just stucking fupid. The guns are very big, very heavy and very expensive, as is the ammo.

The idea that banning guns will somehow magically make crime go away is a bunch of liberal, touchy-feely HORSESH*T!

Note to self - buy handgun and rifle between semesters......

1. The Springfiled chambers the .30-'06 cartridge, as does the M-1 Rifle, the BAR, the air and water cooled Browning .30 caliber machine guns, and the M-14 and M-16 machine gun chamber the NATO 7.62, which, along with the .308 are almost identical. The .303 was a British cartridge, used in the Lee-Enfield variants, including the Enfield adopted by the US around the time of the Spanish War.

2. The Germans should not have been surprised. The Springfield was produced (mostly) under license from Mauser and was a re-egineered version of the '93 (Spanish) Mauser.

Response to Evil Squirrel:

I have no problem with gun control -- but significant gun control legislation, such a banning pistols and so forth requires, in my opinion, an amendment to the 2nd Amendment (and, so far, the DC Circuit agrees).

Although I know a little about rifles, I do not own a rifle other than a single shot .22 I inherited from my Dad. It is so old, it does not have a serial number.

I do own far too many shotguns because I hunt birds and about 4 pistols (which I've picked up for some reason or other over the last 20 or 30 years and never use; they stay locked up much of the time). If there were a Constitutional way to ban all handguns and assault weapons in the US, I would support such a ban.

[grammarian44]

Prof--

Wasn't ESO's question about an apparent non-sequitur? I still wonder....why does the mere mention of firearms call forth anti-gun control rants? Sometimes I wonder if there is some other kind of liberty tool the ranters are afraid of losing, and that the fear of losing one's guns merely stands in for a more intimate fear.....

[Lambkin]

why does the mere mention of firearms call forth anti-gun control rants?

Because this is 'merica you pinko! :-)

Sometimes I wonder if there is some other kind of liberty tool the ranters are afraid of losing

You mean, the ability to think rationally?

I think I can handle owning a gun without threatening anyone with it, but I know I can't trust the public at large with weapons, just look how they use cars!

[Joey Smith]

These guys are looking at some serious time.

[Prof]

But, if we want to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals, we're probably going to have to change the 2nd Amendment.

Aw, come on, Prof, you know better than that!

Criminals are those who, BY DEFINITION, do not care what the law says, which is why they don't obey it. You could repeal the 2nd amendment with an amendment that also says it is illegal for any civilian to own any firearm without prior government approval, and the criminals won't give up theirs. A person who doesn't care that rape, robbery, burglary, murder, etc. are already illegal (and always have been) won't give a damn if you make possession of a firearm a crime in and of itself (as opposed to having one during the commission of a crime, which is already in the penal code most places in America).

Besides, from a purely practical point of view, there is no way to get the privately owned guns already out there off the streets. I recently read an article that estimated there are about 270 million guns in private hands in America. Given a population of about 300 million, that means that there are 9 privately owned guns for every 10 people. Even if you did get rid of the 2nd amendment, you wouldn't be able to eliminate even half of those privately owned guns without shredding other parts of the Bill of Rights, such as the 4th amendment, and the libertarian in me says that things like the "War on Drugs" nonsense has done enough damage to the Bill of Rights already.

1. Amend the Second Amendment to limit gun ownership to sporting rifles, target pistols, or whatever.

2. Pass a law confiscating the banned weapons (with a "takings clause" fair market value payment.

3. Severely criminalize the mere possession of such weapons.

Of course, amending the Second would cost a fortune in political adds, etc., and, if the Amendment passed, not one gun would be taken out of circulation until...

a fortune was spent buying up the now illegal guns ...

and then we would have to catch the criminals holding the now illegal guns and imprison them (at a fortune) ...

and we still would not have removed the now illegal guns from the criminals we did not catch ...

and, as I pointed out, many sporting arms can be very deadly in a crimnal's (or terrorist's) hands -- such as a 12 ga. shotgun loaded with 00 buck shot (sporting versions hold 5 rounds) or a decent .308 rifle with scope, accurate to 500 yards in the hands of a decent shooter ...

and, the Second Amendment, as amended, would do nothing about the problem of mixing diesel with nitrogen fertilizer.

I said I would support a ban on handguns and assault rifles; I did not think that such a ban would be very practical.

[Joey Smith]

Second Amendment discussions go to Ranting & Raving, thx.

[Demosthenes]

Plainfield

Judge orders Brown ally held
22-year-old man faces more than 100 years

By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff

September 26, 2007

A federal judge has ordered the last of four recently arrested supporters of Ed and Elaine Brown to remain in jail until his trial. Magistrate James Muirhead said that Jason Gerhard, 22, of Brookhaven, N.Y., had committed a "heinous" act by bringing a high-powered sniper rifle to the Browns' home and that he was a danger to the community.

Gerhard, who had enlisted in the Army at the time of his arrest, is charged with conspiring to help the Plainfield tax protesters escape justice and with bringing weapons to their fortified concrete home. If he is convicted of all the charges he faces, he would be sentenced to more than 125 years in prison.

Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted this winter of conspiring to evade taxes on nearly $2 million Elaine Brown earned as a dentist. The Browns were each sentenced to 63 months in prison but have refused to surrender, remaining holed up in their hilltop home and threatening violence if marshals try to arrest them. Since their convictions, the Browns have entertained dozens of supporters, four of whom were arrested this month and charged with felonies for helping the couple.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Kinsella presented the judge with images of papers Gerhard filled out at gun dealers in New Hampshire. They indicated that he had purchased several military-style rifles since January, including a .50-caliber rifle, a weapon designed to hit targets accurately at long ranges and capable of piercing body armor.

He also showed the judge a photograph of a pipe bomb, which he said investigators found in Gerhard's bedroom on the day he was arrested. The bomb was filled with gunpowder, Kinsella said, but did not have a fuse. A photograph of his bedroom in that house showed a rifle leaning against the foot of Gerhard's bed.

According to Kinsella, Gerhard told the Lebanon police that he was willing to use force to protect the Browns.

"The defendant said that he believed in the Browns' cause and he would participate in their efforts to forcibly resist any efforts to arrest them," he said.

Gerhard's attorney argued that his client was not a danger to the community and could be released on restrictive bail conditions. He said his client had become interested in the Browns as a journalist writing for his college newspaper, exploring issues of tax law and free speech. Reading from one of Gerhard's articles, which said that the Browns' case should attract widespread interest, Stanley Norkunas argued that his client's involvement with the Browns was part of an exploration, not a criminal conspiracy.

"This was obviously a philosophical discourse by a young man exploring what is free speech," he said of the article.

He also used Gerhard's writings and his statements to the police to suggest that there was little risk that Gerhard would flee if he was released from custody.

"He has wanted to present his views. He has shown this," he said. "He wants to come forward to share issues that he believes are important to the American people."

But Muirhead agreed with the prosecution, ordering Gerhard held until his trial.

"It does appear a shame that this man has been misled by the Browns, whose cause is not a legitimate cause," he said. In his written order, published later in the day, he described the Browns' legal perspective as "baseless nonsensical views."

He expressed particular concern about the rifle, describing it as a weapon that could tear human targets to pieces.

"This is a particularly heinous thing, to bring a .50-caliber rifle into the Browns' house and leave it there," Muirhead said.

Last May, Muirhead presided over a similar detention hearing when Ed and Elaine Brown were first arrested. The prosecutor in their case presented evidence that the Browns had more than 30 weapons, had made repeated threats of violence against law enforcement and had a home capable of withstanding a lengthy standoff. Muirhead released them on their own recognizance.

"The fact that the government doesn't' agree with their views . . . doesn't mean that there isn't a First Amendment," he said at the time.

[Dezcad]

Last May, Muirhead presided over a similar detention hearing when Ed and Elaine Brown were first arrested. The prosecutor in their case presented evidence that the Browns had more than 30 weapons, had made repeated threats of violence against law enforcement and had a home capable of withstanding a lengthy standoff. Muirhead released them on their own recognizance.

"The fact that the government doesn't' agree with their views . . . doesn't mean that there isn't a First Amendment," he said at the time.

At least Muirhead learned from that horrible lapse in judgment.

[.]

The bomb was filled with gunpowder, Kinsella said, but did not have a fuse.

The defintion of a TP.

Muirhead released them on their own recognizance.

And now reality has finally set in.