CRS Firearms (Matt Hoover) Found Guilty (Auto Key Card Case)

[HoughMade]

So you want to become case law…..this is how you become case law!!!!

"Make"- yes.

"Become"- no

 

[Morgan12]

Here’s the thing under the first amendment isn’t he guaranteed free speech look at all the books you can go buy out there with way worse stuff in them

 

[ECS686]

Here’s the thing under the first amendment isn’t he guaranteed free speech look at all the books you can go buy out there with way worse stuff in them

From what I read. One of the Governments argument was he sold (or told how to buy a card) a card that had etching as basically a cut out. Here’s an interesting channel that posted this a year ago. Obviously with these that were probably used by the US Attorney. Didn’t really make a jury buy the defense.

 

[Morgan12]

I still don’t see how it’s any different than some one selling the improvised munitions handbook. You can do that it tells you how to get stuff

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Don't put your crimes on the Internet.

It is not shocking that this resulted in a conviction. Don't mock .gov on the Internet during your trial and express shock that your bond is revoked until sentencing.

So much to learn from this debacle.

 

[Creedmoor]

Don't put your crimes on the Internet.

Thats a Tee Shirt...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Thats a Tee Shirt...

CRS was known for his t-shirts.

He wanted to be cute. I am certain he will be found very cute in the BoP.

 

[injb]

The videos make it clear that he intended for people to use them as lightning links. He even called them that. Now, yes, he also said the opposite, that it's just a novelty item etc. When you say two contradictory things, but one of them is evidence of a crime, guess which one matters!

I do feel sorry for the guy. It's wrong. But it doesn't look like a simple case of a guy being convicted for having a picture of something, as people say. He said he asked the ATF if he could draw a picture of a lightning link on metal, and they said yes. If that was all he had done, I bet he would have been OK. Selling them with the intent that people should cut them out and use them, with instructions on how to avoid detection by the ATF...not quite the same thing is it?

As an analogy, can you buy a gun without an FFL? Yes. Sell a gun without an FFL? Yes. Buy a gun with the intent of selling it for a profit without an FFL? No! Intent matters! I'm not defending this stupid law or the decision to go after this guy, but I'm not convinced that the "convicted for having a picture" thing is an accurate characterization of what happened.

 

[HoughMade]

In some post above, it was stated that the etching on the card was not the right size and would not work.

However, in the video above, Matt Hoover is clearly representing that it can be cut out and used.

Which is it?

 

[HoughMade]

How can it be immaterial if it was something tangible from the authority that led you to believe it was ok?

Edit: Not sure if you might have been sarcastic here and i didn't initially pick it up.

Real answer- because the ATF doesn't determine what a machinegun is. It determines what it will investigate and what it will pass along to the U.S. Attorney. It's decisions in this regard are not binding.

Seems unfair. I agree.

Ultimately, the statute and the case law interpreting it is the authority and a trial and appeal may be the only way to determine what this card was. That's how it works at the edges. Stay away from the edges.

 

[KG1]

Real answer- because the ATF doesn't determine what a machinegun is. It determines what it will investigate and what it will pass along to the U.S. Attorney. It's decisions in this regard are not binding.

Seems unfair. I agree.

Ultimately, the statute and the case law interpreting it is the authority and a trial and appeal may be the only way to determine what this card was. That's how it works at the edges. Stay away from the edges.

Seems to me the U.S. Attorney accepted ATFs determination that this was a machine gun according to their interpretation and proceeded with the prosecution.

That's why I think it would be material if the defendant were to present some tangible evidence that he was led to believe by the ATF that it was ok to contradict that.. But I guess its moot anyway because he didn't get that tangible proof in writing to present in his defense.

 

[HoughMade]

Read the indictment.

Ervin paying Hoover for promotion of the card with a Louis Vuitton handbag...clever. Further payments with cash shipped in a box. Is this the way YouTube sponsorships usually work? I have no experience. Did Ervin at least 1099 Hoover?

Anyhoo, on appeal, obviously this will come down to whether the etching on the card constitutes a "machinegun".

I think the "structuring" count will stick around regardless. It's like these guys never heard about crypto.

One wonders about the machine shop that made the cards. Cooperated?

 

[HoughMade]

Seems to me the U.S. Attorney accepted ATFs determination that this was a machine gun according to their interpretation and proceeded with the prosecution.

That's why I think it would be material if the defendant were to present some tangible evidence that he was led to believe by the ATF that it was ok to contradict that.. But I guess its moot anyway because he didn't get that tangible proof in writing to present in his defense.

I am not saying that the ATF doesn't have an opinion. I am saying that its opinion, or that of the U.S. Attorney standing alone, are not the law. They are interpretations of the law and a judge can accept or reject them.*

The ATF saying "no you're good" is not a defense IF your actions are found to be a violation of the law as written.

Again, seems unfair and is, but I don't make the law, I report it.

[ETA]* Here I am only talking about using an ATF opinion that something is not a machinegun as a defense. I will not get into it, but there is a fight taking place over what deference is to be given to agency interpretations of statutes (if any). However, that is on the other side of the equation- what constitutes a violation of the law. A court can reject an agency interpretation, but is unlikely to when the agency finds a violation of the statute. The difference between how Agency opinions as to what is "safe" and their interpretations as to when there is a violation is why this is so unfair,

 

[KG1]

I am not saying that the ATF doesn't have an opinion. I am saying that its opinion, or that of the U.S. Attorney standing alone, are not the law. They are interpretations of the law and a judge can accept or reject them.

The ATF saying "no you're good" is not a defense IF your actions are found to be a violation of the law as written.

Again, seems unfair and is, but I don't make the law, I report it.

But were they in violation of the law as written? or a subjective interpretation of the law that the ATF determined out of thin air and the US Attorney ran with it Seems to me that this whole thing revolves around ATFs interpretation nucleus. That's the point I'm making.

 

[indykid]

Remember, just because a government agency lied to you once doesn’t mean they won’t lie to you again.

 

[HoughMade]

But were they in violation of the law as written? or a subjective interpretation of the law that the ATF determined out of thin air and the US Attorney ran with it Seems to me that this whole thing revolves around ATFs interpretation nucleus. That's the point I'm making.

An agency interpretation that is "arbitrary and capricious" will not be applied even under Chevron deference (long story).

The current Supreme Court has questions similar to yours.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

One wonders about the machine shop that made the cards. Cooperated?

Rolled over like trained dogs I bet.

 

[KG1]

I am not saying that the ATF doesn't have an opinion. I am saying that its opinion, or that of the U.S. Attorney standing alone, are not the law. They are interpretations of the law and a judge can accept or reject them.*

The ATF saying "no you're good" is not a defense IF your actions are found to be a violation of the law as written.

Again, seems unfair and is, but I don't make the law, I report it.

[ETA]* Here I am only talking about using an ATF opinion that something is not a machinegun as a defense. I will not get into it, but there is a fight taking place over what deference is to be given to agency interpretations of statutes (if any). However, that is on the other side of the equation- what constitutes a violation of the law. A court can reject an agency interpretation, but is unlikely to when the agency finds a violation of the statute. The difference between how Agency opinions as to what is "safe" and their interpretations as to when there is a violation is why this is so unfair,

I guess the court granted chevron deference by accepting ATFs interpretation that they made up as law by letting the proceedings continue. no matter how ludicrous it was. It appears that they can do so without impunity and make up law when they want to go after somebody. which in this case they determined that an autokey Card is a machine gun.

 

[KG1]

An agency interpretation that is "arbitrary and capricious" will not be applied even under Chevron deference (long story).

The current Supreme Court has questions similar to yours.

Apparently, this court didn't think it was "arbitrary and capricious" The court allowed it to proceed giving deference to the ATF's interpretation of the law and two people were convicted by that subjective standard. It just proves that the whole practice of chevron deference is arbitrary in nature and can be corrupted based upon agency whims at any given time. It should be highly scrutinized by the court.

 

[HoughMade]

So here's the thing. My discussion of Chevron deference started with a discussion of whether a defendant should be allowed to argue that the agency, the ATF here, told him that what he was doing was legal. In no way did I mean to imply that the ATF used some novel, counterintuitive definition to screw an unwitting citizen. That happens....doesn't look like that is the case here. The statute has everything that is needed.

There is no unique definition involved. That is, I don't think they needed an ATF definition to convict on the machinegun counts. Mainly, this is because of the admissions on the YouTube channel made proving the intent of the card so easy.

If you have not watched the video linked above, 5 minutes of Matt Hoover Saying Incriminating Things- watch it and listen carefully, especially at the beginning. While you watch it, keep this definition in mind- this is the statute, not an ATF definition:


"(b) Machinegun. The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."

26 USC § 5845

Is the metal card with the etching on it "designed and intended solely and exclusively...for converting a weapon into a machine gun..."? There's enough there to let a jury decide without a special definition from the ATF.

"It's just a piece of metal"- sure...so why did Hoover specifically refer to it as having as a "Lightning Link" etched on it? Why did he say: "you have to manufacture it." This is evidence that he knew and expected people to use the card to make a "lightning link" to get to full auto.

Not saying they would not have pursued him anyway, but he talked himself into problems and made proving the "intended soley and exclusively.." part easy. Notice there is nothing in the actual statute that talks about how easily making the part work for a machine gun must be. Just a piece of paper with the same drawing? Probably OK because it cannot be used as a "part". However, the intention is for this very piece of metal to be used as THE part. That's a problem. His statements made it perfectly clear that's what the card was for.

"But what about a blank piece of metal?" Sell a card of metal with no markings on it that is the proper thickness WITH the drawing on paper and see what happens....no, seriously, don't.

Now- nothing I have said here should be interpreted as an endorsement of the law or definition. However, to discuss how the law is going to be (and has been) used, I don't have to believe it's right.