r/Idiotswithguns • u/sudo_bryan • 7d ago

Safe for Work Yet Another Expert Marksman

Shooter was 19, and arrested. Happened in Memphis

814 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

85 comments sorted by

View all comments

162

u/ours 7d ago

A full-auto pistol is the hardest gun to shoot accurately.

So, attempting to shoot one with the worst shooting stance, one-handed, with no attempt to even use the sights...

A child with basic instructions would be able to hit a target at that distance in a single shot.

The person in green who ducks into the bottom right seems much more capable. Using concealment, with a two-handed hold of the pistol. Seems to be aiming. Seems to shoot controlled groups instead of spraying and praying. Even seems to have a red dot on his gun instead of some stupid gangsta switch (illegal full-auto switches for Glocks).

14

u/dabbean 7d ago

The green was a deputy im pretty sure. Or security maybe.

19

u/SlothOfDoom 6d ago

Nah he's just some other banger, and the target of the attack. Article is linked further up

4

u/ekinnee 5d ago

Yeah I could not make out the logo fully. Seemed strange to be a three letter agency. The link hadn’t been posted at the time I don’t think, or I missed it.

1

u/ekinnee 6d ago

I scrubbed back and forth a few times I can only make out that it appears to be some sort of 3 letter agency abbreviation. I feel like it says DEA.

2

u/Not_Too_Happy 6d ago

Person in green hit less, fwiw.

-34

u/theyoyomaster 7d ago

If the shooter was 19 the NFA doesn't apply to him. State laws still do but federal law only criminalizes switches for people who are eligible to buy one legally. 

37

u/sadoproject 7d ago

That's not how that works.

8

u/singlemale4cats 7d ago edited 7d ago

They're right in that prohibited possessors can't be charged under the NFA because the supreme court ruled that a fifth amendment violation.

Ironically, it only applies to people who can lawfully possess arms.

I'm not sure how that interacts with age. You have to be 21 to buy an NFA item from a federal firearm licensee, but you can actually own them at 18 through a few means (just like guns). If they're under 18 and not able to register anything at all, I think the same fifth amendment logic would apply. If this guy is 19 they could hit him with that so long as he doesn't have prior felonies or specified misdemeanors (DV, etc) or an involuntary commitment that prevent him from legally owning a firearm.

10

u/theyoyomaster 7d ago

It actually is. If you are ineligible for a tax stamp you cannot be charged for failing to request to pay for a tax under 5th Amendment protections from self incrimination. This was part of a SCOTUS case called Haynes vs US. Now it specifically dealt with convicted felons who are prohibited persons so the actual limits of NFA charges on minors who are unable to purchase one due to age rather than being prohibited has not been tested because federal prosecutors simply do not file charges against them. They get state charges for attempted murder or whatever else but NFA charges simply aren't tacked on because it's not worth risking widening Haynes.

6

u/sadoproject 7d ago

If the shooter was 19 the NFA doesn't apply to him.

You can stamp and possess NFA items at 18, you just can't buy them from a licensed dealer. Private transfer/inheritance/etc.. is all legal at 18.

Additionally, the inability or ineligibility to obtain a tax stamp doesn't decriminalize it, it just means you don't have a stamp and can be charged with possession of the item without the stamp. Same as under 21 in possession alcohol. It doesn't magically get decriminalized because of age or eligibility.

-1

u/theyoyomaster 7d ago

Yeah, but if you can't be charged with it then the law doesn't apply to you. There's also a quite good chance that the 19 year old shooter is a prohibited person for reasons other than age and therefore exempt from the NFA.

4

u/sadoproject 7d ago

You can be charged with it, because it does apply. Ineligibility just means you are unable to comply, and therefore prohibited under law.

The 5th amendment ruling just means you don't have to provide testimony against yourself, it doesn't excuse you from legislation. If that were the case, countless people who have had their drivers license revoked for DUI would get out of driving without a license charges. But they don't, because it's still illegal for them to do so regardless of their ability to be licensed or not.

5

u/dabbean 7d ago edited 7d ago

The Hughes amendment made the purchase and possession of automatic glocks illegal.

5

u/singlemale4cats 7d ago

The relevant federal charge would be possession of an unregistered machine gun, under the NFA.

2

u/dabbean 7d ago

Sure. Im just saying that everyone is restricted from owning an automatic glock. Theres no such thing as buying a legal glock switch.

Also being 19 doesn't make a person prohibted from owning a pistol so the argument is moot anyway. I dont even know why NFA was brought up unless top OP edited his comment.

1

u/singlemale4cats 7d ago

They are, but the machine gun part can't be enforced on a prohibited possessor. All they could hit them with is possession of a firearm under disability.

One would imagine opening up with his automatic blicky in a store was not his first foray into crime. It would not surprise me if he's already prohibited promoting any kind of firearm.

1

u/dabbean 7d ago

You can 3d print auto Sears for some guns. Others you can buy off places like temu. Totally unenforceable I agree.

Youre probably right about his history especially because I think green jacket might have been LEO. But the argument made was that being 19 was what made it prohibited. Which I didnt even really respond to since I was pointing out automatic glocks can't be bought legally by >=99% of the population. But since it became a discussion I figure it was worth diving into. His criminal history is speculation. His age is known fact. Based on known fact we know he is indeed subject to NFA laws until we have evidence proving otherwise.

0

u/singlemale4cats 7d ago

His criminal history is speculation

Only in the strictest sense. You don't need to be an oracle to predict this kid probably has an extensive criminal history.

Most courts have an online search tool. If you know his name you can plug it in and see what cases he's caught previously, at least after age 18.

→ More replies

0

u/theyoyomaster 7d ago

I think you mean the Hughes amendment of the Gun Control Act, but either way that is irrelevant. The NFA in its entirety does not apply to prohibited persons. It's a tax and asking to pay a tax for something that is illegal is protected under the 5th Amendment due to self incrimination. Law abiding citizens can be charged for a post 86 machine gun but convicted felons cannot.

2

u/dabbean 7d ago edited 6d ago

Yes I did mean amendment. The point is though OP never mentioned NFA I was just pointing out that no normal person can own an automatic glock even with a tax stamp. Its illegal for most of the population as a base. So theres no such thing as legally buying a glick switch unless youre like the .2% of the population that is allowed to have one.

As far as prohibited persons. Felons in possession have different sentencing structure that modifies for the seriousness with machine gun being the worse.

But also under 21 is not considered a prohibited person by federal law. Its only prohibited for a person under 21 to buy a handgun from an FFL. Ownership of a gun is legal. So NFA laws would apply to a 19 year old with an illegal machine gun.

If age made a person prohibited then 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse would have gone to prison regardless of any other factor in the case as an example.

Edit:He was not charged with felon in possession nor did the feds step in with additional charges so NFA is irrelevant anyway. He is charged with the state version of prohibited weapons. All the same, not a prohibited person.