Posts Tagged ‘pipe bomb’

The defendant’s conviction did not violate his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

U.S. v. Tagg, 2009 WL 1856803 (11th Cir. June 30, 2009)

There was substantial evidence to support a reasonable jury conclusion that defendant intentionally facilitated codefendants’ unlawful possession of pipe bombs.

The defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of firearms, specifically, unregistered pipe bombs. He argued that he was only a spectator, however the co-defendant’s testimony was corroborated by an officer and agent and showed that the defendant knew that the codefendants’ made pipe bombs in his garage. This established that the defendant had the requisite mens rea.

The defendant’s conviction did not violate his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

The court held that the pipe bombs at issue were not protected by the Second Amendment, as the rights given are not unlimited. Unlike handguns, pipe bombs are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Sufficient evidence established that defendant’s pipe bombs were designed as weapons.

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

United States v. Spoerke, 2009 WL 1424042 (C.A.11 (Fla.))

The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to unlawfully make destructive devices, unlawfully making one or more destructive devices, and possessing unregistered destructive devices at two different locations.  The defendant argued that the US failed to prove the devices were designed to be used as weapons. To be a destructive device under the National Firearms Act, the critical inquiry is whether the device, as designed, has any other value other than as a weapon. The defendant’s devices were destructive devices even if they contained no additional projectiles, because they have no social value.

The defendant was not entitled to a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility; and the imposition of a 44-month sentence did not amount to an unwarranted sentencing disparity.

The defendant challenged the calculation of his guidelines and the reasonableness of his sentence. Where a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse, he has not accepted responsibility and is not entitled to a reduction. Therefore, when the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, it is ordinarily expected to be reasonable.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Motion to Suppress Evidence, Sentencing Guidelines, Uncategorized, downward variance, sentence enhancement | No Comments »