A bird in the hand….

As the old adage goes, sometimes a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I assume that’s what happened here.

I’ve previously written about why I admire undercover agents. They are some of the bravest public servants we have. https://lnkd.in/gJiZUncx

I’ve also written a lot about the public safety threat posed by the proliferation of illegal machinegun conversion devices. This press release from the U.S. Department of Justice, announcing a sentence of 11+ years for a man who used a machinegun to rob an undercover ATF agent, captures both.

But it also leaves an unanswered question: Why not 30 years?

The facts are straightforward. The agent met with the criminal to buy the machinegun from him. (The specific gun and switch are pictured.) The price was $2,400, far above the going rate for a regular Glock. When the agent produced the cash, the man robbed him.
The man was arrested and pled guilty to assaulting a federal officer (a crime of violence) and using a firearm during that crime of violence. Additionally, he was charged with dealing in firearms without a license and aiding & abetting.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), using a firearm during a crime of violence earns a minimum sentence of 5 years, but it may be higher depending on the circumstances. For instance, if the firearm is “brandished,” the sentence is not less than 7 years. That’s what this defendant pled to.
But if the firearm used is a machinegun, 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) imposes a sentence of not less than 30 years.

The man could not credibly claim ignorance that the firearm was a machinegun. (That’s a possible defense, after SCOTUS said in Staples v. U.S. that proof of knowledge was required before someone could be to subjected to the harsh penalties for possessing a machinegun.) Here, that’s specifically what they were negotiating and the price alone suggests it was not a standard pistol.

But nobody pleads guilty to a min-man 30 years. The incentive to roll the dice and go to trial is too great. And for the prosecution, trials can be risky. There are some really good defense attorneys out there. https://lnkd.in/gbYdDDDr

So I assume they exchanged the harsh penalty for certainty of a plea. Understandable, and pragmatic. But I have to agree with Congress that what he did was worth every bit of 30 years.

Read the press release here: https://lnkd.in/g4n4D6eZ.