Drew Peterson Rifle, Protected By The Second Amendment—Motions Filed

Joliet, IL—Drew Peterson’s lawyers filed two separate Motions to dismiss charges that Peterson unlawfully possessed a short barreled rifle in violation of Illinois law.

The Peterson weapon charge was and is nothing more than a conspiratorial police method of stripping Peterson of his right to possess and carry a firearm.  Authorities want to justify this because Peterson is under two active but yet unsolved investigations.

People under investigation cannot be stripped of rights by police.  This was an end run around the laws and nothing more. Simply said police and prosecutors violated Peterson’s Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

 The exact charge Peterson faces is "Unlawful Use Of A Weapon under 720 ILCS/24(a)(7)(ii), to wit: having possession of a rifle, a Colt Sporter Lightweight AR‐15 .223 Caliber Serial# SL025365, with a barrel length less than 16 inches in length on November 1, 2007."

Motion to dismiss Re: LEOSA ACT is sealed. 

I can tell you that there is a somewhat new Federal Law called the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act that immunizes cops that possess such weapons.  Since cops are never arrested for such crimes there’s no relevant case law to expressly deal with a short barreled rifle.

Drew Peterson was on the SWAT team and they were required to obtain their own suitable weapons. Those weapons are used during hostage rescue and hazardous search warrant operations.  The need for a shorter barrel is so that in the confined space of doorways and such suspects cannot wrest the rifle away from the officer and use it against him or innocent bystanders.  The use of a longer barrel would become a public safety risk.

Examination of the various weapons used by police and federal officers throughout the land would reveal the popularity of the short barrel rifles and carbine for police work.  Peterson should have immunity and be covered under LEOSA .

I’m not sure I understand why this motion is sealed or what it could contain to make it a secret.

Motion to Dismiss under the Second Amendment is not sealed.

Peterson has also sought refuge under the Second Amendment with the three major rulings that have reaffirmed the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.

The weapon is protected under USA vs. Miller, District of Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago.  The 70 year-old Miller case specifically protects weapons suitable for military use such as the Peterson rifle. .  

The burden to prove a crime here is on the state as always. The defenses available are nothing less than awesome.  I guess liberty conveys a lot of power to all Americans.

In the end, this shockingly frivols charge should fail.