Convicted Felon Charged With Having Machine Guns

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A convicted felon has been indicted by a federal grand jury after authorities discovered machine guns and a hand grenade at his property.

Roseville Police spokeswoman Dee Dee Gunther says a motorcycle gang investigation in January led police to search a home and storage locker in Lincoln, about 30 miles northeast of Sacramento, belonging to Eric Smith.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento says investigators found the grenade and 10 firearms, including three machine guns.

Smith, who is 36, was indicted Thursday on three charges of being a felon in possession of firearms. Each charge could bring up to 10 years in federal prison.

He has been held since January in Placer County Jail in lieu of $1 million bond. Authorities could not say if he has a defense attorney.

(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

  • concerned citizen

    Great,here comes more useless gun laws to protect no one and take law abiding citizens firearms. Perfect example of how gun laws dont work!


    Awesome stash ….. Wish I had some of those toys. But I never will because the lawmakers juat want to keep all the good stuff away from us.

  • Gryphon

    Good to see that this clown was busted. Hope he gets at least 10 yrs. Also glad the 3 knuckleheads above will never have any of these weapons either.

  • Gerty

    Gryphon , its ok for you to exercise your first ammendment but god forbid anyone exercise theryre second right? Do us all a fover and move to Cuba. Your comment is spoken like a true socialist.

  • whatnext? you’re all saying (‘cept you gryphon-guess I should head to Cuba too)
    1) Taking machine guns and a grenade from a convicted felon is a useless gun law taking a law abiding citizens’ firearms and rights away.
    2)that machine guns and a hand grenade are no more than an awesome stash and toys, “good stuff” the lawmakers want to keep away from you.
    3) that everything is a machine gun-well-except for the hand grenade- (and of course someone was ratted out thats what started this whole thing)
    4) if we don’t “get” that convicted felons should have a “right” to weapons we should haul our 1st amendments to Cuba? (did you know convicte felons don’t really have rights? they kinda give’em up when achieving felon status)
    How about we put you and all the gun hoarding convicted felons in a room with the “awesome stash” and good toys, and see if they like sharing their rights with you?Probably make the next great “reality” series!

    • theresa

      why dont they go get law enforcement employees stash at home….the dirty ones..not the good guys that are few and far between…

  • Civilized

    I am SO Glad I don’t live in Sacramento….

  • W.

    addressing (whatnext?) #1 , thats not what the poster said! he said here comes useless gun laws..meaning that the man convicted is an “outlaw” and we agree that he should not have guns! but because he is an “outlaw/criminal” and does not care what the law says hes going to do whatever he damn well pleases…..”WE” the honest tax paying people don’t want extra gun laws or penalty’s tacked on to our already over controlling gun laws…..more people die in drunk driving accidents than by a gun in the hand of a law abiding citizen….criminals drink and drive! but outlawing cars is not the answer!……having sex spreads STD’s …..but outlawing sex is not the answer……punish the criminal for not following his probation/parole….thats the answer!….making the law abiding citizen pay for what the criminal has done, thats just wrong!… for the grenade…..I think the poster was just rattling your cage a little

  • Me

    Ok, we have the right to ‘bear arms’. Back in the 1800’s just for looking at someone. Oh, my bad, that’s been happening since what, about 1990? The gun laws enacted in the last 200+ years have been to protect people that don’t have guns as well as those that do. The type and number of guns as well as the type and amount of ammo are regulated. If they weren’t, the ‘Old West’ would’ve seemed very tame compared to what the last 20+ years would have been like without gun laws.
    Guns are not toys. Slingshots are toys and they’re a lot stronger than concerned citizen, NEIGHBOR123, and citizen deserve to carry.
    @Civilized: Sacramento is NOT the worst in CA. I’m SO Glad I live in the area and not further South.

    • fenceamerica

      hey “me”, did u know that you are totally wrong about what u think the gun laws do. There is NO regulation on how MANY firearms i want to own, just on the specific type, no assault weapons. Ammo is simmilarily run, there is no law stopping me from having a garage FULL of amunition. Who is to say that i dont right now? Just because you are 20 years old doesnt qualify you as an expert on how the last 20 years would be…..i think if you do a google search you will find that gun laws dont affect the ones who are commiting crimes with the guns…….. so then you have to ask what is the point? A false sense of security for ding dongs like yourself or actual intentional overt restriction of our seccond amendment rights.

  • Hereticmonk

    Our second Amendment wasn’t written so home owners could protect their stuff from getting stolen by burglars. It was written so the citizens could overthrown the government should it become not “for the people”. So all guns of any kind should be legal to own. If our government has a flamethrower than it’s citizens should be allowed to have a flame thrower. Any person who doesn’t agree with this doesn’t agree with our constitution and should move to England and rejoin the crown. I’m sure King George didn’t want the colonists to bare arms in 1776.

    • theresa

      wonder what they are waitting for.

  • Michelle C.

    The only thing I fear is the military turning their guns on the good citizens of AMERICA. Google it if you think it hasn’t happened before.

    • theresa

      google what ? the holocost ?

  • Convicted Felon Charged With Having Machine Guns | Sactown Places

    […] a federal grand jury after authorities discovered machine guns and a hand grenade at his property. CBS Sacramento VN:F [1.9.7_1111]please wait…Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)VN:F [1.9.7_1111]Rating: 0 (from 0 […]

  • LD

    The 2nd amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution permits legislation to prevent domestic violence. There is argument where to draw the line on preventing gun ownership, and a new precedence was set in California based on OJ Simpson. Briefly, statutes thus redefined who was considered to be at risk for perpetrating a crime with a gun based on a history of domestic violence, regardless of weather or not a gun was involved. This pushed the window on gun control. A lot of people do not agree with this law. I for one do not agree with it, but I follow the law regardless. On the other hand, I also believe that people who have a developmental history with violence should not be permitted to own a firearm, for obvious reasons. Such people in possession of firearms are capable of doing great harm and should be regarded thus where there is a propensity for sociopath behavior. The constitution empowers us to own guns, and it prescribe limitations on how this law should occur – via a well regulated militia. The federal government shys away from this angle for the simple reason that well armed and trained militias would present for more immediate and successful retaliation against a tyrant, so it defaults to individual ownership not constrained to membership in what would be a powerfully organized citizen army. On an aside, this is what Obama had in mind with his notorious civilian national security force (CNSF), albeit such would be under the control of the government which was not how the 2nd amendment was designed to work. Back to the arrest, felons are typically sociopaths, so they are regarded as a huge threat to domestic security, hence they are not allowed to own firearms, which is a constitutionally valid determination. This fellow is not a good poster child for gun control advocates, because the constitution already recognizes that he would be a clear and present danger if armed, and I think most people would agree with this. On the other hand, The weapons themselves do present interesting in what people might consider to be beyond the 2nd amendment in terms of such an arsenal representing an excessively armed militia. In other words, what might be considered correct to the 2nd amendment would be typical soldier armament and not and entire locker full of weapons, the latter being cause for concern for the safety of everyone in the neighborhood, in my opinion. I watched a man protect himself from a police raid of his house, and he armed himself against three officers. He was a law abiding citizen, and the police had him incorrectly identified as a perpetrator. Cool heads prevailed in this incident, and this man retained possession of his gun. Wild as this may seem, this is the way our laws work, and the 2nd amendment was designed to empower a well organized militia (not individual citizens) to present in this manner against an alleged tyrant, too. We have 2nd amendment rights for a good reason, and as things continue to develop unfavorably with Obama and very little support from congress to impeach him, some people believe this should be taken up and a 2nd amendment issue, but again there is no militia, so that forethought is not a valid application of the 2nd amendment. People of conscience with an understanding of our constitution and the Bill of Rights should not be prevented from owning firearms. On the other hand, people with a demonstrated lack of it should not. Both ways works for the constitution. To go extreme either way is an argument on morality verses the lack of it, and we should and aught to be thinking level headed when taking up defense of the 2nd amendment, in my opinion. “Reactive” is a predisposition for disregard which I think bears faulty logic concerning gun rights.

    • fenceamerica

      i love your comment. Just wanted to get that out there. i wanted to throw a question at you. You stated ” The constitution empowers us to own guns, and it prescribe limitations on how this law should occur – via a well regulated militia”

      I would argue that the 2nd amendment secures the citizens ability to form, this militia by ensuring that the citizen is able to arm him/herself. Historicaly monarchs in england restricted the ownership of weapons (then swords, knives, pikes, ect…) from its qonquered people (think irish scots ect…) so that they lacked the ability to form an armed “militia” (army) and could do nothing but throw rocks and wave farm tools around. If you have the weapons and they dont, you always win. THe founders were well versed in history and saw that pattern around the world and decided to NEVER strip the american citizen of their right to arm themselves and subsequently form the militia.

      your thoughts?

  • bob

    Sacramento– from a nice neighborhood to a crime spawn in 15 years.

  • realist

    Why the h3ll is everyone saying “Oh I’m so glad I don’t live in Sacramento” THE 10 FIREARMS AND HAND GRENADE WERE FOUND ON HIS PROPERTY IN LINCOLN. Did you even read the article?
    People need to stop being so scared of Sacramento. Its getting old. There are WAY worse places to live.. extremely worse. I’d pick Sacramento ANY DAY over Fresno, Stockton, Modesto, Bakersfield, Tracy, Oakland, Richmond, etc. The list goes on. I really don’t mind Sac. It’s not as brutal and unbearable as you people make it out to be.

  • me

    LD, I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. Poeple only read what they want, than they only take what they think they need. It’s to bad they never research, what it is they think they understand. Thanks LD.

  • L84dnnr

    a Rio Linda man recently chased down and killed a man with an axe.
    does it make people feel better that he didn’t use a gun?

    • L84dnnr

      how am i going to cut my firewood after they demand an axe ban?

  • theresa

    google candice newmaker law…you have no rights to your guns or kids they are up for sale ..exsample medical scams with cps and their crew. learn from the holocost

blog comments powered by Disqus
The Taz Show
LIVE: Monday through Friday from 6am – 6pm ET

Listen Live