27 years prison for victimless gun possession crime

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by CaDreamer

 

You said his career in crime was going strong.
Carrying a gun doesn't reflect a career in crime.

it does if your a criminal...

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by CaDreamer

no they are not. a career criminal should be dispossessed of all his possessions that are solely for the purpose of furthering his criminal endeavors. ]

Most likely the gun was just for self defense. How do you know he was going to break a law with this gun.?

carrying the gun was breaking the law, at the drug house, consorting with felons, being a felon is forbidden by law in most paroles/probations.

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by SpaDe_
ETA: You posted this with the title victimless gun possession crime, which is misleading at best. The guy was convicted of assault twice, which would require victims. Title should read stupid felon breaks law again, goes back to jail for umpteenth time.

edit on 11/8/2011 by SpaDe_ because: add info

HUH??? Misleading my butt. I agree this guy was guilty of OTHER crimes that involve victims. But there was no victim to this latest crime for which he got the 27 years.

The guy was just standing there minding his own business and had a little 32 in his pocket. So you take away 27 years of his life!!!!???

Stop trying to blur the line. Your acting as if the guy was just standing in a nice little area with a gun in his pocket for self defense, when in reality this convicted violent felon was carrying illegally outside a crack house, there is a huge difference. You just can't grasp the fact that the law was right on this one. He wouldn't have gotten such a harsh sentence if he wouldn't have broken the law so many time before.

reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45


in reality i agree that 27 years for simple possession is a tragedy, however i would be ok with 10 if a repeat offender that has shown that they have a propensity towards criminal activity. or as a 5 year tack on offense for violent felonies.

I disagree with the 27 years. The Dr. that killed M Jackson can only get 4 years maximum. 27 years is stupid and overbearing. It's typical of US laws to give a lot of time to people for smaller crimes, and let murderers off the hook.

There should be no law against the carrying of firearms. It's in the Constitution. I don't care if he is a felon. That was not a condition in the Constitution. Someone else thought it was a good idea. Cops don't like it if a felon is carrying a weapon. Every American has a right to defend themselves. Cops get to the scene too late to save you. Could be that anywhere in that guy's town was a bad area. Even though he knew the law was against him, it should not have been.

That is an interesting question that you posed. Does committing a felony void your Constitutional right to bear arms? I don't think the answer is as easy as some are making it out to be. This has larger, and potentially more dangerous, implications.

In this case we do know that this person has a violent history, so it is pretty easy to say he shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, but what about non-violent or white-collar felonies? If someone commits tax fraud, or exhibits "questionable" accounting practices, and is convicted of the crime but not severely punished, are these people just as bad as the violent offender in question?

Some would quickly say yes, as logically a crime is a crime...BUT, we have different penalties for all sorts of different crimes, so is instituting prohibition on all felon's right to bear arms justified? Someone said that the law may be more lax on owning a weapon that is kept in the house for self-defense, and this may be the case, but it is still illegal if the owner is a felon.

I personally am not offering an opinion on the matter, rather I am just asking the questions and playing the role of an advocate. In my opinion, at the very least this issue deserves further examination, as there seem to be logical holes in the rule of law. But I suppose that is nothing new, lol.

So what does everyone think? And don't flame me for writing this, because as I said, I am just asking the questions, and not saying I am right by any means. Although I always am Just kidding...Or am I? Yes. Maybe.

illegal drugs+gun = federal enhancement
add in the previous felonies.

He was lucky he did not get life

reply to post by GmoS719


Seems to me he made more than one dumb choice.


This is hardly the candidate to proclaim govt. victimization on. This is not some rape victim or single mother just trying to protect themselves, and then made a bad choice.

But at the same time you have exposed a hypocrisy in the constitutionalists here on the boards.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus

In this case we do know that this person has a violent history, so it is pretty easy to say he shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, but what about non-violent or white-collar felonies? If someone commits tax fraud, or exhibits "questionable" accounting practices, and is convicted of the crime but not severely punished, are these people just as bad as the violent offender in question?.

For example pete rose, the great baseball player. He cheated on his taxes and got a felony and lost his gun rights!!!! Pete did like 9 months but lots of felons don't do any prison time at all. Should people lose a constitutional right for crimes that minor.? This guy who got the 27 years was a bad boy but lots of felons aren't.

People don't realize how minor a crime can be and qualify as a felony.

Originally posted by Miraj
Seems to me he made more than one dumb choice.
This is hardly the candidate to proclaim govt. victimization on.

But does he deserve 27 years for a dumb choice that harmed no one.???

As much as I hate it, i'm a felon and wont TOUCH a firearm. They (probation/parole/release officials) warn you if youre caught with a firearm as a felon, youre going to prison, minimum mandatory sentence in most states. This guy probably got hit with a 'three strikes and youre out' sentence, so thats probably why the hefty sentence

Originally posted by HomerinNC
As much as I hate it, i'm a felon and wont TOUCH a firearm. They (probation/parole/release officials) warn you if youre caught with a firearm as a felon, youre going to prison, minimum mandatory sentence in most states. This guy probably got hit with a 'three strikes and youre out' sentence, so thats probably why the hefty sentence

It wasn't three strikes but his past record did hurt him at sentencing. Anyway, laws banning guns to felons need to be revised. The definition of a felony needs to be changed drastically. Is it really fair that martha stewart is denied a gun for her mickey mouse crime of lying to the cops? It's crazy - cops are allowed to lie to suspects and do it all the time, but you lie to them and you're a felon!!!

reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
true but it is called blind Justice...or blind "just ice" for a reason, not sure what that reason is, only through votes, petitions, and writing letters can we change what is wrong with the system.
Who would decide, who or what type of felon would the right to or not to carry, have possession of, the use of ,or the right to own a fire arm?
my self no, for I have know this type of person down an out need to score, have a gun , you figure it out.
yes said person is back doing life at the Utah state pen or so i have been told, palls with him? No just knew him, was a good pool player, i will say that, when not strung out on how knows what.
To him, a good cop was a dead cop.
Are they all like that? No, but you get my point. There is no simple answer all should have the right or non should, one is just extreme as the other.
The middle ground is as it is till we the people say not so, you want a gun fine have a gun use it face the law, law says justified your fine er ok free to go , not so. life with out parole, no death sentence, there is a fine line between the use and intended use,some one my have been out to get him he does have the right to protect himself, but the law say no he can not , not by the use or the possession of a firearm, and being as open minded as i am on some things this one, the one in the Op's thread should have got life with no parole, Why?? Because of past history that's why, one does not need a PhD in law to figure that out

This is what you call a "Gray Area" of the law as the 2nd Amendment affords each of us the right to keep and bear arms right? But someone with a rap sheet a mile long that's populated with violent and serious infractions and those who have a difficult time distinguishing between reality and fantasy, those deemed threats to both themselves and others, mental patients, mental disorder people are banned from owning guns.

The fact he had in his possession odds are was an illegal firearm in a known crime and drug neighbourhood really ain't going to help anything out.

Seeing how Kansas is a "3 Felony Strike Law" state means the sentence was justified.

No threat to the 2nd Amendment!

reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45


No.

But he did deserve some punishment.

I'll agree that 27 years is excessive. It was probably more than his original sentence, I'd bet.