Catch 22: Felon defends himself with a firearm and now faces prison for possession of the gun.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6799556

Simple enough...don't do the crime if you can't do the time. In this case his prior felony carried the punishment of not being able to own a firearm. He knowingly broke that law and even tho it was justified self defense he still broke the law. I hope he has a good lawyer and is ready to cut a deal with the DA.

I would imagine his thoughts are: "At least I am alive to stand trial for possessing the handgun"

I think if I was him, I would threaten the DA with fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court on 2nd Amendment grounds.

Regardless of how hard he fights it he still broke the law knowingly. Lots of studies show that a high percentage ex felons carry illegal guns.

This isn't something that making laws against is going to stop no more than the laws stop most repeat felons (85 percent or better) from committing new crimes.

And from my experience in law enforcement most DA's get threatened by felons demonstrating the same ignorance that got them made into a felon in the first place on a daily basis.

You ought to sit in on a few days of parole hearings some time. I can't tell you how many young gentleman sit there and with a straight face say "my lawyer and I have agreed that society was at fault for me committing a new crime". In other words I have no responsibility for what I've done.

The next best one is "I robbed the 7-11 because I couldn't hold a job and needed the money to feed my family". One of the parole board members always ask's the silly question "Who is feeding them now?"

I agree with what you are saying, Bob, but I do not think one should be prosecuted for protecting themselves or their family just because they are an ex-felon. Now if they are commiting another felony, that is another story, but that is not the case here. Of course, he should be tried for the drug charge. I think this is a small case showing how gun control is out of control!

You have a point Kansas and that's a tough call, problem is when a felon acquires a handgun or any gun he's just committed another felony. Where do you draw the line.

Crime is rampant not just in the big cities and high population areas, but out here in the country where I live in rural Idaho. Ten years ago the thought of carrying a gun all the time was just plain silly. Now...

This issue of convicted felons having firearms is a lot bigger than just gun control. I'm sure not smart enough to know the answers, but I spent a bunch of years working in a State prison setting and I've got to say I'd just as soon not have the folks being released having guns of any kind. From my experience intellingance isn't a pre-requisite for being incarcerated.

Seems to me that if he didn't want to be put in the unenviable position of not being allowed to possess a firearm, he shouldn't have done the original crime. But, maybe thats just the simplistic way of looking at it..

I think this is a small case showing how gun control is out of control!

I disagree with this portion of your statement. This is an example of the kind of gun control that needs to be strictly and harshly enforced. The man is a convicted felon. He was a convicted felon when he obtained/kept the firearm he used. I am sure he was informed that having a firearm was a major no-no when he was convicted from the first felony drug offense. As far as I am concerned he gives the anti's fuel to attack the honest gun owner with. I have always felt any felon caught with a forearm should receive a minimum 20 year sentence.

When I was 22 (I am now 48) I got a DUI. I know that the second DUI can be prosecuted as a felony and I know how many of my rights a felony conviction would cost me. In the past 26 years I haven't gotten behind the wheel if I have had even a single beer. It simply isn't worth the risk of losing those rights to me. This man chose to commit the first felony of his own free will. He should have considered the consequences.

If the guy would have used near any other "thing" for a defencive weapon, this discussion would not be happening.
What "if" he jumped into a car and ran the purp over? Throw in "he did not have a valid drivers licence with proof of insurance".
Now the charge is driving without a licence! I think he would gladly pay that fine in exchange for survival?

He just "chose" the wrong tool at the right time. Price of survival is abit higher because of that choice.

Cheezywan

Ok guys, how about some non-violent technical felonies that often receive a suspended sentence but could have resulted in more than 1 year in jail?

Did anyone else read where this fellow's roommate was also charged with "third-degree felony drug possession, and class B misdemeanor counts of drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia."?

So we have a felon, whose history was for drug charges, whose apartment was broken into and he was assaulted, then he killed the perpretrator. But... In the apartment, where this felon resides, there appears to be illegal drugs (again).

Is this a felon that has paid his dues to society and should have his rights reinstated, or is the a felon continuing to commit drug-related crimes after he got out. This time he's armed.

The perpretrators also said they were going to see the accused about getting paid for a job they done. This just doesn't seem like a random self defense case. Sounds more like a drug deal gone bad, to me.

However, I don't have all the information and maybe I'm being overly cynical.

Good observation Dave. I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy for either side in this case.

A convicted DRUG DEALER, who obviously is still commiting criminal acts and engaging in criminal activities is in possession of a firearm AND drugs.

He is living with other POS criminals.

Some other criminals show up and they start fighting.

This is an example of how existing laws SHOULD be enforced.

People would be screaming bloody murder if this POS used that gun in the commision of some other crime such as .....Um gee, I don't know.... DRUG DEALING!

They would be screaming "why was this man allowed to have a gun" and other stuff like that.

This was not some purely random home invasion. This is scumbag vs scumbag to my way of seeing it.

This has nothing to do with 2nd amendment rights in my eye.

He gave up his rights when he chose to be a drug dealer.




I say good job to the police who arrested this drug dealing piece of manure

Oh I forgot to add this.

Do you think he would have been put into a so called self defense situation if he was no longer engaging in criminal activities and associating with other criminals?

Reap what you sew.

He made a conscious (sp) decision to continue to engage in the criminal lifestyle.

Now he is paying for the consequences of his actions

I noticed too, that the other roommate was charged with drugs indicating to me there were drugs at the scene. These are the type of people why WE have guns to defend our families against. Drugs are the root of a lot of crime and this guy was previously convicted of it, HAS a handgun while living with other scumbags who are still associating with drugs...I have a hard time believing this guy wasn't still involved with them either. Good call by the local police. As said, if this had been something that involved a law abiding citizen, people would be screaming why this guy had a gun.

The Right of an individual to Self Defense, and therefore the Means to Self Defense, is immutable.

An individual who misuses a tool of self defense does not lose the immutable RIGHT to self defense.

To say that one does would imply that a cutter would be forever prohibted the use of ANY knife, whether for eating or self defense.

There is NO difference between a Knife and a Gun in these situations. Either is simply a tool that can be used for good or ill.

If more people used weapons, or whatever sort, effeciently, whenever a predator attempted to prey, then 99.9% of the time predators would not survive to allow the question of theit Right to Self Defense to be pondered.

The ONLY time ANYONE loses the Right to Self Defense is upon INITIATION of Agression... somthing that currently does not have enough fatal consequences.

The more people who EXERCISE their NATURAL RIGHT to self defense, the less effective criminal behavior will be.

Period.

Well said Old Ironsights.

The ONLY time ANYONE loses the Right to Self Defense is upon INITIATION of Agression... somthing that currently does not have enough fatal consequences.

The more people who EXERCISE their NATURAL RIGHT to self defense, the less effective criminal behavior will be.

Period.

So in this case where it's obviously criminals all around, are you saying it's ok for convicted felons still associating with illegal activity to possess guns? These are the people on the wrong side of the law that we protect ourselves and families from...NOT some law abiding citizens. If he had cleaned himself up and was on a fresh start..I could see your point, but he's not. This guy was not separating himself from these people and was still operating/associating with the criminal world. He IS a criminal. Period. Drugs are the root of a lot of crime...people steal to get money for them, rob, kill, carjack, do crazy things while on them, etc. etc., They made the right call in this case.

So, it would have been OK for him to engage in self defense with a knife/bat/chainsaw, but not a gun? Or should he have just laid down and died?

I'm in NO WAY saying that I approve of his past or current criminal interactions, just that, just like the antis, you are blaiming a tool that he has a fundamental preexisting Right to use FOR SELF DEFENSE.

****, I frankly wouldn't/don't care if, as a consequense of his crimes he was prohibited from PLAYING with guns, i.e. no hunting, no IPSC, no SASS, whatever. But in the cause of Self Defense, a gun is a tool, nothing more, and it is most often the best tool for the job.

To deny an individual the TOOLS of Self Defense is to deny them the MEANS to self defense.

To deny an individual the MEANS to Self Defense is to deny them the RIGHT to Self Defense.

To deny ANYONE the RIGHT to Self Defense is to declare that their life is WORTHLESS and can be taken from them by anyone at any time for any reason.

And that sentiment is FAR more dangerous to society on the whole than "allowing" felons to have guns... which they will have anyway wether you "allow" it or not.

It's not against the law for him to own other items, just firearms and for a good reason, he's a convicted drug user. I didn't say he should lay down and die, but he relinqushed his right to firearms when he was convicted of a drug crime. He is being denied because of his actions. He made those choices. It has nothing to do with blaming the tool at all, just the fact that he is being charged for having one and rightly so. Picture this, he's in a drug induced state and is out of drugs. He needs more but has no money but he has a gun. Guess what comes next? A violent crime of some sort..it happens all the time that's why they teach LEO's where there's drugs, there's guns.

I don't believe that clouding the issue in question with the Second Amendment here is doing any good. By his felony conviction, he lost his Second Amendment rights. He made a choice, got caught and then made another set of choices not to follow the law in regard to drug or firearm possession.

So he broke the law and is still alive to go to prison. Good place for him.

Ex-con,
felony conviction for drugs,
living with other ex-cons with drug felonies
with drugs and drug paraphenalia
and a firearm in the house.

Hmmm, what makes us think he was a law abiding citizen and obtained that .357 legally?

Yeah, it was self defense but he did not have the right to a firearm. He violated that right. I wouldn't try him for murder but a felon in posession of a firearm? Sure, that's a no brainer.

OI, I can understand why you make the arguement that you do but it's a strawman.

With rights come responsibility. Manufacturing, selling and possessing drugs? You don't think a felony conviction for those kinds of crimes is an abrogation of his rights in our society?

Catch 22: Felon defends himself with a firearm and now faces prison for possession of the gun.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6799556
It's guys like this (felons with guns) that make it rough on the rest of us (the law abiding) with restrictive gun laws. He is a convicted felon and broke the law again by being in possesion. He is a habitual offender and needs to go back to prison for a long time. I can't work up any sympathy for him.

I think it is purdy clear that the guy is not charged with "what" he used to defend himself. That matter was settled when it was called a "justified shoot".
The charge now is felon in possesion of a firearm. He must answer to that charge. It is seperate from defending himself. He still has that right(even in jail). Every animal on the planet has a "natural right" to self defence. "Mans law" makes it a little harder for criminals to do that. I see that as a good thing.

Cheezywan

I read the article and it stunk of drugs through and through. I wonder how differently the article may have been worded if his uncle weren't the Mayor?

Whatever punishment they get, any of them, they brought on themselves by their own actions and their own choices.

It's not against the law for him to own other items, just firearms and for a good reason, he's a convicted drug user. I didn't say he should lay down and die, but he relinqushed his right to firearms when he was convicted of a drug crime. He is being denied because of his actions. He made those choices. It has nothing to do with blaming the tool at all, just the fact that he is being charged for having one and rightly so. Picture this, he's in a drug induced state and is out of drugs. He needs more but has no money but he has a gun. Guess what comes next? A violent crime of some sort..it happens all the time that's why they teach LEO's where there's drugs, there's guns.

The violent crime will come whether he has a gun or not.

Frankly I want EVERYONE to have a gun... and I want honest citizens to exercise their Right and DUTY to put a bullet into the face of dope smoking predators like him - WHEN THEY PREY ON INNOCENTS.

But the only way that is going to happen is if people stop accepting the idea that the GOVERNMENT has the "right" to abrogate a person's HUMAN RIGHTS, the foremost of which is the Right to defend their existence.

If the Governmet has the ability to abrogate a Right, it stops being a Right and becomes a Privelege... in this case, a privelege based upon not running a foul of the several tens of thousands of Laws that you can actively or inadvertently violate that will make you a "prohibited person".

In the course of my day to day activities/job I often will go from being a Law Abiding Armed Citizen to being a de-facto Felon and back again several times. Why? Because I have the audacity to cross an invisible line between Gary IN and SE Chicago IL... neither place you want to be without a gun.

Do I deserve to lose my RIGHT to existence/self defense for crossing a street?

OI, I can understand why you make the arguement that you do but it's a strawman.

Why? It represents an intellectually consistent philosophical position.

With rights come responsibility.

Not true. With PRIVELEGES come responsibilities. RIGHTS are Natural and preexist. Remember that whole "Endowed by their CREATOR with certian INALIENABLE RIGHTS" bit?

Manufacturing, selling and possessing drugs? You don't think a felony conviction for those kinds of crimes is an abrogation of his rights in our society?

Like I said, he has certainly lost his PRIVELEGES to use a firearm in any manner other than self defense. But he has not lost his INALIENABLE RIGHT to use one, nor to "possess" one for/during such (self defense) use even if he has lost the privelege to possess one for/during all OTHER uses.

Frankly I want EVERYONE to have a gun... and I want honest citizens to exercise their Right and DUTY to put a bullet into the face of dope smoking predators like him - WHEN THEY PREY ON INNOCENTS.


Another Tom Gresham saying: "An armed society is a polite society." He goes on to explain that a perp usually looks for "an easy target". If a would be criminal wanted to commit a crime, he would think twice if he thought there was a good chance that he would be shot back at. I think we see that in the fact that violent crime has gone down in states that have concealed carry priviledges.

Cheezywan,
You say that Man's Laws make it a little harder for man to exercise his right to defend himself...you are right. The law abiding citizens have the most trouble because they concern themselves with breaking the law whereas criminals do not.


This is an example of how existing laws SHOULD be enforced.

People would be screaming bloody murder if this POS used that gun in the commision of some other crime such as .....Um gee, I don't know.... DRUG DEALING!

They would be screaming "why was this man allowed to have a gun" and other stuff like that.


Sure, I agree that one should be prosecuted for commiting a crime, but should one have another charge added because of the tool they used in the commission of that crime?

Thanks for your standing up OI. You are an excellent debater. To the rest, I would like you to think about something. I think this can be considered a form of civil disobedience, granted it did become violent when the guy had to defend his life, but it seems to me that the argument being presented by the rest of you is "Since he is a convicted felon, he does not have the right to use a gun to defend himself." So what is he supposed to do? Bring a knife to the gun fight? Not a good alternative IMHO.

Thanks for your standing up OI. You are an excellent debater. To the rest, I would like you to think about something. I think this can be considered a form of civil disobedience, granted it did become violent when the guy had to defend his life, but it seems to me that the argument being presented by the rest of you is "Since he is a convicted felon, he does not have the right to use a gun to defend himself." So what is he supposed to do? Bring a knife to the gun fight? Not a good alternative IMHO.

Perhaps he should do as most of us non-felons do, obey the law.

....But the only way that is going to happen is if people stop accepting the idea that the GOVERNMENT has the "right" to abrogate a person's HUMAN RIGHTS, the foremost of which is the Right to defend their existence.

OI - Just curious, what other "rights" not privalges do we have? I've never seen a list.

I like the 10 commandments because they define a basic way of being that allow mutual and civil co-existence. Laws and privalges are necessary because civil disobedience is determined to be unacceptable and sometimes harmful or dangerous or deadly to others.

I agree with just about everything you said but the fact remains there are lots of bad people on this planet. Those that have no interest in doing what is right (correct by societies mutually proclaimed standards) and respecting others who do. So, through self government we impose laws intended to define correctness and provide protection.

I think the guy had a "right" and an obligation to defend himself but our laws determined his means (in this case use of a gun he was prohibited from possessing) carry a consequence because of his own past actions. He should be held accountable for his current actions. To not be held accountable promotes a state of being of actions without consequence. That wouldn't be good.

The taking of anyones rights should be the last resort of a free Republic like ours. I say this because once you start making laws striping someone of their rights it becomes easer to expand what crimes or transgressions against the state qualify for lose of rights. Only those convicted of violent crimes should have to face the maximum penalty of lose of a right.
As it stands now anyone with a felony subject to confinement of more then 1 year loses their second amendment rights no mater when the felony was committed or if it was a crime of violence or not.
How long before a gross misdemeanor is enough then jaywalking.
When you allow even the slightest corrosion of a right you will soon lose it entirely.
How many people had to give up their firearms and their fore their right to defend themselves and their family because of some crime they committed as young adults and have never committed any other crime, How many of them served their country in the military and have been good citizens only to be left unprotected by the coward Clinton's making the law retroactive.
I am sure this law means nothing to criminals who will carry anyway no matter what the law says only those who are now law abiding citizens will live by the law.
No zero tolerance law works.