Legal Advice Desperately Needed (Unlawful Possession of a Firearm)

[LAGC]

Here's a what-if scenario for you all...

Say there's this guy, he's 25 and made a bad mistake back when he was barely 18, got caught up with the wrong crowd as a teenager, and ended up getting busted for burglarizing a computer store over 7 years ago now. He was arrested, plead guilty as an adult to a charge of Burglary (which happens to be a felony in this state, as there are no misdemeanor, nor even differing felony, classes of the crime like most states), sentenced to a 2-10 year prison term back then (suspended with completion of a 6-month "boot camp" type program for first-time young offenders) and was put on probation for the remainder of the term, ordered to pay back just over $19,000 in restitution for his property crimes.

Let's say the said person was diligent in paying back restitution, lucked out and landed a decent-paying job despite his felony conviction and worked hard and got it all paid off within a few years along with following all the other stipulations and programs as part of his probation, at which point he was released from supervised probation and put on unsupervised (bench) probation for the rest of his 10-year term, with the hope of getting the felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor upon completion of his term. He had been doing pretty much everything right, not seriously breaking the law or getting into any more serious trouble since being put on unsupervised probation.

Let's say the said person had a penchant for firearms though, and got a bit worried about the availability of certain arms by the time his 10-year sentence was up, and decided to secure a few in the meantime, figuring he wouldn't commit any more crimes that would warrant a search and thus shouldn't ever again attract the attention of law enforcement to his premesis, thus it shouldn't ever be an issue.

Well, lets theorize that this person got pulled over during a routine traffic stop in front of a friend's house, and while he didn't have any guns on him (or in his car) the cop thought he was suspicious enough that he went above and beyond the line of duty and went up to the friend's house, entering the house (possibly illegally) where he observed some of the friend's guns and got nervous, and began a line of questioning that eventually extracted a confession from the friend that the said person did own some guns himself which were kept at his parent's house (him not living there at the time).

Lets postulate furthermore that the said person upon being asked for "his side of the story" exercises his right to remain silent and expresses his desire to speak with an attorney, at which point he is arrested (with nothing more than the friend's words against him), charged with UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM due to being a felon, at which point after the said person is detained, the police and a probation officer attempt to interrogate him AGAIN at the police annex (after he specifically asked for his attorney, which he reasserts his right to again before being left alone), at which point they go ahead and perform a warrantless search on the parent's house anyway (although with the parent's cooperative permission, when they arrive unexpectedly at the door at 5:30 in the morning) and find a small number of rifles, gear, and ammo (all fully legal in and of themselves) within. The said defendant is arraigned, facing the aforementioned state charge of UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, and is possibly facing a Federal charge as well under Project Gulag (Exile) or similar.

All fairness and RTKABA discussion aside, what legal options would you say this person had? Would there be any point in fighting this at all, or should he just try for a quick deal with the state prosecutors, in order to hopefully avoid any Federal charges?

[308]

So how did you, I mean the said felon pass the background check in the first place...or did said felon pick them up via the gunshow loophole?

Curious also...said felon was MIA for a 6-month period of time...proly don't allow web surfing at the boot camp I would guess.

Personaly, I'm no lover of stupid gun laws, but there is a price to pay for everything and said felon should have considered the cost of his decision to risk his liberty for the sake of a chunk of wood and steel....IMHO.

[LAGC]

Originally posted by 308
So how did you, I mean the said felon pass the background check in the first place...or did said felon pick them up via the gunshow loophole?

The said felon picked them up via private-party purchases (both at gun-shows and through local newspaper classifieds), without informing the said sellers about his status.

Curious also...said felon was MIA for a 6-month period of time...proly don't allow web surfing at the boot camp I would guess.

No, this was 7 years ago when the boot-camp thing happened, if you're trying to imply my leave of absense on this board last year was somehow connected to this.

Personaly, I'm no lover of stupid gun laws, but there is a price to pay for everything and said felon should have considered the cost of his decision to risk his liberty for the sake of a chunk of wood and steel....IMHO.

I respect your opinion, although of course I disagree.

[308]

Well LAGC, I respect you opinion also, but like I said, there is a price to pay for everything.

I did not, however, say that said felon was wrong, only that IMHO the price\risk ratio was too high.

Some men are, due to their position in life, able or willing to risk more than others and therefore, the price of doing what said felon did, was not high enough or painful enough...until now.

[aviator]

Talk to Johnny Cochran..................he'll get him off!.

I'm no expert on the law, but if the search and/or confession was done "illegally", the judge may just throw the case out of court.

Always take the 5th and only talk to a lawyer.

[ZEKE/PA]

Convicted felons ain't allowed to have guns, PEROID.
To do differently breaks the law.
If one gets arrested and jailed, tough shit, pay the price.
Bet the guy will think twice next time.
Regards, Zeke.

[1darksoul]

From the sound of it, the accused felon may have a case for the illegal search. I'd suggest getting a very competent lawyer.

I however, believe that the accused felon should get the book thrown at him. He knew it was illegal to posess those firearms, and went ahead and obtained them anyway.

Regardless of what their availabilty may have been in a couple years, they would have been obtainable.
Now wouldn't it have been better just to wait until probation was over.

[LAGC]

Originally posted by ZEKE/PA
Convicted felons ain't allowed to have guns, PEROID.
To do differently breaks the law.
If one gets arrested and jailed, tough shit, pay the price.
Bet the guy will think twice next time.
Regards, Zeke.

Perhaps. But thats a pretty dangerous attitude to take, don't you think? What about when all semi-autos or handguns are banned?

"Tough shit, pay the price." ??

At some point you have to put the onus on the government for instituting these crazy blanket anti-gun laws in the first place. Because prosecuting non-violent criminals certainly isn't the end of the gun control journey, its just the beginning...

[LAGC]

Originally posted by 1darksoul
From the sound of it, the accused felon may have a case for the illegal search. I'd suggest getting a very competent lawyer.

Yeah, he got rid of his public defender, and is working with an attorney well-versed in Constitutional law.

I however, believe that the accused felon should get the book thrown at him. He knew it was illegal to posess those firearms, and went ahead and obtained them anyway.

Actually, I believe there is some confusion over that. When the said defendant got released from supervised probation, his "terms of supervision" expired. He was under the impression that firearms ownership was one of those terms, thus no longer subject to him once he was released from supervised probation.

Obviously, ignorance is no excuse for the law. But its not like it was blatant civil disobedience either.

Regardless of what their availabilty may have been in a couple years, they would have been obtainable.
Now wouldn't it have been better just to wait until probation was over.

Actually, it sounds like even if probation were over, that wouldn't have helped. He would have had to gone further and hired an attorney and gotten his felony reduced to a misdemeanor as well. But yeah, it sounds like that couldn't have happened until he was totally off of even unsupervised probation.

Indeed, hindsight is always 20-20, after the fact...

[Darth_Pavoris]

you're going to prison LAGC.


can we get a donation drive for vasline for LAGC's asshole?

[LAGC]

Originally posted by Darth_Pavoris
you're going to prison LAGC.


can we get a donation drive for vasline for LAGC's asshole?

I was wondering how long before the first thread-crap...

[Bullet]

Said person would be playing a dangerous game with his/her freedom. Personally, I save the money, get an expungment, and after my rights were re-established, then I'd purchase my fire arms.

One would have to ask one self, is ownership of a fire arm worth spending many years in jail? Think of it this way, if your caught you'll be wishing, as your sitting in your cell, that you hadn't taken the chance.

[BRM308]

Going by the facts that you gave, it should be thrown out because of the illegal search. He's smart to dummy up and wait for his council.


There's a reason people get picked up for things like this. Because they dress and act like people who do things like this.

[Koff33]

good luck man.

[Oswald Bastable]

This would explain your recent absence from the forum. Some of us HAVE noticed no new LAGC threads in the last couple weeks or so.

It also goes a very long way toward explaining your obvious political affiliations throughout your tenure here on the forum.


Welcome to a prime example of the socialist society you espouse!


I believe you're fucked...but Johnny Cochran may be able to get you off with the Chewbacca defense. :)


For what it's worth LAGC....I hope you do get off. I don't think anyone deserves to have their 2A rights recinded unless they misuse them.

Forget the shit I've said in the past against you, I was wrong, wrong headed, and allowed you to get my undies in a bundle for no good reason other than I disagreed (vehemently) with your position. A bit of chastisement from fellow members regarding those coments, helped me see the error of my reasoning.

It's a big hole you've dug yourself at this point. If you do get off, I suspect it will cost more than waiting until all was said and done and then buying the weapons at the inflated prices you would have paid post ban.... :(

[jimmyjoebob]

Well - if you get Federal time perhaps you can request to be cell mates with Chief Thunder, that way we can all save on postage when mailing your care packages. BTW what size frilly pink panties do you wear?

In all seriousness, I think you are a selfish prick. By doing what you did and collecting firearms by lying to legitimate Sellers, as well as having your parents hold them for you, you put many people at risk of having their lives ruined. Bottom line the guns will be traced and EVERYONE who had possession at any time will get the 3rd degree. What you should have done was pay the $$ to get your conviction reduced, and then bought your guns. Sure they MIGHT have been more expensive, but tough, that's the price you pay for your bad decisions. So what angers you more, the fact your got caught, or the fact your parents or the otherwise honest John Q Public's that sold you the guns may go to jail? And thanks for making the stats this year for HCI, you just made our fight that much tougher.

[occupant]

A probation violation can be taking a stick of gum from the local 7-11. This can land you back in jail to serve the remainder of your original sentence. This can happen even if you are found innocent of the original incident.

Having firearms is something that will definitely get the attention of your probation officer.

[Randomluck]

Reading this story, the word Arrogant runs through my head.

[bulgarianak]

"entering the house (possibly illegally) where he observed some of the friend's guns and got nervous, and began a line of questioning that eventually extracted a confession from the friend that the said person did own some guns himself which were kept at his parent's house (him not living there at the time). "

Did the cop have permission to enter the house? yes or no

even if bullied into it with threaths, then it is a legal search, because in court people believe the cops word more often than not.

Never let any government offical in your house unless they have a search warrant or court order, if they search it anyway make as much noise as you can saying you do not consent to the search. If you tried to physically stop them you go to jail for touching the cop.

A convicted felon should never have a gun, period. The way to fight the law is in court before a crime is commited. People dont care too much about convicted felons owning guns.

[LAGC]

Originally posted by jimmyjoebob
In all seriousness, I think you are a selfish prick. By doing what you did and collecting firearms by lying to legitimate Sellers, as well as having your parents hold them for you

From what I understand, his parents didn't know anything about them. They were apparently found in a room formerly occupied by him when he was living there, stowed away. He never lied to any sellers, he simply didn't feel the need to volunteer such information. The seller has no liability when selling private-party, has no duty or obligation to ask the buyer what his status is or what his intentions may or may not be.

put many people at risk of having their lives ruined. Bottom line the guns will be traced and EVERYONE who had possession at any time will get the 3rd degree.

Impossible, unless gun registration truly does exist in this country. The only way the cops would be able to know is if they illegally tracked the serial numbers. Since none of the guns were used in a crime, and none of the guns were stolen, they shouldn't be in a database anywhere to warrant ATF to go to the extent of pulling records from local FFLs. Otherwise, they are lying about the records being dumped after the "instant check."

should have done was pay the $$ to get your conviction reduced, and then bought your guns. Sure they MIGHT have been more expensive, but tough, that's the price you pay for your bad decisions.

He tried getting it reduced, but the prosecutor wanted none of it. He may have been more concerned about the said guns not being available in the future PERIOD, not mere monetary value. I mean, who here can honestly say for sure that even semi-auto AKs will be legal to possess 5 years from now? The way its going... its easy to understand the concern.

[LAGC]

Originally posted by bulgarianak
"entering the house (possibly illegally) where he observed some of the friend's guns and got nervous, and began a line of questioning that eventually extracted a confession from the friend that the said person did own some guns himself which were kept at his parent's house (him not living there at the time).

Did the cop have permission to enter the house? yes or no

That has yet to be determined. He hasn't even gotten a copy of the Discovery yet to see exactly what the police reports say regarding the incident with his friend. His friend isn't even sure what happened exactly, so there's going to be alot of focus on exactly what gave the initial cop the right to enter and whether it was illegal or not. That indeed, could hinge the entire case.

Never let any government offical in your house unless they have a search warrant or court order, if they search it anyway make as much noise as you can saying you do not consent to the search. If you tried to physically stop them you go to jail for touching the cop.

I certainly agree. And it sounds like his friend is upset with himself for saying more than he should have, but it also sounds like he was pressured and was not read his Miranda rights (FWIW) so that will definitely be explored as well.

A convicted felon should never have a gun, period. The way to fight the law is in court before a crime is commited. People dont care too much about convicted felons owning guns.

True. But if it comes down to it, I think he should take his chances with a jury trial, just on the odd chance that a stealth pro-RTKABA citizen sneaks through the screening by the prosecutor and is able to derail the proceedings via jury nullification. At least that way, even if it turns out for the worse, the jury would be able to see how sleazy the cops are and how low they will go for a collar. Might not be enough to acquit, but sure could be interesting none-the-less.

[jimmyjoebob]

Originally posted by LAGC
From what I understand, his parents didn't know anything about them. They were apparently found in a room formerly occupied by him when he was living there, stowed away. He never lied to any sellers, he simply didn't feel the need to volunteer such information. The seller has no liability when selling private-party, has no duty or obligation to ask the buyer what his status is or what his intentions may or may not be.



Impossible, unless gun registration truly does exist in this country. The only way the cops would be able to know is if they illegally tracked the serial numbers. Since none of the guns were used in a crime, and none of the guns were stolen, they shouldn't be in a database anywhere to warrant ATF to go to the extent of pulling records from local FFLs. Otherwise, they are lying about the records being dumped after the "instant check."



He tried getting it reduced, but the prosecutor wanted none of it. He may have been more concerned about the said guns not being available in the future PERIOD, not mere monetary value. I mean, who here can honestly say for sure that even semi-auto AKs will be legal to possess 5 years from now? The way its going... its easy to understand the concern.


ok here we go

A: They were in his parents house, they knew they were there and the knew his was a convicted felon. The guns didn't ride into the house in the wee hours of the morning with fairy dust. That's all the prosecutor has to prove. It is just like th car senario, if you own it, you are responsible for everything inside the car.

B: Wrong, it is the sellers responsibility to be sure that the weapon is not being sold to a prohibited person, I suggest you read up on this beacause you are talking out of your lefty ass once again. As for impossible to trace, what are you smoking. Dude, I had the FBI show up 2 months ago at my door about a Makarov barrel I purchased 3 years ago. As for the BATFE tracing a gun, they have their own program for it, something to the effect of Operation ForwardLook, or something, they take the serial number off the gun, and start with the importer/maker and work their way down. If you think it won't happen or your buddy won't roll over under pressure than you really are an idiot. Please I am sure your buddy is gonna risk a jail term to lie and say he didn't sell you a gun. Imagine how the other guys are gonna react when they get a call about a gun they sold to a felon. The Lautenberg Act of 1997 made it the responsibility to the seller to inquire about felony/domestic violence convictions. As for the illegally tracking, nope sorry its called a bound book, all FFLs have one, and they by law have to show/help the ATF with investegations of recovered weapons. Every weapon that passes through their business is logged as to where it came and to who it went.

ok as for the future ban on weapons, sorry that is a lame ass excuse to cover his sorry ass. IF you are so damn good at predicting what will be in 5 years, then tell I will hire you to be my stock broker.

[The Illuminated One]

Best of luck to ya LAGC!

[daemon734]

well, being that the search was completely illegal it should be taken care of, but not wihout much expense.

as far as the weapons at that parents house, a warrantless search is invalid unless the propertyholders agreed to it. also, to be honest, the guys dad could just say they were his and end of story.

theres enough wrong with this case on the part of the police to secure an aquittal and possibly a lawsuit. your friend should have his dad sign an affadavit that the guns were his and legally purchased and be done with it. he can say he didnt mention that before because he was terrified at the police already digging thru his house illegally.


as far as tracking weapons, there really isnt many ways to track weapons sold thru private sale other than thru word of mouth. they know where the last NIC check was done on it and work their way down. but the first "i sold it at a gunshow to some guy" and the show stops there.

what happened to you jimmyjoebob was due to FAC turning over the names of everybody who bought the mak barrels to the FBI. not too hard to find someone if you have their name and address handed to you.

[jimmyjoebob]

ahh but daemon, I didn't buy it from FAC, but another vendor. I know how they got my info, my point was they can track it if they wanted to. They can put enough pressure on the guy who sold it to get a description of whom they sold it to. Then when daddy claims in court they are his, he goes to jail as well.

As for an illegal search sure it is possible, but I get daddy gave consent, even more so at 5:30AM, encouraged or not, consent is consent. Same thing with the buddy, if the cop walks in and says " hey can I talk with ya a sec" if he agrees, then consent is given.

Bottom line, Consent or not, a Felon buying guns and lying about his past to do so just so he can save a buck is wrong. And as lefty stated, if there is a possibility of FED charges, then the ATF is already involved. How would you like it if a Federal Agent calls and leaves a message for you at work? I have had it happen 2x in my lifetime. Both times the receptionist gave me a funny as look with a note to call the USMS, and I am sure I made the lunch hour gossip. The sellers of the guns are going to go though this soon enough, some might get fired over it for some could be publically embarassed, who knows. Its still wrong what he did.

[redmenace]

Well, if one were to plead with the court that they didnt realize that their being a convicted felon precluded them from gunownership that person had better hope that they didnt spend a LOT of time on an internet gun board. That might make them think that the person had a little more information at their disposal than they claim.

Just so you know at the hopital i work at we get KY in comercial sized tubs. i can probably pick one up for you if you need it.

[LAGC]

Originally posted by jimmyjoebob
A: They were in his parents house, they knew they were there and the knew his was a convicted felon. The guns didn't ride into the house in the wee hours of the morning with fairy dust. That's all the prosecutor has to prove. It is just like th car senario, if you own it, you are responsible for everything inside the car.

It may not matter what the factual evidence may or mat not be, but rather how the officers conducted themselves during all of this. There have been high-profile criminal cases (with overwhelming evidence against the defendant) thrown out by a higher court (if not a jury), simply because the police violated the law during their search. The principle is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are more important than any individual crimes committed. There is good reason to believe the cops obtained their evidence illegally, and if that is the case, he should fight it all the way and be acquitted, even if he was in the wrong for "unlawful possession". Obviously that won't help him get his guns back, but at least there would be some positive closure to his case.

B: Wrong, it is the sellers responsibility to be sure that the weapon is not being sold to a prohibited person, I suggest you read up on this beacause you are talking out of your lefty ass once again.

You may be thinking of FFLs, but even then, as those cheesy BATFE tutorial videos state, the FFL is only obliged to intervene in a sale if its OBVIOUS that an illegal sale (like a straw purchase where an adult is there being coached by a minor or something) is occuring. If the seller doesn't know, the seller cannot be held liable.

From LCAV:

http://www.lcav.org/content/chap2_99.asp

Non-FFL holders, however, are not required to comply with any of these federal laws. Accordingly, in most states, an individual may sell firearms from his or her "personal collection" or as "a hobby" without conducting any background checks or documenting the transaction in any way. In addition, because federal law does not require private sellers to inspect a buyer’s driver license or any other identification, there is no obligation for such sellers to confirm that a buyer is of legal age to purchase a firearm. As a result, convicted felons, minors and other prohibited purchasers can easily buy guns from unlicensed sellers throughout most of the country.

As for impossible to trace, what are you smoking. Dude, I had the FBI show up 2 months ago at my door about a Makarov barrel I purchased 3 years ago. As for the BATFE tracing a gun, they have their own program for it, something to the effect of Operation ForwardLook, or something, they take the serial number off the gun, and start with the importer/maker and work their way down.

Yeah, but in theory, only if the gun is used in a crime or has other questionable features. I'd definitely be raising questions if they showed up at my door-step on such questionable grounds.

The Lautenberg Act of 1997 made it the responsibility to the seller to inquire about felony/domestic violence convictions.

What Lautenberg Act of 1997? Are you talking about the Lautenberg Amendment to the Senate Juvenile Justice Bill, that was passed in the Senate on May 20, 1999 by the tie-breaking vote by Al Gore? That has nothing to do with private-party sales outside of gun-shows.

[LAGC]

Originally posted by jimmyjoebob
Bottom line, Consent or not, a Felon buying guns and lying about his past to do so just so he can save a buck is wrong.

Again, he never lied about his past nor did he do it just to save a buck. You seem to have an axe to grind with this. Why so?

And as lefty stated, if there is a possibility of FED charges, then the ATF is already involved.

No, the ATF is not known to be involved yet. It was just a concern of his lawyer, who phoned the Federal Public Defender in advance for advice. The Federal PD apparently advised to settle with the state as soon as possible to minimize the chance of the Feds deciding to intervene. Still, the consensus seems to be that the Feds usually only get invovled in the cases of "aggravated" crimes, thus it shouldn't apply in this case, considering the round-about circumstantial way the charge came about, the fact that the defendant wasn't illegally packing on his person, or even in his car, the guns supposedly found at his parent's place were apparently unloaded and stored safely, etc.

You raise some excellent points though, and I'll have to pass them on to him so he can appraise his attorney.

Thanks to all for the thoughtful and constructive comments and criticisms so far.

[daemon734]

while i dont endorse felons buying guns, i do despise any case in which the police abuse their authority like they did there. if everything happened as lefty stated, the police made serious errors both in judgement and constitutional rights.

those who say its ok because in the end the guy was a felon and the end justifies the means, i hope you realise that it could some day happen to you and actually does happen to good people a lot more than you hear about.

[HDR]

Our laws are clear about felons and firearms, but those laws are relatively new as compared to the BOR and Constitution.

LAGC's example shows LE violated the felon's Rights.

As far as the firearms, as G. Gordon Liddy once stated "my wife owns a fine firearm's collection...."

[scalawag]

well it was wrong. not you but them. someone might be going to jail for not doing a damn thing! again laws of assumation at work!

look up a good constitutional lawyer. since it will be federal that is what it will take. get a lawyer that listens not one that does otherwise.

damn i wish i was a lawyer. i would take the case. for free. the cop was wrong totally. and i would see if i could pick an out of town court if possible unless your town is small and you know everyone. pick a town thats pro gun. think about it all real close. remember your not guilty yet! dont let them assume you are. and they will. stand and fight cause its your ass not theirs. they have nothing to lose you do.

[HAL-9000]

Well I think your gonna skate from when the LEO first stopped you, but its gonna cost you a bundle.
You should have known better........and if you haven't got the coin for a good lawyer..........your F**ked.

[Smegma]

Bummer.

Best he can do at this point is get a good attorney and keep his mouth shut unless advised otherwise by his attorney. His folks should keep their mouths shut, too, and speak only with his attorney unless court-ordered to testify against their son - as they very well may be. Same with the so-called friend. The material witnesses may need legal counsel if they do this to ensure that they don't cross the line into obstructing justice.

If I got the story right...

-Search and seizure doesn't appear to be much of an issue here. He was on parole, and common condition of parole is waiver of 4th amendment rights to they can search his place with impunity, and search of his folks' place was consenual.

-5th amendment doesn't appear to be much of an issue here, either, since whether given Miranda warning or not doesn't sound like he ran his mouth.

-One place sounds like he does have a chance is that it's arguable whether he was in actual possession of the firearms in the first place.

-He hasn't been returned to prison for parole violation - yet? This suprises me, since doing so is so easy and so routine. This may indicate some weakness in the prosecution's case. At any rate, it certainly makes it easier for the fellow to defend himself.

-Getting convicted in a Federal court for felon-in-possession really would be worst-case scenario. The state authorities will likely try to get him to plead out in exchange for staying in State court - bargaining is one of many reasons why a good attorney is needed.

[Gr8Scott]

Originally posted by LAGC
Here's a what-if scenario for you all...

Well, lets theorize that this person got pulled over during a routine traffic stop in front of a friend's house, and while he didn't have any guns on him (or in his car) the cop thought he was suspicious enough that he went above and beyond the line of duty and went up to the friend's house, entering the house (possibly illegally) where he observed some of the friend's guns and got nervous, and began a line of questioning that eventually extracted a confession from the friend that the said person did own some guns himself which were kept at his parent's house (him not living there at the time).


:bs:

This paragraph reeks of bovine extrement. What cop in their right mind decides OUT OF THE BLUE to go to said "friend's" house violate his 4th ammendment rights and then interrogate him in his own home after his rights have been violated on a mere gut feeling? You are glossing over this whole frigging paragraph here and you insult our intelligence by doing so. You want advice from people, but you won't give them the whole picture?
Screw that :bull:

As far as I'm concerned, if your "friend" is too dumb to shoot straight with those that are supposed to help him/her who should bother to help them? Whatever advice would be given would be based on BS to begin with, so your friend is truly a monumental dumbass for even thinking of relying on advice that is based on BS to start with.

[TheRifleman]

Sounds like LAGC and Messiah, one or both are in deep doo doo.

Good luck boys. I hope you get off because my argument has always been if your not dangerous enough to be locked away then you are not dangerous enough to have your 2A rights taken from you by the state.

And BTW, there is no way to get your record expunged. BATF or whoever have not gotten funds to handle the cases etc...

Was it LAGC or Messiah who rolled over on his friend when questioned by Barney Fife? Who's guns are these BOY!!!! Oh officer, those belong to LAGC and he has more in his moms house. Or was it the other way around?

Of course, all of the above is just hypothetical on my part, like this thread is hypothetical.

None of the searches will be illegal if Barney was given permission to enter the premises of either the friend or the parents.

[coppertales]

friend understand????????????It all boils down to the prior felony conviction, not the current situation......felons cannot legally own guns, period.....chris3

[gmaster]

describe the term 'routine traffic stop'

dunno what state this guy is from but i rarely get pulled and im driving all the time.. and when i do get pulled.. i show them my drivers license and ccw.. and im out... so where is it 'routine' ?

[D.B.Cooper]

His fate rests with his social status.

Since he is a an ex-con and therefore most likely a poor working slob, He's buggered beyond belief and will most likely get a court appointed attorney who will convince him to plead guilty in return for probation, a lesser charge, or some other form of judicial sodomy, because the appointed counsel will not wish to waste his time he values at $1000/hr fucking around over someone he feels is a worthless scumbag. :mad:

Now OTOH, if he were well off, or from higher birth and Mummy and Daddy were well heeled and he could buy himself competent counsel, This case would be a no-brainer since 1) He was a minor when he pulled his earlier shenanigans. 2) the search was illegal and 3) I detect shoddy and shady work by your local Gestapo Department


But then again Herr Ashcroft says that "If they werent guilty they wouldn't have been arrested in the first place." :mad:

[Smegma]

A few corrections/asides:

Gr8Scott, going to a suspect's home to question him/her is standard police practice. It avoids having to notify the person of his/her Miranda rights since they are on their own turf and have not been taken into custody. They still have the right to remain silent, but don't have to be notified of it. So I found that rather believable.

ball3006, it's not true that "felons cannot own guns, period." What's true is that they cannot own firearms as defined by the 1968 Gun Control Act - which excludes antique firearms made before 1898, firearms (e.g. muzzle loaders) that do not accept cartridges, and airguns. Nor can they own firearms as defined by State law - which may be more stringent in the definition than the Federal laws. But if not prohibited by State law, they can own antiques, muzzle-loaders, and airguns.

gmaster, "routine traffic stops" are common any time a cop is bored and nothing's happening and/or you look like a person who could be productively rousted. Changes with time, location, and circumstance. Geezer factor cuts down on getting rousted. When I looked like a young hippie drug fiend and drove a fast Camaro with lots ofprimer on it I used to get rousted fairly commonly. Now that I look like an old desert rat and drive a Jeep I seldom get rousted. But if you're young, drive an outlaw car, and and it's 3AM and the cop is bored to death, I can nearly guarantee a "routine traffic stop".

Rifleman, you've confused expungement with BATF exercising its option of granting firearms rights to convicted felons. You're right - the power of BATF to grant firearms rights remains on the books, but has been quashed by not being funded. But that's for felons who's conviction was not expunged. Generally speaking, a sentence can be expunged by the same court that passed down the sentence, in some states by a Pardons Board - and whenever a pardon is granted by the Governor or the President the conviction is automatically expunged.

You know, a key point here is whether the police can prove that the weapons belong to this guy.

[srv656s]

Hope it works out for you, let us know...

Shawn

[Gr8Scott]

Originally posted by Smegma
A few corrections/asides:

Gr8Scott, going to a suspect's home to question him/her is standard police practice. It avoids having to notify the person of his/her Miranda rights since they are on their own turf and have not been taken into custody. They still have the right to remain silent, but don't have to be notified of it. So I found that rather believable.


Initially, the officer didn't go to the suspect's home and question him. He went to the suspect's friend's house and questioned the friend first. Said "friend" rolled over on his pal under intense questioning (IN HIS OWN HOME) and this intense questioning happened all because the officer had a HUNCH and simply decided to pick on said felon for no reason? Why would an officer decide to go to someone's friend's house and question them about said suspect when the suspect hasn't done anything overtly wrong to the officer's knowledge yet? You don't potentially trample someone's 4th ammendment rights just to ask them some questions about someone else that hasn't already broken some sort of law to cause such a serious inquiry and digging. It takes a bit more to encourage a cop to step over lines like this and actually dig hard to nail someone for doing something wrong. Not in the real world...;) Something doesn't add up and we are being fed bullshit in that one paragraph for certain. Re-read the entire thing a couple of times and see if your bullshit meter doesn't peg on that one paragraph...

[gmaster]

Originally posted by Smegma
A few corrections/asides:

gmaster, "routine traffic stops" are common any time a cop is bored and nothing's happening and/or you look like a person who could be productively rousted. Changes with time, location, and circumstance. Geezer factor cuts down on getting rousted. When I looked like a young hippie drug fiend and drove a fast Camaro with lots ofprimer on it I used to get rousted fairly commonly. Now that I look like an old desert rat and drive a Jeep I seldom get rousted. But if you're young, drive an outlaw car, and and it's 3AM and the cop is bored to death, I can nearly guarantee a "routine traffic stop".

ahahah ... the 3am runnin around when you should be asleep will get you pulled.. :D them dang bored cops..

[Smegma]

Gr8Scott, actually it just sounds like some pretty good police work to me. And I don't see where the cop violated any 4th or 5th amendment guidelines. So when you say, " You don't potentially trample someone's 4th ammendment rights just to ask them some questions about someone else that hasn't already broken some sort of law to cause such a serious inquiry and digging. It takes a bit more to encourage a cop to step over lines like this..." I disagree with you at two levels:

First, I don't at all agree with the implication that cops don't go after a person unless they are guilty of something [not all suspects are criminals and its up to the court to sort out the two] ; and

Second, I don't see where the cop trampled anyone's rights or went over any line.

That latter may sound a bit weird coming from a leftist-liberal ACLU member, but I don't see where the cop did anything wrong even by ACLU standards. Cops are allowed to pursue hunches, cops generally are allowed to question people without advising them of their Miranda rights if they haven't been taken into custody, and cops generally are allowed to perform consensual searches.

[Gr8Scott]

Originally posted by Smegma
Gr8Scott, actually it just sounds like some pretty good police work to me. And I don't see where the cop violated any 4th or 5th amendment guidelines. So when you say, " You don't potentially trample someone's 4th ammendment rights just to ask them some questions about someone else that hasn't already broken some sort of law to cause such a serious inquiry and digging. It takes a bit more to encourage a cop to step over lines like this..." I disagree with you at two levels:

First, I don't at all agree with the implication that cops don't go after a person unless they are guilty of something [not all suspects are criminals and its up to the court to sort out the two] ; and

Second, I don't see where the cop trampled anyone's rights or went over any line.

That latter may sound a bit weird coming from a leftist-liberal ACLU member, but I don't see where the cop did anything wrong even by ACLU standards. Cops are allowed to pursue hunches, cops generally are allowed to question people without advising them of their Miranda rights if they haven't been taken into custody, and cops generally are allowed to perform consensual searches.

The 4th ammendment statement was put in there because he mentioned that the policeman (illegally) entered his friend's house. I don't know what was done legally or illegally by the officer, but since the BS we're going on has it listed, I thought I should hedge my bets and include that.

Some policemen go after people they have hunches about, but most are just like any other person. Human nature dictates that the officer isn't going to take things as far as he did on a mere hunch. A hunch is shaky ground to tread that far on and start grilling an ordinary law abiding citizen over. I just don't buy this. What officer is going to go to someone's house and question them hard core because they had a hunch about their buddy? I can promise you that 99.99999999% of police officers out there won't do that unless they have something more than a hunch. It just isn't human nature to take things that far on a mere "feeling" or "suspicion". An officer might take things that far with said felon and waste their time, but they wouldn't get anyone else involved and lay the mental smack down on them until they crack and roll over on their buddy. That's BS.

Did the officer find a shell casing possibly? Or maybe some live rounds that weren't supposed to be in the possession of said felon since they have nothing to shoot that stuff with? If that's the case, then I can understand it a bit better. Just a "suspicion" or a hunch doesn't mean jack however. Rounds are evidence of guilt and that would prompt an officer to take things a bit further. It's probable cause and the officer then has a defense for his questioning the suspect's alibi. Without this, the officer would be foolhardy to chase such shadows. Understand the difference?

[LAGC]

Originally posted by Gr8Scott
Did the officer find a shell casing possibly? Or maybe some live rounds that weren't supposed to be in the possession of said felon since they have nothing to shoot that stuff with? If that's the case, then I can understand it a bit better.

I did leave out a small detail, because I didn't want to divert attention from the key facts of the matter. After the principle defendant informed the cop of his prior Burglary conviction 7 years ago, the cop "suddenly" noticed a (computer) tool-kit and a radio scanner (broken) in the back of his car, and accused him of possessing "burglary tools." This is what prompted (or at least offered an excuse) for the cop to go up to the friends door and knock in the first place, to verify the said principle defendant was really there to see his friend and not just bullshitting the cop along. It was 2am in the morning, so that obviously didn't help matters any. Funny thing is? After the arrest, the "burglary tools" charge suddenly disappeared. The principle defendant was never arraigned on the charge, and it hasn't been an issue since.

But its still hazy as to when the cop went up to the friend's place. I just learned today that the police allege that SUPPOSEDLY the friend's roommate opened the door and invited the officer in, but thats not confirmed at this point. If that were the case, that could explain a few things, and obviously take some of the legal onus off of the cop as Smegma contends. But regardless, the cop, upon seeing the friend's sidearm (he has a CCW permit, which of course isn't necessary inside one's own house anyway) freaked out, which led to the line of questioning about firearms, which led to the said extraction of confession, which led to said charges against the principal defendant. Domino effect.

Just a "suspicion" or a hunch doesn't mean jack however. Rounds are evidence of guilt and that would prompt an officer to take things a bit further. It's probable cause and the officer then has a defense for his questioning the suspect's alibi. Without this, the officer would be foolhardy to chase such shadows. Understand the difference?

It was a fishing expedition, no doubt about it. The cop just got extremely lucky, and of course, the defendant had the stars aligned against him, considering this all did, indeed, eminate from a routine traffic stop. Guns that were NOT on his person, NOT in his car... but miles away at his parent's place, allegedly.

Kind of gives you a new perspective on gun control in general. I'm beginning to think HDR may be right... that maybe it never will boil down to a big SHTF scenario, but rather the cops will just pick off gun-owner after gun-owner, one routine-traffic-stop at a time...

[Wespe]

Too bad LAGC, but if you knew you weren't supposed to have guns and disregarded that. whether just or not, you fucked up and have to pay now. I can't say I feel too sorry for a person who knowingly breaks the law. After reading all your politics for these years it is apparent you are the typical lib who believes laws only apply to others.

On the bright side, at least you won't be able to vote if you get convicted

[Matt Bracken]

My advice: LAWYER UP, no matter what it costs.

[Mr Magoo]

Please folks, this supposed to be a hypothetical discussion so let's keep it hypothetical, and quit calling LAGC the perp.

I could easily throw up hypothetical questions like this one about friends of mine who have done far stupider things. Would my hypothetical question make me the perpetrator?

Let's give LAGC the benefit of the doubt, he has kept everything very neutral so far and has even refered to passing something on to his friend. In the land of the free, noone is guilty until proven so in a court of law, and they ain't anywhere near perfect either.

As written, LAGCs friend did as the court instructed and worked hard and did repay his debt. I think this is important and needs to be remembered in the courtroom. He just got stupid and got guns before clearing out his felony conviction.

On the Montel Williams Show today, (the TV is background noise for me, while on the net) the subject was guys who were so scruffy looking, they were cop magnets. Their girlfriends and wives gleefully brought them in for makeovers. Your friend may want reconsider how he may appear to people at large and cops in particular. He definitely should get as sqeeky clean as possible for the courts.

Any Lefty Against Gun Control is rare and beautiful in my sight and we need to keep the few we have in good stead. LAGC has certainly kept many a brain around here from getting too overly rusty.

So damn many things have been made felonies in recent years that we've probably unknowingly commited a couple this week even without touching a gun. Many of these new felonies have nothing to do with theft, violence, or even something most would consider a crime. I personally think many felons who haven't used weapons in a crime should be allowed to own guns.

This is America, guns are as natural as mom and apple pie. Many felons love guns and the shooting sports quite independently of whatever law they chose to break. Guns are in any real american's blood

Hell, your wife gets mad at you and calls the police and you are a felon. Even some police are suffering from this one.

[Gr8Scott]

OK. That makes more sense now. That's all I wanted to know. My apologies for the BS charge, but you have to understand that what was initially said didn't entirely make sense. Now that we know that this guy was on a fishing expedition and had "burglary tools" as PC, it makes more sense. Of course, what are the legal ramifications of being an idiot and mistaking PC tools for burglars tools and that for probable cause? Him being an idiot doesn't mean that he gets probable cause for any tools he doesn't understand. (hammer?). Without probable cause, he can't justify hounding your friend and checking his story out. KnowwhatImean?;)

[custer]

When you play at the edge of the cliff, the slightest gust will push you over.

[Bladerunner71]

If he can prove his background is honorable we can push though Sovereignty for him in around 20-30 days. As a Sovereign you loose you right to have firearms only while incarcerated. After that you regain all of your rights back and are expected to be a productive member of society. Keep in mind the sentences handed down to a Sovereign who commits a crime are much more sever than those committed by the average federal citizen. The only wrinkle I see is him already being on parole. To be on parole he had to sign an agreement. That agreement I believe would take precedence over anything we did now if I remember correct. Otherwise when they drag him to court he could just challenge there subject matter jurisdiction. As a Sovereign they wouldn’t have the right to bring him before a maritime contract law court. UNLESS that is he has an agreement with them. I believe his parole paperwork would count as that.

[thors hammer]

.

[machinegunhand]

Take a look at this government funded program called "Project Safe Niegborhood" They need some heads to show for the $500,000,000

http://www.psn.gov

[LAGC]

Originally posted by machinegunhand
Take a look at this government funded program called "Project Safe Niegborhood" They need some heads to show for the $500,000,000

http://www.psn.gov

Yeah, but it sounds like that particular program is geared more towards those who knowingly straw purchase for a felon or if the felon himself uses the gun in a crime. Generally the crime has to be "aggravated" for the Federales to get involved. (Full-auto/NFA weapons in the hands of a non-Class 3 FFL, defiled serial numbers on the guns, etc.) Considering none of the guns were stolen and were never used in any crimes, nor even found on the suspect's person (or vehicle he was driving) for that matter, its doubtful the Feds feel compelled to bother.

Project Gestapo: The Law (http://www.psn.gov/Review.asp?section=13)

Under Project Safe Neighborhoods, United States prosecutors are ready to bring cases involving illegal gun use to federal court. This means that if anyone is caught with an illegal gun, they probably won’t be entitled to bail — instead, they'll go straight to jail.

The theoretical "perp" in this case already bailed out of jail, so obviously the Feds either dropped the ball or don't give a shit. He was never probation violated either, so as Smegma pointed out, the state prosecutors likely know their case is weak.

[custer]

Originally posted by Bladerunner71
If he can prove his background is honorable we can push though Sovereignty for him in around 20-30 days. As a Sovereign you loose you right to have firearms only while incarcerated. After that you regain all of your rights back and are expected to be a productive member of society. Keep in mind the sentences handed down to a Sovereign who commits a crime are much more sever than those committed by the average federal citizen. The only wrinkle I see is him already being on parole. To be on parole he had to sign an agreement. That agreement I believe would take precedence over anything we did now if I remember correct. Otherwise when they drag him to court he could just challenge there subject matter jurisdiction. As a Sovereign they wouldn’t have the right to bring him before a maritime contract law court. UNLESS that is he has an agreement with them. I believe his parole paperwork would count as that.

This sounds like an excellent option for your friend.

[GunBum]

Hypothetical Question.

Why does a convicted felon have to lose his or her rights?

I understand all the stuff about being held responsible for one's actions and paying for a crime. I'm not talking about the time that the person is under court supervision (jail, prison, parole, probation), I'm talking about when their debt to society is paid.


Why is the 2nd ammendment picked out from all of them, and why is this practice supported by many "defenders" of the 2nd ammendment?


They don't give up their 1st ammendment rights. (maybe with the loss of their right to vote)

They always give up their 2nd ammendment rights.

They don't give up their 3rd ammendment rights. No one is trying to quarter troops in a felons home.

They don't give up their 4th ammendment rights. While on parole or probation they may sighn away their right to be free from search and seizure, but after they are free from court supervision they gain their right back.

They don't give up their 5th ammendment rights. Same due process, etc. apply whether it is your 1st or 50th time in court.

They don't give up their 6th ammendment rights. Same trial by jury whether it is your 1st or 50th time in court.

They don't give up their 7th ammendment rights. Still have the right to seek trial by jury in common law disputes.

They don't give up their 8th ammendment rights. Maybe they do, because bail is higher for repeat offenders. However, they still get offered bail in all but the most severe cases.

Ninth and Tenth ammendments don't really apply.


I'm curious. Anyone who thinks they have a logical reason for this I want to hear it.

[LAGC]

Thats what I'd like to know, GunBum. It never ceases to amaze me how so often lawyers quote all the other amendments of the Bill of Rights as if they were Gospel, but as soon as it comes to RTKABA, they look at you with a blank stare.

To complicate matters in this case, while the defendant's lawyer is big on the First, Fourth, Fifth, etc. he's an anti when it comes to the Second. But that may be just as well for the initial criminal phase anyway, since there is more concern about the legality of the search, and possibly due process, at this point more than anything else.

But I'd imagine the defendant plans on appealing any guilty verdict with a different lawyer and would be interested in challenging the constitutionality of the very law itself on Second Amendment grounds, since he'd presumably have alot of idle time on his hands.

Does anyone know what the best avenue of approach for that type of thing would be? Presumably you have to plead "not guilty" and take it to jury-trial and be convicted that way if you still want to be able to appeal? In other words, no plea-bargaining (except maybe nolo contendere or an Alford plea or something) or else all bets for appeal are off? Any idea where to even begin researching that type of thing?

[Shadow Walker]

I guess said person could always seek political asylum in Canada. Canada has very lax laws as such.

Then he could learn how to speak Russian, and then seek political asylum in Russia. Russia seems to be the new and upcoming place to own firearms, especially if you are a Communist.

Course, he could do the old American way of escaping. Steal someone's I.D., move a few states over, and start a new life.

If he ain't rich and got a good lawyer, then he is screwed. Everything is this country has a price, including justice.

[custer]

Originally posted by LAGC
Thats what I'd like to know, GunBum. It never ceases to amaze me how so often lawyers quote all the other amendments of the Bill of Rights as if they were Gospel, but as soon as it comes to RTKABA, they look at you with a blank stare.




I am not defending it, just explaining it.

The 2nd was not taught in college poly sci Con Law courses nor in law school Con law classes. I doubt that it is today, either.

I never thought about its absence in the course of study until I became interested in guns later in my adult life.

[gmaster]

Originally posted by Gr8Scott
OK. That makes more sense now. That's all I wanted to know. My apologies for the BS charge, but you have to understand that what was initially said didn't entirely make sense. Now that we know that this guy was on a fishing expedition and had "burglary tools" as PC, it makes more sense. Of course, what are the legal ramifications of being an idiot and mistaking PC tools for burglars tools and that for probable cause? Him being an idiot doesn't mean that he gets probable cause for any tools he doesn't understand. (hammer?). Without probable cause, he can't justify hounding your friend and checking his story out. KnowwhatImean?;)

heh.. funny how the story gets more involved with new pieces.. is the puzzle finished yet or are there still some pieces missing?

[Smegma]

GunBum, in many states a convicted felon loses not only his 2nd Amendment rights, but the right to vote.

Makes one think of the old saw, "Bullets or ballots". In many states felons have the right to neither.

Defining certain actions as felonies can be a swell way to disenfranchise segments of the population.

[GunBum]

Originally posted by Smegma
GunBum, in many states a convicted felon loses not only his 2nd Amendment rights, but the right to vote.

I mentioned that.

"They don't give up their 1st ammendment rights. (maybe with the loss of their right to vote)"

But I guess it would really be.....

Amendment XXVI

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[oc192]

Your friend is going to jail for a long time. :mad:

This looks like an open and shut case to me despite the fact that I loathe such cops as the one involved in your friend's case.

There's no legal advice in the U.S. that can help you on an open and shut case like this.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[LAGC]

Originally posted by oc192
There's no legal advice in the U.S. that can help you on an open and shut case like this.

Well, its a good thing this is all just a make-believe scenario with a pretend perp. Otherwise I might ask what sort of "extra-legal" preparations you might advise in light of an "open and shut case like this"... don't you think if it was so open-and-shut though, said perp would still be in jail and bond would have been set very high? Not to mention probation violation and Federal involvement by now?

No, the suspect is not a violent individual. He is a peaceable, otherwise law-abiding citizen who simply lost his way. The judge will see that, and will hand down a lenient sentence, I am sure. I mean, look at it this way: here he is so capable of mass-violence, yet so reserved, always showing up to court as promised (unarmed), not meeting any LEOs who come to his door with armed hostility, etc. There really is no higher morality than self-restraint. Surely that will be taken into account.

I mean, shit, if the suspect wanted to, he could go out and buy an AK from the classifieds and clean out a gun-store of all its 7.62 ammo at any time. Cash and carry, no questions asked. Of course he won't though, because he now knows that is wrong, that it offends the dignity of the State, who is the real victim here. As we all know, there is no such thing a "victimless" crime when the State itself is "victimized and offended." :rolleyes:

[madtrader]

LAGC:

You've got a good story and something to stand on legally, but I've been burglarized more than once in my life. Barely 18 is older than 18--which means you got to pay for what you did. You might be the most upstanding person in the world now, but without consequences, our country would be in a lot worse shape than we are in already. $19,000 isn't a whole lot of money in the grand scheme of things, but to that business owner it could mean the difference between getting by and bankruptcy. It's hard enough to break even (in the computer industry no less) with normal problems that occur in business, but having kids burglarize your shop can ruin your life in an instant. You could argue going and getting a job, but a failed business doesn't look good on a resume, no matter what the cause. I urge you to just take your lumps and move on. If you succeed in your case, you could just be leaving a case precident for a "real badguy" to get off and hurt people. You don't have to shoot someone to cause them pain and in a capitalistic society, stealing money/valuables is the equivalent.

Just another look at the situation.

[Bladerunner71]

Originally posted by GunBum
Hypothetical Question.

Why does a convicted felon have to lose his or her rights?

I understand all the stuff about being held responsible for one's actions and paying for a crime. I'm not talking about the time that the person is under court supervision (jail, prison, parole, probation), I'm talking about when their debt to society is paid.


Why is the 2nd ammendment picked out from all of them, and why is this practice supported by many "defenders" of the 2nd ammendment?


They don't give up their 1st ammendment rights. (maybe with the loss of their right to vote)

They always give up their 2nd ammendment rights.

They don't give up their 3rd ammendment rights. No one is trying to quarter troops in a felons home.

They don't give up their 4th ammendment rights. While on parole or probation they may sighn away their right to be free from search and seizure, but after they are free from court supervision they gain their right back.

They don't give up their 5th ammendment rights. Same due process, etc. apply whether it is your 1st or 50th time in court.

They don't give up their 6th ammendment rights. Same trial by jury whether it is your 1st or 50th time in court.

They don't give up their 7th ammendment rights. Still have the right to seek trial by jury in common law disputes.

They don't give up their 8th ammendment rights. Maybe they do, because bail is higher for repeat offenders. However, they still get offered bail in all but the most severe cases.

Ninth and Tenth ammendments don't really apply.


I'm curious. Anyone who thinks they have a logical reason for this I want to hear it.


Simple matter of citizenship status. If they are a Sovereign they do not loose there rights except while incarcerated. If you are a subject citizen of the corporate US then you have no rights, only privileges that can be revoked.

[LAGC]

Originally posted by madtrader
LAGC:

You've got a good story and something to stand on legally, but I've been burglarized more than once in my life. Barely 18 is older than 18--which means you got to pay for what you did. You might be the most upstanding person in the world now, but without consequences, our country would be in a lot worse shape than we are in already. $19,000 isn't a whole lot of money in the grand scheme of things, but to that business owner it could mean the difference between getting by and bankruptcy.

Not to defend the perp's initial actions by any means, but we're definitely not talking about a mom-and-pop store here. We're talking about a major corporate store with millions in backing. They were insured, the stolen computers were refurbs, they got most of the stolen equipment back anyway, in pristine condition, and the $19,000 on top of it. I think its safe to say they profited more off of the stolen hardware they recovered than they would have had the refurbs even sold. The only real immediate damage was the broken glass door from the initial smash-and-grab. A hassle and inconvenience, yes. A serious detriment to their business? Hardly. Worthy of a 10-year sentence? You decide.

From what I understand of the original situation, the reason the judge gave the defendant in question the maximum 10-year sentence is because he thought it would take the defendant that long to pay off restitution. Thats the only reason. Usually 3 to 5 years is typical of a first-time young adult offender like that. The defendant was dilligent in paying off restitution in a very timely manner, in hopes that he could get off probation and get his felony expunged sooner. But the prosecutors wanted none of it. Thats when the thoughtcrime may have occured, and the realization that he may never get rid of his felony conviction may have set in.

Perhaps the defendant in question has gotten bitter over all these years, wondering what more he can do to pay back his "debt to society." Obviously he did make a mistake, he did do wrong, he did get mixed up in the wrong crowd and let himself be peer-pressured into doing what he did, not even for the profit or personal gain, but just for the adrenaline rush and the challenge. Little more than teenage angst, looking back.

I urge you to just take your lumps and move on. If you succeed in your case, you could just be leaving a case precident for a "real badguy" to get off and hurt people.

I'll forward your sentiments to the suspect in question, but I disagree. The Constitution is infinitely more important than any individual crime. If the police are going around breaking the law and committing unethical searches, that is a far more egregious violation than some ex-con supposedly possessing guns that have not been used in any negative fashion, as the police's own reports can attest to. A successful defense here would be a success against police excess and corruption, hardly a green-light to let others off of real crimes.

...in a capitalistic society...

I could make a comment about that, but I'll refrain. ;)

[Buster Charlie]

Originally posted by LAGC
The said felon picked them up via private-party purchases (both at gun-shows and through local newspaper classifieds), without informing the said sellers about his status.


That really shows 'your friend' has learned his lesson! Nothing says 'reformed' more than commiting another crime!

[Buster Charlie]

Originally posted by GunBum
Hypothetical Question.

Why does a convicted felon have to lose his or her rights?

I understand all the stuff about being held responsible for one's actions and paying for a crime. I'm not talking about the time that the person is under court supervision (jail, prison, parole, probation), I'm talking about when their debt to society is paid.


Why is the 2nd ammendment picked out from all of them, and why is this practice supported by many "defenders" of the 2nd ammendment?


They don't give up their 1st ammendment rights. (maybe with the loss of their right to vote)

They always give up their 2nd ammendment rights.

They don't give up their 3rd ammendment rights. No one is trying to quarter troops in a felons home.

They don't give up their 4th ammendment rights. While on parole or probation they may sighn away their right to be free from search and seizure, but after they are free from court supervision they gain their right back.

They don't give up their 5th ammendment rights. Same due process, etc. apply whether it is your 1st or 50th time in court.

They don't give up their 6th ammendment rights. Same trial by jury whether it is your 1st or 50th time in court.

They don't give up their 7th ammendment rights. Still have the right to seek trial by jury in common law disputes.

They don't give up their 8th ammendment rights. Maybe they do, because bail is higher for repeat offenders. However, they still get offered bail in all but the most severe cases.

Ninth and Tenth ammendments don't really apply.


I'm curious. Anyone who thinks they have a logical reason for this I want to hear it.


Because the fed gov dosen't reconize the 2nd as a right. Thats why. Personaly I don't see why any felon should not be allowed to own a gun. HOWEVER, thats only because I don't think any felon too dangerous to allow firearm ownership should be allowed back in public!

If your not safe enough to trust with a gun, why are you on the streets?

[custer]

It sounds to me that the felon in question is not sorry for what he did, just sorry about the consequences to him. After all these years, he is still justifying his crime by painting the victim as a corporate bad guy. Explaining away his decision to steal as angst, peer pressure, adreneline rush and so on.

This was not some prank gone wrong like egging a house or turfing someones' lawn.

As I read this thread, I initially had some sympathy for the guy, but most, if not all of it has gone away.

[Twisted Cross]

LAGC,

Is doesn't matter if the company was Mom&Pop inc. or MegaCorp inc. What was done is still wrong and it still affects all of us.

Insurance rates rise

The price of goods goes up

Said company has to higher security

People that work for the company could get better raise, but shoplifters and thieves stole too much from the company.

The CEO of said MegaCorp decides he is not going to invest more into the company because theft was too high. Less jobs for local people.


What's to stop the felon in the story from robbing a Mom&Pop later?

Maybe this felon is one of the freedom figthers in your group avenging all the workers of the world by robbing MegaCorp?

The court doesn't give a crap if your buddy was a freedom fighter and neither does 99.999999999% of society. Most would just think he was freak or kook.

Your friend needs to be responsible for his actions wether he likes it or not. We all make mistakes when we are young and some worse than others. He needs to move on from it and be an adult.

No matter what kind of society we live in there will be consequences for damaging behavior amongst it's members. Even in your dream wolrd utopia you would like to see there would be a need for punishment of those that pray on others.

[Smegma]

LAGC, very good news that this fellow is out on bail and the case is staying in State court.

Like a lot of folks here, though, gotta admit that I'm not too impressed with minimizing of the original burglary. But I dunno how much that's relevant, anyway. Point is he's a got a felony record and he got busted for felon in possession.

At the same time, I'm not a big advocate of folks immediately rolling over even if they're busted dead to rights. Our entire legal system is premised upon obtaining the best approximation of justice possible through an adversarial process. What it has in common with democracy is that the only thing worse than it is everything else.

I'm wondering if the State has the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was, in fact, in possession of the weapons stashed at the parents' house - i.e. that they can prove they were actually his. And even if they can, wondering if that would actually break the felon-in-possession law, anyway, since he didn't actually have possession of them - presuming that he doesn't live with the folks.

Questions for his attorney to pursue.

[LAGC]

Good points, Smegma. I guess at this point it really is up to his attorney. Not much more that can be said or done.

And you make some good points too, Sang Run. Perhaps the said perp is making too light of his original charge, and isn't fully considering the negative consequences, even to the mega-corp victim in question. I do think he's truly sorry for it though and really does regret what he did. He has stayed clean and played it very straight since, this latest charge aside. Hopefully that will all be taken into account.

I guess my biggest problem with this whole scenario is the idea of a blanket law being applied to everyone without consideration of the circumstances or history in each particular case. An armed violent felon in the commission of another violent crime? No question about it... throw the book, but for the crime itself, not for mere gun possession. But a non-violent felon, not in possession of any guns, only compromised because of someone else's testimony and a questionable round-about search...

Very interesting and stimulating discussion, if nothing else. Thanks to all for entertaining this "what-if" scenario.

[Twisted Cross]

LAGC,

I'll agree with you that blanket laws don't seem fair either, but in another way it's almost necessary to some degree.

I'm not saying this applies to the person in question.

We already see people getting off easy for all kinds of things and then in another case that is almost the same we see someone get the book thrown at them. I hate to say this, but I would almost rather have one simple set of laws for the entire country instead of all the different ways we have now.

We all know for that to happen it would come from the FED and a lot of it has already happened with 3 strikes and safe neighhborhood. (Not a great idea)

My point being: We have to have uniform laws to go by in some way. Just becaue someone is maybe a better person than others doesn't mean they should pay for their crimes. I do believe that many people can be re-abilitated. They have to make that decision though. I have a friend that stole $1900 from his aunt when he was 19 because he was doing drugs. He went and turned himself in and did 18 months. His family didn't even want him to do time. He basically had himself jailed to save himself. Has he ever committed a crime in 24 years since? No and he works for the government too. I would trust the guy with my life or even to watch my baby. He's a good honest person that decided he needed tough love. If he did get in trouble I am sure his past conviction would come up.

The one thing that is missing from our criminal justice sytem is helping people understand they need to take responsibilty for their actions.

It would be nice to have litmous tests for each criminal to see how good of a person they are, but that will never happen and it would be a mess. The justice system is a mess, but if you get a good lawyer it can help. It's not fair in some eyes, but it is all we have at the moment.


BTW:

If this guy's stuff was really searched illegally I hope he gets off. There is no reason for things like that. I do believe the police element pushes the envelope too often when doing searches and going on suspicions.

He does get off and the weapons charges get thrown out he needs to ditch that stuff right away because they will be on him like stink on shit. I doubt he will ever be able to get those weapons back from the evidence room at the PD though. To do so would be an instant felony and the police would be accessories to a crime :lool: Sorry that seems ironic that he could get off of the weapons charge, but not be able to get the weapons back due to his status.

[Penguin]

Well to me it doesn't sound good. After some of your replies I am asuming that your frind had this happen to him and it isn't a theoretical discussion, and you just wish to keep it anonomus, which is what I would do.

I think your friend is more or less screwed though. My advice is as follows, based on the facts you have given. Since it sounds like your fiend was smart, I would just recomend he keeps his mouth shut or, say the guns aren't his if he hasn't admited they are his. If they were bought with out a paper work trail he might get away with it. That of course asumes that the guns were indeed at your other friends perent's house with out them knowing. If they were stored at the pearent's house of your friend and the pearents didn't know they were there that might work. This of course also asumes that your friend didn't do strw purches for oyur other friend and that there won't be paper work to trace actual owner ship to your fellon friend. I think the stradagey of prove they are mine becasue they aren't mine is your best bet.

I don't think oyu will get it throw out of court becasue to me it sounds like the pearents of the friend were the guns were stored allowed the search there for the cops didn't need a warent as they got permission from the owner of hte house. It also doesn't to me sound like they did anything else illegal. So for my second bit of advice I would say get a lawyer a good one, as they may see a technacality on which to get your friend off, after all that is there job. That about sums up my advice.

It sucks having a friend go to jail but I am sorry and I have little sympthy for him. He a. Broke the law when he burglerized the computer store. Now acording to your acounts it sounds like he more or less got mixed up in the wrong crowd and screwed himself. operitive words are how ever he screwed himself. No one else did, it would seem to me that breaking into a store is hard to do by acident and he shouldn't have been hanging out with those particular friends that day and or night. I have little tolerance for thiefs my self especially this week since some asshole broke into my jeep I had for less than 2 weeks.

To your friends credit though it sounds like he did his time and paid his dues. It sucks that he lost his right to own a gun but that is the law. To break it in the manner that he did was just fucking stupid. I mean really. We can all gripe about how stupid the laws are all day and weather or not this was a ase of stupid law or stupid person but, opnions aside if you get caught breaking the law you can expect to go to jail no mater how screwed up or unconsitional the law is.

From the story you have told I don't have doubt that your friend woudn't have comited any more crimes with his guns (asuming that his simply owning them wasn't illegal) but what was he thinking? Was he hoarding them in case SHTF or what? You say he bought them becasue he was worried about not being able to purcase them latter due to them being banned. Ok I can see that I would be worried about that to but did he expect to get away with this for ever? I would have to asume that if he bought them becasue he was worried about not being able to buy them latter he went shooting for fun and wanted to enjoy shoting them while they were still legal. Which is why I ask did he expect to never get cought with them or what? I guess what I am trying to get at is the fact that if he was that worried he could have just bought them on the black market. Look at england for example guns are ilegal there in just about every case yet tons of them are sold illegally, why asume it would be different here if that happened. Which just makes me wonder why in the world he broke the law in such a blaghtant way when he knew it was ilegal?

[custer]

I feel for the parents who might be tempted to perjure themselves to save their child.

They are required to testify and tell the truth and could be in jeopardy.

A lot more people are hurt by crime than we sometimes think.

[Smegma]

LAGC, part I don't get is that it appears that the questioning was illegal/unethical and that the search was illegal/unethical.

I don't get it.

How?

PS The law does make a distinction between folks like your buddy and those who are found to be felon in possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime. If he was committing a violent crime when he got busted, he'd be facing much, much more serious charges and time. Where failure to make a distinction does come into play is in Federal court, where even the judges are finding the mandatory sentencing guidelines to be a travesty against justice with many of them simply refusing to follow them. Dunno if you've been following this, but the [in]Justice Department has begun gathering data to identify who these judges are.

[308]

Originally posted by LAGC
I guess my biggest problem with this whole scenario is the idea of a blanket law being applied to everyone without consideration of the circumstances or history in each particular case.
It's called "discretion" and it is supposed to be excercise fairly at each step in the decision making process. It is the means by which an official decides whether or not, or in what manner, a law will be enforced.

Discretion is exercised by the Police when they decide how to enforce a law; By the Prosecutors when they decide whether or how they will file charges; By the Judiciary when they set bail, conditions of release, accept pleas, dismiss charges, impose sentances or revoke parole; and finaly by the Corrections officals when they assign an offender to a specific facility, award priviledges, punishment, parole or the revoking thereof.

Sadly, because of their liberal tendencies, we now have activists at every level of the system who, for the most part, make decisions not on fairness or deep consideration towards unique circumstances, but rather based upon agenda and political gain.

Conservativism is the only thing that will keep said felon from having to kiss bubba's baby every night, but I' be willing to bet said felon is far from being a conservative...yet.

[Smegma]

custer, good point regarding the parents.

If I were they, I'd obtain legal counsel - and one different from the attorney representing their kid to keep it clean - to ensure that they don't go over the line into anything that could be construed as obstructing justice. Then, to the extent that legal counsel says they can do without getting into a jam, I wouldn't say diddly/squat to anyone about the case (except to their own attorney and to their son's). Unless I'd been assurred that testifying to the truth would be helpful to their son, I'd testify only upon being ordered by the court to do so. If subpoenaed by the DA, they need to remember (as their attorney no doubt would advise them) that all a subpoena means is to be there - it doesn't mean you're required to testify (that's a separate court order). Perjury would be out of the question.

[bigden37]

In my opinion and according to the facts being on probation or parole is much different than not. The court system has a whole different set of rules in these cases. First off you won't have any right to a jury trial, or the normal right to privacy or illegal search and seizure defenses, second you will be going up for a probation hearing or parol hearing in front of a probation or parol judge. That being said you are basically at the judges mercy with no rights other than right to council. In the facts if one were not on probation or parol but still a convicted felon that was not in immediate possession of a firearm your case would be weak, but hopeful as to illegal search and seizure unless the occupants of the dwelling gave consent to search the premises or any firearm was in plain view after the officer was invited in the dwelling, or saw a weapon at the threshhold. Remember, a convicted felon can not be in a household with firearms, whether or not a parents house or his own, which again leaves you with less rights than the non felon in cases where firearms are considered.

[madtrader]

Originally posted by LAGC
Not to defend the perp's initial actions by any means, but we're definitely not talking about a mom-and-pop store here. We're talking about a major corporate store with millions in backing. They were insured, the stolen computers were refurbs, they got most of the stolen equipment back anyway, in pristine condition, and the $19,000 on top of it. I think its safe to say they profited more off of the stolen hardware they recovered than they would have had the refurbs even sold. The only real immediate damage was the broken glass door from the initial smash-and-grab. A hassle and inconvenience, yes. A serious detriment to their business? Hardly. Worthy of a 10-year sentence? You decide.

Wow. I'm sort of surprised that any victim could profit off that. In the numerous burglaries we've had, the perps were only caught twice. In both cases the stolen stuff (that was recovered) still sits in the police evidence room. By the time it gets of (if it gets out), it will be worthless. Maybe I'm a bit extreme, but I'm sort of in favor of the death penalty for larceny (like for cattle rustlers in the old days).


Perhaps the defendant in question has gotten bitter over all these years, wondering what more he can do to pay back his "debt to society." Obviously he did make a mistake, he did do wrong, he did get mixed up in the wrong crowd and let himself be peer-pressured into doing what he did, not even for the profit or personal gain, but just for the adrenaline rush and the challenge. Little more than teenage angst, looking back.


Sort of like the street racers that wound up accidentally killing a family? To lots of people, street racing doesn't even seem wrong. They think it is a right to street race. Everybody knows robbery is wrong. Every week you see a robbery gone awry on the news. If you are old enough to make the decision to do it, you are old enough to face the sentence. You're just lucky you are in a western country that has light sentences for such crimes.


I'll forward your sentiments to the suspect in question, but I disagree. The Constitution is infinitely more important than any individual crime. If the police are going around breaking the law and committing unethical searches, that is a far more egregious violation than some ex-con supposedly possessing guns that have not been used in any negative fashion, as the police's own reports can attest to. A successful defense here would be a success against police excess and corruption, hardly a green-light to let others off of real crimes.


I agree with the others that they should throw out the charges regarding your guns due to what seems like an unlawful search, but you shouldn't have had them in the first place. As was said before, we have blanket laws. Those suck, but they are the law. If you can create a system that the public accepts change them, but you can't just disregard them (just like the cops shouldn't just disregard them).

[LAGC]

Alright guys, I'm bored, so here's a theoretical update to our little "what if" scenario...

Lets say the State tried to get the Feds involved to railroad said felon via Project Gulag. So the ATF begins to nose around but soon discovers that said felon's prior wasn't a drug offense or a violent offense, therefore no hard-time under Exile. They say: "six months probation and he walks." So the State says "fuck that kindergarten bullshit," retains jurisdiction, and gets pissed. The State procedes to subpoena said felon's parents for pre-trial and finally gets around to filing P.V. motions to "persuade" said felon to submit. But the said felon's prior judge (for the Burglary) takes one look at the P.V. motion and sets bond at a measly $5,000. Said felon turns himself in and posts $500 bail and is right back out on the street. Said felon's lawyer now suggests that this would be a good time to enter a "naked guilty plea" and beg for the State's mercy, seeing as how the super-low bond is a good indicator the prior judge has no intention of sending said felon back to prison, but rather reimposing probation, with the possibility of a little jail time. Doing otherwise (fighting it) could piss off both judges and tempt the proverbial wrath.

Meanwhile, said felon's friend throws a kink in their plans of using him to testify against said felon at trial, by him refusing to accept their generous "plea deal" of pleading guilty to "Aiding and Abetting a Felony" (a felony in and of itself) with the promise of "only" 120 days jail and a "couple" years probation. So we now have what is known as a "Bruton problem" where neither the principal defendant or the co-defendant are willing to play along and the State's entire case rests on co-defendant's original "coerced" testimony by the police. So the State now moves to sever the cases, to try the two defendants separately.

The State prosecutors, now primarily concerned just with nailing said felon, turns around and finally makes him an "offer he can't refuse": just plead guilty, and we'll stand-silent on the matter of sentencing. Doesn't mean they can't still bitch about the "evil military-style 'assault' weapons" and the shitload of ammo and accessories he had stocked up, but at least this way they won't be pounding the table for maximum time. So the said felon reluctantly takes his lawyer's advice and submits (to spare his parents of being run through the ringer as much as any other consideration), goes ahead and pleads guilty to the substantive charge (felon-in-possession of a firearm), and his friend (who rolled over on him) gets immediately remanded back down to magistrate court for his troubles, his felony reduced to a misdemeanor for "making a false statement to an orifacer of the law." He is forced to take a psych exam and the shrink advises the court to suspend the friend's RTKABA for 2 years, even though he's only being charged with a misdemeanor. The friend submits to this "reasonable regulation" to avoid the risk of his charge being reescalated back up to felony status.

SO... to bring closure to this clusterfuck, lets say sentencing occurs next month for said felon himself. What do you expect might happen, all said and told?

[Smegma]

My vote is that said felon will realize at sentencing the foolishness of pleading guilty in a plea bargain in which no bargain was actually ever made and in which he remains at risk of being sentenced to the max.

[LAGC]

Originally posted by Smegma
My vote is that said felon will realize at sentencing the foolishness of pleading guilty in a plea bargain in which no bargain was actually ever made and in which he remains at risk of being sentenced to the max.

You could be right, Smegs. You could be right.

But it turns out the "unconsented police entry" of the friend's place turned out to be consented to after all (by said friend's room-mate who verbally let the police in -- on tape) and, of course, they had the Fourth Amendment waiver (per probationary requirements) to use to search said felon's place without his consent. So there was simply no way a jury would have let him off unless it was absolutely STACKED with jury-nullifier types.

[Pogo]

http://www.disobey.com/horror/comics_and_magazines/ec_comics/downloads/hauntf23.jpg :p

[LAGC]

Originally posted by Pogo
http://www.disobey.com/horror/comics_and_magazines/ec_comics/downloads/hauntf23.jpg :p

;)

[Lesley]

Well, in this "make-believe scenario" my advise would be to MAN UP! I don't agree with many of the laws but if I where to break them then I would be smart enough to acknowledge the consequences. It's a cat and mouse game if you choose to break the law, sooner or later; you WILL get busted. The only honorable thing to do is MAN UP and take your punishment. "Make-believe scenario" or if this happened in real life, it doesnt much matter.

MAN UP!

[DATMan]

Said felon is going to be off the internet and visting the iron bar inn for a long time unless he hires the judge's brother's son-in-law as his attorney and thus makes it possible to win by getting the evidence search results and confession supressed at the pretrial hearing. Almost zero chance of success at trial if it goes on the merits.

[Smegma]

LAGC, is this hypothetical in a State or a Federal court?

Reason I ask is because the Feds have been on a roll with regard to enforcement of felon-in-possession laws (e.g. http://www.atf.gov/press/fy04press/field/031704stp_crossenindicted.htm). With them, each firearm carries a separate charge, each charge carries a max of 10 years, and - perhaps most importantly - the feds no longer do parole. So ten years sentenced means 10 years served. Also be aware that Ashcroft has been leaning on judges to serve out stiff sentences - a matter of some controversy whether or not this is appropriate for the AG, but the fact remains that he's doing it.

If the hypothetical is in the State courts, then its somewhat a different matter. Penalties for felon-in-possession vary by State, you'll have to look it up, and I think every state still has a parole system in place (which usually require that 1/3 or so of the sentence be served to become eligible).

Downside of being in Federal court is that the person may be getting more hard time. Downside of being in State court is that Federal prisons are generally nicer places to live than State prisons.

[PBR]

It sounds like said accused person should have not spouted off to the shrink about his views on the right to keep and bear arms.

Let me know if said accused person get some jail time.....I will give Mr Ashcroft a call and see if he can get you...I mean him a good job in the kitchen.

[UGACherokee]

Originally posted by Smegma
My vote is that said felon will realize at sentencing the foolishness of pleading guilty in a plea bargain in which no bargain was actually ever made and in which he remains at risk of being sentenced to the max.

Ditto that. With as much on the table, and as shaky as the original "coerced" testimony was, the felon should have waited for the DA to drop the charges.

Now said felon has screwed himself and his friend.

[Arnulf]

Some friend.....ratting you out....like that:mad:

[LAGC]

Originally posted by Smegma
LAGC, is this hypothetical in a State or a Federal court?

State court -- you see, whats weird about this case is that there's an obscure provision in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (section 2K2.1) that says -- well, I'll just bold the parts that apply:

2003 Federal Sentencing Guidelines

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 2 Part K - OFFENSES INVOLVING PUBLIC SAFETY
2. FIREARMS

§2K2.1. Unlawful Receipt, Possession, or Transportation of Firearms or Ammunition; Prohibited Transactions Involving Firearms or Ammunition
(a) Base Offense Level (Apply the Greatest):

(1) 26, if the offense involved a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30), and the defendant committed any part of the instant offense subsequent to sustaining at least two felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense;

(2) 24, if the defendant committed any part of the instant offense subsequent to sustaining at least two felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense;

(3) 22, if the offense involved a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30), and the defendant committed any part of the instant offense subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense;

(4) 20, if --

(A) the defendant committed any part of the instant offense subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; or

(B) the offense involved a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30); and the defendant (i) was a prohibited person at the time the defendant committed the instant offense; or (ii) is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d);

(5) 18, if the offense involved a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30);

(6) 14, if the defendant (A) was a prohibited person at the time the defendant committed the instant offense; or (B) is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d);

(7) 12, except as provided below; or

(8) 6, if the defendant is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(c), (e), (f), (m), (s), (t), or (x)(1).

(b) Specific Offense Characteristics

(1) If the offense involved three or more firearms, increase as follows:


Number of Firearms
Increase in Level

(A) 3-7 add 2

(B) 8-24 add 4

(C) 25-99 add 6

(D) 100-199 add 8

(E) 200 or more add 10.

So as it stands, defendant is at threat level 16 which spells about 4-5 years in Federal according to the guidelines. BUT...

(2) If the defendant, other than a defendant subject to subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(5), possessed all ammunition and firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection, and did not unlawfully discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such firearms or ammunition, decrease the offense level determined above to level 6.

(3) If the offense involved a destructive device, increase by 2 levels.

(4) If any firearm was stolen, or had an altered or obliterated serial number, increase by 2 levels.

Provided, that the cumulative offense level determined above shall not exceed level 29.

(5) If the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense; or possessed or transferred any firearm or ammunition with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense, increase by 4 levels. If the resulting offense level is less than level 18, increase to level 18.

(6) If a recordkeeping offense reflected an effort to conceal a substantive offense involving firearms or ammunition, increase to the offense level for the substantive offense.

So since all firearms were legal, not stolen, not full-auto, not illegally modified, etc. and not actually USED in the commission of a crime, that lowers him clear down to a base level of 6, would have spelled about 6-8 months with a high probability of probation when you cross-reference his criminal history with the sentencing chart. So of course the Feds had nothing and they decided to forsake said felon to the tender mercies of the State, where the said felon is facing up to 5 years -- and will likely, at the very least, get the full five years of probation even if he doesn't have to do any actual pen time.

So naturally: 5 years > 6 months.

Remember, Project Gulag isn't necessarily about always having the Feds take over, rather just figuring out where the maximum possible time can be had at: Federal or State.

Whats interesting about this too, is since the State Constitution in question says that the State can't confiscate firearms not actually USED in the commission of a crime, they may have to give them back to said felon's attorney so he can sell them. :p Although I'm sure the State will resist, and I expect the said felon will appeal any such measure if they do try to make a gun-grab anyway. (Keep in mind, the firearms are still being held as "evidence" at this point, not actually officially CONFISCATED per se, yet.)

Reason I ask is because the Feds have been on a roll with regard to enforcement of felon-in-possession laws (e.g. http://www.atf.gov/press/fy04press/field/031704stp_crossenindicted.htm). With them, each firearm carries a separate charge,

Actually, that is not the case, unless this is something very new. They love to mislead with their press releases and make it sound worse than it often is to provide "scare-factor" for public consumption, but they usually amalgamate your firearms count and use the aforementioned "enhancement" guideline above to escalate your threat level depending on how many you are caught with, all under one umbrella 922(g)(1) charge.

I know that press release makes it sound like he had three counts, but I'll bet in the end he was only sentenced to one count with the enhancer.

each charge carries a max of 10 years,

Yes, the max, but only if their criminal history points add up to and warrant such, assuming the judge doesn't issue an "upward departure" from the sentencing guidelines, which is quite rare.

and - perhaps most importantly - the feds no longer do parole. So ten years sentenced means 10 years served. Also be aware that Ashcroft has been leaning on judges to serve out stiff sentences - a matter of some controversy whether or not this is appropriate for the AG, but the fact remains that he's doing it.

Yes, that is definitely suspect. Herr Ashcroft has been abusing his authority in many ways... but in a rare show of defense for Johnny, the main thing he seems to be cracking down on is judges issuing "downward departures" from the Federal guidelines, which they do far more often than issue "upward departures" simply because the Federal laws are so damn harsh and unwarranted for victimless crimes in general.

So yeah, Ashcroft is a fascist prick. But no more than the fascists who allowed such draconian laws to be entered onto the books in the first place. :mad:

[Smegma]

LAGC, you lost me: If the fellow is in a State court, what relevance do the Federal sentencing guidelines have? I should think only State sanctions would apply.

[LAGC]

Originally posted by UGACherokee
Ditto that. With as much on the table, and as shaky as the original "coerced" testimony was, the felon should have waited for the DA to drop the charges.

It wasn't the said felon who started talking. The said felon exercised his Fifth Amendment rights and stayed quiet during the interrogations. It was his friend (who had a spotless criminal record until the misdemeanor conviction) who was "coerced" into rolling over, in large part due to the police feeding him a line of bullshit as to what was really going on in regards to said felon.

But yeah, if the friend had just remained quiet himself he would still have a spotless record, wouldn't have lost his CCW, and the said felon himself wouldn't be facing Round 2 through the ringer and would have soon been completely legal to own guns again. I think the friend understands this very clearly now and will be more cognizant of exercising his right to remain silent in the future.

As for the DA dropping charges, once it was determined the search of the friend's place was consented to, why would they do a thing like that?

[LAGC]

Originally posted by Smegma
LAGC, you lost me: If the fellow is in a State court, what relevance do the Federal sentencing guidelines have? I should think only State sanctions would apply.

They do, but you see, the State consulted with the Feds first and wanted them to take it, they thought the Feds fucked all felons-in-possession up the ass equally, but it turned out not to be the case. So its back in State for the duration. I was just explaining why.

[Vampire]

Originally posted by Gr8Scott
:bs:

This paragraph reeks of bovine extrement. What cop in their right mind decides OUT OF THE BLUE to go to said "friend's" house violate his 4th ammendment rights and then interrogate him in his own home after his rights have been violated on a mere gut feeling? You are glossing over this whole frigging paragraph here and you insult our intelligence by doing so. You want advice from people, but you won't give them the whole picture?
Screw that :bull:
I love it when cop suckups bite the bait this hard... :lool: I believe this is a true story, i just read the news article I think LAGC is refering to. Been away from the board a week or so, so forgive me if I'm behind in laguhing at stupid coments like yours :p


Originally posted by Wespe
On the bright side, at least you won't be able to vote if you get convicted

A) he's not talking about himself
B) In your 'mind' it's ok for the bor to be T.P. as long as someone you dislike is the one being stomped. Your'e an odd sort of Patriot.

Freekin morons :rolleyes:

[Vampire]

Originally posted by Lesley
Well, in this "make-believe scenario" my advise would be to MAN UP! I don't agree with many of the laws but if I where to break them then I would be smart enough to acknowledge the consequences. It's a cat and mouse game if you choose to break the law, sooner or later; you WILL get busted. The only honorable thing to do is MAN UP and take your punishment. "Make-believe scenario" or if this happened in real life, it doesnt much matter.

MAN UP!
For you of all people on this board to post this..... :rolleyes:

[UGACherokee]

Originally posted by LAGC
As for the DA dropping charges, once it was determined the search of the friend's place was consented to, why would they do a thing like that?

This whole thing from start to finish is shaky. If the whole thing rests on the "probable cause" of items in the back seat of the felon's car? That should be cause enough to exclude any evidence gathered from that point.

If the officer intimidated the friend, then any statements the friend made (and any evidence gathered from those statements) would be excluded.

Only your more L&O minded judges would let evidence like that into a trial, and even then, doing so is grounds for appeal.

[KrinkovGirl]

looks like Lagc, Chief thunder, Maddi (Robert Stewert) and my Badintermod can all lift weights and work out together.....:rolleyes:

[LAGC]

Originally posted by UGACherokee
This whole thing from start to finish is shaky. If the whole thing rests on the "probable cause" of items in the back seat of the felon's car? That should be cause enough to exclude any evidence gathered from that point.

Well, remember, thanks solely to the hot-tip from the friend, they were led to the items found at said felon's parents house which they could more-or-less make the case for "were in his 'constructive' posession" (behind a locked door that only he had the key to). Of course, the parents could have perjured themselves and lied to save him, but that wasn't an option in the said felon's mind, plus he already told his attorney what was up, and if he tried to change his story the attorney would have had to excuse himself from the case for ethics reasons. So he just bit the bullet and ate it -- plead guilty to felony #2 for the criminal dossier.

If the officer intimidated the friend, then any statements the friend made (and any evidence gathered from those statements) would be excluded.

Except for the fact that they brought the said friend down to the police station, MIRANDIZED him there (at which point he signed away his rights on hidden video tape) and they had him repeat everything incriminating he said to the street cop, in effect legalizing the confession beyond a doubt.

Only your more L&O minded judges would let evidence like that into a trial, and even then, doing so is grounds for appeal.

Well, in this state, even the State SUPREME Court is hard-core L&O and sees the Bill of Rights as just so much toilet-paper, so that would have accomplished little more than wasting idle prison time filling out the appeals forms before they get destined for the Supreme shredder.

[LAGC]

Originally posted by KrinkovGirl
looks like Lagc, Chief thunder, Maddi (Robert Stewert) and my Badintermod can all lift weights and work out together.....:rolleyes:

I must have missed the memo -- what did Badintermod do to warrant the State's wrath? Or more pertinently: what is the State accusing him of allegedly doing?

[mr_billcollector]

Originally posted by KrinkovGirl
looks like Lagc, Chief thunder, Maddi (Robert Stewert) and my Badintermod can all lift weights and work out together.....:rolleyes:

You forgot laa_din, but rumor has it he still has internet access...

[UGACherokee]

Originally posted by LAGC
Except for the fact that they brought the said friend down to the police station, MIRANDIZED him there (at which point he signed away his rights on hidden video tape) and they had him repeat everything incriminating he said to the street cop, in effect legalizing the confession beyond a doubt.

It still would be up for exclusion if it is tainted by a legal violation of the police officer; anything that happened at the police station is a direct result of the initial conversation at the door of the friend's house. If intimidation too place, anything gained from that point is inadmissible, which to my eye, is the prosecution's whole case.

I would say that the "criminal tools" that the officer claims gave him probable cause to approach the friend's house is iffy.

Well, in this state, even the State SUPREME Court is hard-core L&O and sees the Bill of Rights as just so much toilet-paper, so that would have accomplished little more than wasting idle prison time filling out the appeals forms before they get destined for the Supreme shredder.

Then the felon should have had the guts to roll the dice with the opinion of a low-level bench when he had the opportunity.

Otherwise, if you can't do the time. . .

[DorGunR]

Originally posted by KrinkovGirl
looks like Lagc, Chief thunder, Maddi (Robert Stewert) and my Badintermod can all lift weights and work out together.....:rolleyes:

KrinkovGirl I hope that was intended to be funny.........cause I got a chuckle out of it.:D

[Gr8Scott]

Originally posted by Vampire
I love it when cop suckups bite the bait this hard... :lool: I believe this is a true story, i just read the news article I think LAGC is refering to. Been away from the board a week or so, so forgive me if I'm behind in laguhing at stupid coments like yours :p



A) he's not talking about himself
B) In your 'mind' it's ok for the bor to be T.P. as long as someone you dislike is the one being stomped. Your'e an odd sort of Patriot.

Freekin morons :rolleyes:

So how does not simply accepting Lafty's version of events at face value make me a "cop suckup". If you would take the time to do the research on my posts, you would find that I've been accused of being a cop basher. Pretty damned funny that I get labled otherwise now by you. I guess that means I'm somewhere in the middle and not too much of a cop hater and not too much of a "cop suckup" to catch hell from both ends eh?...

[bubagun]

Originally posted by custer
This sounds like an excellent option for your friend.



Yes...advise your "Friend"to do this and we can all see how it turns out. :rolleyes: