Fed. gun law takes down drug thug killer

[Dave Workman]

Every now and then, a law actually DOES work to benefit the community by removing some dirtball from circulation.

Seattle case underscores ‘hard time for armed crime’ strategy

A once-convicted murderer is on his way back to prison – this time a federal facility – not because he killed a second time, but because he ran afoul of a federal statute that comes down hard on felons with guns under Project Safe Neighborhoods.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[dmancornell]

According to the article:

He pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm during a drug crime, unlawful possession of ammunition and dealing marijuana, according to Pulkkinen's report.

Another person deprived of their right of self-defense and sent to prison for the non-crime of violating the government's fascist drug "laws". Your selective interpretation of 2A is sickening.

 

[Peteralexander78]

According to the article:



Another person deprived of their right of self-defense and sent to prison for the non-crime of violating the government's fascist drug "laws". Your selective interpretation of 2A is sickening.

Really you want someone who has a murder rap sheet, to own a gun. Even if it is for so called self defense. When you break the rules, you get new ones that aren't as nice. Your interpretation of 2A sickens me!

 

[deen_ad]

Your interpretation of 2A sickens me!

 

[dmancornell]

Really you want someone who has a murder rap sheet, to own a gun. Even if it is for so called self defense. When you break the rules, you get new ones that aren't as nice. Your interpretation of 2A sickens me!

It is a confirmed case of self defense during an armed robbery, according to the article, so your "so-called" self-defense is actually a very real case of self-defense that the Armed Citizen columns would love to brag about, except in this case the victim is a drug felon. Let's not offend the sensibilities of the drug warrior jerkoffs who infect the 2A community with their lies and crypto-racist rhetoric.

Back to OP, I am amused by article's claim that a person who served prison time and carries a gun cannot be up to any good, implying the drug laws can somehow predict future behaviors. So not only is the law perfect and infallible, it can see into the future. Another example of gullibility disguised as anti-drug righteousness, and of course masked with nice little euphemisms like "Project Safe Neighborhoods" so the unthinking sheeple would go along with the government fascism.

 

[JGRuby]

Guess what - having and possesing drugs is a crime until the law changes -if you dont like it go somewhere else where they have laws more to your liking. I dont recall anyone asking wether you liked the law. I do not want someone with a rap sheet - especially one that includes a conviction for homicide on anyone that owns a gun. People that support felons having guns are supporting the anti 2nd amendment crowd by providing the anti's ammuniton to use against the lawful ownership of firearms.

James Ruby

 

[dmancornell]

Guess what - having and possesing drugs is a crime until the law changes -if you dont like it go somewhere else where they have laws more to your liking. I dont recall anyone asking wether you liked the law. I do not want someone with a rap sheet - especially one that includes a conviction for homicide on anyone that owns a gun. People that support felons having guns are supporting the anti 2nd amendment crowd by providing the anti's ammuniton to use against the lawful ownership of firearms.

James Ruby

And owning an "unregistered" machine gun or suppressor is a crime until the law changes, if you don't like it go somewhere else where they have laws more to your liking. Or aren't the 2A community supposed to stay put and fight unjust laws?

Agreeing with no-guns-for-felons means you're succumbing to the "common sense gun laws" trap, which is how the Dems have been phrasing their latest attack against 2A.

 

[JGRuby]

Thats fine I dont own one - if I owned one and did not have the paper work I would be doing things illegally - I dont disagree. But come on you cant do better than than that.

James Ruby

 

[Swedish K]

Don't forget that he was involved in selling bogus cocaine that lead to the other case. Sounds like the guy doesn't learn and can use the time to reflect on how he could become a productive member of society.
On another note several years ago I met a law student in Sacramento who had loaned his car to a friend for a date. The friend apparently smoked a joint and left a roach in the ashtray. He made a trip to Reno the following weekend and was pulled over when the officer asked if they could search the car. He made the mistake of letting them search without a warrant (bad practice even if you think there is nothing to be found), a stupid move for anyone but a law student should know better! The officer found the roach in the ashtray and he did 6 months in county for possession. When he was incarcerated he spent most of his free time in the law library and found a law that was still on the books from the old territory days that stated "upon release from the territorial jail you shall be given 2 $20 gold pieces, a horse, and a six gun, to allow the convicted to leave the territory. He sued the county/state and was given a check for $40, an old retired police training revolver, and another check for about $800 - the value of a "reasonable" horse. There was also a gag order on the case stating that he could not speak to the media regarding the outcome.

 

[deen_ad]

It's too bad the Feds won't get involved unless the states put pressure on them. Should be automatic.

 

[deen_ad]

Don't forget that he was involved in selling bogus cocaine that lead to the other case. Sounds like the guy doesn't learn and can use the time to reflect on how he could become a productive member of society.
On another note several years ago I met a law student in Sacramento who had loaned his car to a friend for a date. The friend apparently smoked a joint and left a roach in the ashtray. He made a trip to Reno the following weekend and was pulled over when the officer asked if they could search the car. He made the mistake of letting them search without a warrant (bad practice even if you think there is nothing to be found), a stupid move for anyone but a law student should know better! The officer found the roach in the ashtray and he did 6 months in county for possession. When he was incarcerated he spent most of his free time in the law library and found a law that was still on the books from the old territory days that stated "upon release from the territorial jail you shall be given 2 $20 gold pieces, a horse, and a six gun, to allow the convicted to leave the territory. He sued the county/state and was given a check for $40, an old retired police training revolver, and another check for about $800 - the value of a "reasonable" horse. There was also a gag order on the case stating that he could not speak to the media regarding the outcome.

$20 gold pieces would be worth a lot more than a $40 check!!

 

[Kevatc]

It is a confirmed case of self defense during an armed robbery, according to the article, so your "so-called" self-defense is actually a very real case of self-defense that the Armed Citizen columns would love to brag about, except in this case the victim is a drug felon. Let's not offend the sensibilities of the drug warrior jerkoffs who infect the 2A community with their lies and crypto-racist rhetoric.

Back to OP, I am amused by article's claim that a person who served prison time and carries a gun cannot be up to any good, implying the drug laws can somehow predict future behaviors. So not only is the law perfect and infallible, it can see into the future. Another example of gullibility disguised as anti-drug righteousness, and of course masked with nice little euphemisms like "Project Safe Neighborhoods" so the unthinking sheeple would go along with the government fascism.

Very interesting take on the article. It doesn't matter to you that a convicted felon is prohibited from having a gun? So you support his breaking the law? You are supporting a guys right to self defense when he himself killed somebody? Your thought processes are interesting but only because they are incredibly dogmatic and intellectually juvenile.

 

[dmancornell]

Very interesting take on the article. It doesn't matter to you that a convicted felon is prohibited from having a gun? So you support his breaking the law? You are supporting a guys right to self defense when he himself killed somebody? Your thought processes are interesting but only because they are incredibly dogmatic and intellectually juvenile.

Apparently believing a person who served his time shouldn't have to be shot like a defenseless animal is "intellectually juvenile". I didn't know the right to self-defense is conditional upon staying in good graces with the state.

The only dogmatic people here are the ones who unquestioningly worship "the law" without any sort of critical thinking.

 

[rur862]

Post deleted.

 

[JGRuby]

I say the man doesnt have a right to own a firearm based on his actions and judicial process of being judged by his peers - to me that is why he should not be allowed to own or have a firearm. I wonder how many of these people who are for felons having firearms are felons themselves or been in trouble with the law?

James Ruby

 

[ThemGunsThough]

And this is why I tell my kids to stay in school and don't do drugs.

 

[Dave Workman]

Back to OP, I am amused by article's claim that a person who served prison time and carries a gun cannot be up to any good, implying the drug laws can somehow predict future behaviors.

There is no such "claim" in the article, and you know it. Your selective interpretation fits your agenda, not the facts.

I wrote that they were up to no good. They were, indeed, engaging in a criminal transaction and one fully intended to rob the other at gunpoint, stealing his pot and his money.

The other guy simply wanted to buy $800 worth of grass, which is a lot of grass, and which just happens to be illegal under current statutes.

Now, you tell us all where the "good" in that is.

 

[dmancornell]

There is no such "claim" in the article, and you know it. Your selective interpretation fits your agenda, not the facts.

I wrote that they were up to no good. They were, indeed, engaging in a criminal transaction and one fully intended to rob the other at gunpoint, stealing his pot and his money.

The other guy simply wanted to buy $800 worth of grass, which is a lot of grass, and which just happens to be illegal under current statutes.

Now, you tell us all where the "good" in that is.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]

[/FONT]so he and Tweedy both were prohibited from owning or possessing firearms, yet both were packing and when the shooting occurred, they were both up to no good.

It's pretty clear, you believe the victim is up to no good simply because he had been convicted of a crime in the past and he simply has no right to self-defense.

Way to represent the 2A community.

 

[billyinfinity]

I'm pretty sure "they were both up to no good" because they were involved in an illegal drug transaction. Knowingly breaking the law pretty much sums up "up to no good" to most reasonable people. Quit being unreasonable because you think pot should be legalized and/or you think felons should carry. The fact of the matter is they are both illegal activities and if you decide to do it anyway, no good is going to come of it...hence "up to no good". Now if you believe those laws are unjust and want them changed, by all means, sign your petitions and cast your vote. That is also your right. I believe that members upholding the laws as they exist, unless they are changed, is a damn brilliant way to represent the 2A community.

 

[Kelzebubba]

Let's put this arguement to rest. I believe once you have committed a felony that you LOSE your RIGHTS. The constitution no longer applies to you because you are a menace to society. The only things that can reverse this are a governer or presidential pardon.

So basically stating, once you have proven yourself to be an animal you no longer have the rights of a human being. Pretty damned simple in all honesty. Anyone willing to take a human life (with the exception of defending themselves or others who were incapable of protecting themselves) has only one thing guaranteed to them, innocent until proven guilty. At the point of being guilty, they lose those rights.

So in this case, without ALL of the details I wouldn't be so quick to make a decision. However if this was a felon defending himself while breaking the law... Once again pretty simple. The guy chose to willingly break the law with other people who willingly break the law, and this kind of crap happens. The guy had no right to a gun because he was a felon.