Fryberg convicted

[Dave Workman]

Fryberg conviction delights antis, raises some questions

…Should gun owners be prosecuted if their firearms are used in crimes, even by family members who may have access to those guns?...

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[etrain16]

This is a dangerous slippery slope. At what point do we make a choice about who should be prosecuted when ANY piece of their property is stolen and used in a crime? As Dave's article stated, what about criminals who steal a car - if that car was locked and the keys weren't in it, the owner took reasonable steps to keep it secure - should the owner be prosecuted?

Now this case is a bit different because he shouldn't have had those guns, and I think he knew that. It was a case where the system failed and I think he took advantage of that. Either way, this is a dangerous precedent.

Perhaps we need to push for laws to prosecute parents of children that go out and just do something stupid - because they didn't teach them common sense? Maybe if someone steals an anti-gunner's bike (which is the primary mode of transport for many anti's here in the NW), which is then used in an armed robbery of a bank as the getaway vehicle, we should fully prosecute the owner of the bike, with additional charges filed if they voted for B.O. in the last election.

The only way to stop the stupid is for voters to wake up to what's going on and get these damned morons out of office before they are the next one to be convicted by association.

Argh!!!!!

 

[mrblond]

Also Government workers who leave their firearms in their cars and Illegal aliens steal it and shoot someone. Are they going to be charged with homicide ?

 

[Slobray]

Yesterday's conviction of Raymond Fryberg on six counts of illegal gun possession due to a 2002 protection order evidently delighted some anti-gunners, and also raises some interesting questions that may come up in the already-promised appeal.

Raymond Lee Fryberg Jr. was convicted of six counts of unlawful possession of a firearm.

A U.S. District Court jury convicted Fryberg, the 42-year-old father of Jaylen Fryberg, on all six counts of illegal firearm possession.

I'm sorry Dave, but I personally don't see how this conviction raises any questions about gun owners being prosecuted if their firearms are used in crimes, even by family members who may have access to those guns. Nowhere in your article,the other news articles or the court documents does it state that he was convicted of negligence for letting his son get a hold of the gun he used in the school shooting; He was convicted of unlawful possession of firearms. CBS News even stated "Federal agents learned about the guns after the school shooting, but the shooting was not discussed during the trial because Fryberg didn't face charges related to his son's actions." (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/father-of-washington-high-school-shooter-guilty-of-gun-charges/)

Maybe your story should have been with the anti's reading comprehension, their complete stupidity or how they are trying to spread more lies to push their agenda. These bubblegum head anti's are just comparing apples to oranges.


Ray

 

[boogerhook]

I am surprised by the outcome. I heard/read he skipped a hearing, but was never served the protection order resulting from this hearing. I also read that his fiancee had recanted the original reason for the protection order... It does not quite add up.

As to whether the son should or should not have had access to the pistol, I was told, under Tribal Law, there is no prohibition against it. That changed when he left for school, but while on tribal property it might have been legal.

 

[GunnyG]

...I'm sorry Dave, but I personally don't see how this conviction raises any questions about gun owners being prosecuted if their firearms are used in crimes,...

From WAGR's May 4th 2015 email:

"...It's time for Washington to join the majority of states – including Texas and Florida – that have a Child Access Prevention (CAP) law on the books. Our bill would ensure that adults are held responsible when a negligently stored firearm is used by a child to harm themselves or others...."

I don't know which newspaper forums you are reading or participating in, but WAGR et al, would love to see you prosecuted for 3rd party crimes committed with your firearms (stolen or otherwise), and CAP is just one facet of that goal. These are the same people whose teeth have been gnashing since Ofc. Carlile's child was accidentally killed with his own pistol, and his 2nd Degree Manslaughter case was dismissed.

 

[Slobray]

From WAGR's May 4th 2015 email:

"...It's time for Washington to join the majority of states – including Texas and Florida – that have a Child Access Prevention (CAP) law on the books. Our bill would ensure that adults are held responsible when a negligently stored firearm is used by a child to harm themselves or others...."

I don't know which newspaper forums you are reading or participating in, but WAGR et al, would love to see you prosecuted for 3rd party crimes committed with your firearms (stolen or otherwise), and CAP is just one facet of that goal. These are the same people whose teeth have been gnashing since Ofc. Carlile's child was accidentally killed with his own pistol, and his 2nd Degree Manslaughter case was dismissed.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying or mabe I didn't put my point across properly, so I'll try again.

Dave's article started out about the conviction of Fryberg on six counts of illegal gun possession and then went on to discussing gun owners being prosecuted if their firearms are used in crimes. All because anti's were commenting on the conviction saying things like: "It is about time they prosecute gun owners for crimes that are committed with their guns, whether they were active participants or not. The gun owner should be held as an accomplice whenever a weapon they own is used in a crime."

I was mentioning that said conviction had nothing to do with the school shooting and nothing about Fryberg negligently letting his son get a hold of the gun; this conviction was about a prohibited person with firearms, period. I was also pointing out that the anti's were running their mouths on a subject that had nothing to do with Frybergs conviction.

I do agree with you that the anti's would love to prosecute every gun owner for any crime commited with a gun, but that's not what the conviction was about.


Ray

 

[Deebow]

Sounds to me like their joy is misplaced. If you are in FEDERAL court on a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm, you must have been in prohibited person according to the law.

If he was a prohibited person, I guess their background check system of universal background checkiness is once again proven to worth an amount equal to a pile of cat scat.

Maybe they could re-examine their beliefs and determine how it was that a prohibited person (i.e. criminal) came to be in possession of firearms, because, the law says you can't do that ya' know.