Kettle Falls Five not guilty of federal firearms charges

PiratePast40 · Mar 4, 2015

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...fed-count-in-state-where-its-legal/ar-BBicvxc

The jury found these folks guilty ONLY on the federal charges of growing pot, and not of the more serious charges of distributing and firearms possession. What's important is that, although state law was not to be taken into consideration, the jury still exercised their discretion by choosing to apply the obvious.

The rabid federal prosecutor still wanted them thrown in jail until sentencing.

This is good news for county commissioners, sheriffs, and states that choose to not enforce unconstitutional federal or state gun laws.

IronMonster · Mar 4, 2015

I saw this in the news yesterday. In my opinion they should be acquitted on all charges, but its a step in the right direction. A prime case of where no one was harmed, there was no victim. The defendants where abiding by state law yet the feds wanted to pretty much lock them away for life. I am not a fan of pot, however the idea that we should lock people up for decades because of possession of a plant that has shown itself to be far less of a societal problem than alcohol is ludicrous. Think about the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of taxpayer dollars invested in punishing this family if they where to spend those decades behind bars, For what?

Classic · Mar 4, 2015

Not a pot smoker but I seem to remember that Odumbo said the feds wouldn't go after people in states where the state made it legal. His drug czar Kerlikowske also stressed that he wasn't going to worry about pot. Then for the jury to be told to ignore state law??? WTF???

The sad part is that one of the 5 won over a year in jail and 4 out of 5 lost their right to own a gun.

I find it humorous that this was in Kettle Falls and not northern Commiefornia

Dave Workman · Mar 4, 2015

Ah

Classic said:
Not a pot smoker but I seem to remember that Odumbo said the feds wouldn't go after people in states where the state made it legal. His drug czar Kerlikowske also stressed that he wasn't going to worry about pot. Then for the jury to be told to ignore state law??? WTF???
The sad part is that one of the 5 won over a year in jail and 4 out of 5 lost their right to own a gun.
I find it humorous that this was in Kettle Falls and not northern Commiefornia

Ah, but you overlooked something. THESE PEOPLE had firearms.. There's part of me that is suspicious about this. If they'd had no guns, would charges have been brought?

PiratePast40 · Mar 4, 2015

Dave Workman said:
Ah
Ah, but you overlooked something. THESE PEOPLE had firearms.. There's part of me that is suspicious about this. If they'd had no guns, would charges have been brought?

Good question, and also brings up another point about prosecution of crimes when there are firearms present. There seem to be charges brought, but my impression, is that the firearms laws are seldom the focus of prosecution. We hear this with i594 proponents when they say that certain portions of the law were never intended to be enforced.

I believe that it adds fuel to the argument that, not only is the law ineffective in it's stated purpose, but is being passed for political, emotional, and harassment purposes.

PiratePast40 · Mar 5, 2015

From what I've read, the guns were incidental to the grow, and just happened to be in the house. I would think that the feds added those charges to bolster their case of trafficking and dangerous illegal activity.

There are quite a few takeaways from this case. One is that they posted a sign that was supposed to indicate that their grow was legal, thinking that the cops would leave them alone. Just the opposite happened. I think that we can all take a lesson from that when we think about displaying a CHL, or talking about guns when it isn't necessary.

Another is how an aggressive prosecutor can take unrelated items and manipulate them into a charge. Just think of what he could have done if there was a SBR present with green tipped "armor piercing, cop killer" bullets!

Morpheus · Mar 5, 2015

When I talk about having a small place for my own range, and people say 'You could grow pot and sell it legally' I look at them and state flatly not a chance in hell. And this case is the exact reason why. Even though it is legal in Washington and Oregon. It is illegal federally. Taking my my firearms and the federal law regarding pot is bad mojo!

I feel for these people, really sucks that Washington State didn't ride in to help them in their defense.

Dave Workman · Mar 9, 2015

PiratePast40 said:
Good question, and also brings up another point about prosecution of crimes when there are firearms present. There seem to be charges brought, but my impression, is that the firearms laws are seldom the focus of prosecution. We hear this with i594 proponents when they say that certain portions of the law were never intended to be enforced.

I believe that it adds fuel to the argument that, not only is the law ineffective in it's stated purpose, but is being passed for political, emotional, and harassment purposes.

BINGO! Move to the head of the class@

What is the motivation behind pushing a law that portions of which are never intended to be enforced? Riddle me that, Batman