Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Westside killer seeks handgun permit

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    I have a problem that this guy is out of prison after killing four girls and teacher but a least they didn't give him a permit to carry.

    http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/pri...2-8c7596d09e2e
    Westside killer seeks handgun permit

    State Police response: 'no.'
    Published 12/11/2008
    An application for a concealed handgun permit filed by one of the shooters in 1998's Westside Middle School Massacre in Jonesboro has been denied by the Arkansas State Police, citing the objections of the Sharp County sheriff and at least one answer on the application that appears to be false.

    The application was filed on Oct. 7 by Drew Douglas Grant, who lists an address in Evening Shade. State Police spokesman Bill Sadler confirmed that Drew Douglas Grant and Andrew Golden are one and the same. On March 24, 1998, Golden and his accomplice, Mitchell Johnson, pulled the fire alarm at Westside Middle School near Jonesboro, then opened fire with high-powered rifles when teachers and students emerged from the building. Four girls and a teacher were killed. At the time of the shooting, Golden was 11 years old and Johnson was 13. Charged as juveniles in state court and later transferred to federal custody for the crime of bringing a firearm to school, each was released from jail on his 21st birthday with a clean record.

    Until now, Golden's new identity as Drew Douglas Grant has officially been a secret, though anonymous Internet postings had linked him to that name. On Nov. 11, Craighead Circuit Judge David Burnett issued a gag order prohibiting attorneys in a civil case filed against Golden by the families of the Westside victims from revealing Golden's new name, his place of employment, where he lives or where he attends school. Burnett also ordered that Golden's deposition in the lawsuit not be released to the public until after the lawsuit is settled.

    Since being released from jail, Golden has faded into anonymity, legally changing his name and apparently avoiding any further run-ins with the law. Johnson, meanwhile, has been arrested, convicted and sentenced to four years in federal prison on the rarely-used charge of possessing a gun while being a user of or addicted to a controlled substance. In October, Johnson was sentenced to an additional 12 years on state theft charges for using a customer's credit card stolen from the convenience store where he worked.

    In the application filed with the State Police, Grant presents paperwork to show that he has completed seven hours of firearms training required to qualify him for a permit to carry a semi-automatic handgun. In a section asking Grant to list all residences where he has lived in the past two years, Grant says that he lived in Ravenden from April 2002 to May 2006, then in Evening Shade from May 2006 to June 2008. In fact, Golden was held on state charges at the Youth Services Center in Alexander until his 18th birthday in 2004, then transferred to an undisclosed federal prison. He was released on May 25, 2007 — his 21st birthday. The only federal prison in Arkansas is in Forrest City.

    In the letter denying Grant's request for a permit obtained by the Arkansas Times via a Freedom of Information Act request, Arkansas State Police Lt. Cora Gentry informs Grant that a letter of objection to the permit has been received from Sharp County Sheriff Dale Weaver. Gentry cites the Arkansas law concerning the issuance of concealed-carry licenses, which states in part that, “The director may deny a license if the sheriff or chief of police, if applicable, of the applicant's place of residence submits an affidavit that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to himself or herself or others or to the community at large as the result of the applicant's mental or psychological state, as demonstrated by past patterns of behavior, or participation in an incident involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence.”

    “It is the Department's position,” Gentry writes, “based on a reading of the Arkansas Juvenile Code … that you are prohibited from possessing or owning a firearm. Therefore, it would be against federal or state law to issue you the license.”

    As received from the Arkansas State Police, a large segment of the letter to Grant is completely blacked out. Sadler said the passage was redacted because it deals with the details of juvenile proceedings, which are not subject to release under the Arkansas FOI law.

    Later in the letter, Gentry notes that on his application, Grant swore under oath that from May 2006 to June 2008, he lived in Evening Shade. However, Gentry writes, a check of Grant's driver's license history found that he transferred a Missouri driver's license to an Arkansas license on May 15, 2008. On the Missouri license, Grant had listed an address in Cape Girardeau, Mo., as his home. Gentry also cites an accident report filed following a May 4 wreck in which Grant crashed a 2007 Suzuki GSX-R600 motorcycle while trying to negotiate a curve near Drasco. The motorcycle is listed as being owned by Patricia Golden, the mother of Andrew Golden. Grant was cited for failure to maintain control and having no motorcycle endorsement on his driver's license.

    “That accident report shows an address of 910 Heber Springs Road, Batesville, Arkansas,” Gentry wrote. “Both of these incidents are within the time frame that you stated that you resided in Evening Shade, and they are not listed on your application.” Gentry again refers to the Arkansas Code, citing, “a conspicuous warning that the application is executed under oath, and that a knowingly false answer to any question or the knowing submission of any false document by the applicant … precludes any future license being issued to the applicant.” At the end of the letter, Gentry informs Grant that he has 10 days to request in writing an administrative hearing for review of the denial.

    Sharp County Sheriff Dale Weaver wouldn't confirm or deny that Grant is Golden, but he said that he filed the letter of objection after being informed of the permit application by the State Police. Weaver said that he filed the objection because it he thought it was what was best for the community.

    Arkansas State Police spokesman Bill Sadler said the discovery that Drew Grant and Andrew Golden were one and the same was made during the lengthy background check performed for each concealed-carry permit. “There was a set of fingerprints that he submitted from his concealed handgun license training,” Sadler said. “There were fingerprints [belonging to Golden] that were already in the possession of the Arkansas State Police that date back to 1998.”

    The denial letter's assertion that Grant is prohibited from possessing a firearm (the reason is not revealed in the public portion of the document) brings up an interesting question. Could Grant potentially be arrested for owning or carrying a gun? Sadler said that depends on the contents of Grant's Arkansas Crime Information Center file. ACIC law prohibits Sadler from discussing the contents of anyone's file for non-law-enforcement purposes, but he was willing to speak hypothetically. “If there is a traffic stop and an ACIC check,” Sadler said, “and all this is hypothetical now, but certainly if he were stopped and if there was a check of his records and there was notation that he was prohibited from having a firearm and [a gun] was in fact found, he would be charged with carrying a prohibited weapon.”

    Regarding the apparent falsehoods on Grant's sworn application — including Grant's statement that he lived in Ravenden and Evening Shade during a time when he was actually in custody — Sadler said that the investigation into the application is ongoing. “There is a provision in the statute to charge an applicant with providing false information, if the administrator of the program so deems it necessary,” Sadler said.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    This scumbag will end up back in prison. He can't help himself.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    I thought rights were absolute? Doesn't this guyhave a "god given"or "innate" right tohave agun? :quirky



  4. #4
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Post imported post

    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Wait, so where's the part where the law stopped a murder from occurring? Where's the argument that this demonstrates my long-standing position to be untenable?

    The kid was 11 at the time. Either he made a mistake and we judge him no longer a threat to society, or we keep him locked up. This allowing practical freedom, and hoping the law can prevent him from obtaining a gun is suicidal at best. If this guy cannot be trusted with a gun due to his murderous history, I fail to see how it's safe to allow him access to kitchen knives and kids walking home from school. Unless the guy really isn't a threat (I can't say one way or the other), in which case he should be free and (if he chooses) armed.

    SFCRetired wrote:
    That right can be abrogated by one's deliberate decision to violate the law.
    The right isn't abrogated; instead the criminal has, by his own volition and subsequent action, "elected" to no longer exercise it. AWDstylez finds this semantical differentiation of mine to be silly, and I think that's what he was referring to.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    he should get the permit, not having a license to kill didn't stop him before lmao.

    i'd laugh if awdstyles got a felony and lost all his so called rights

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    The kid was 11 at the time. Either he made a mistake and we judge him no longer a threat to society, or we keep him locked up. This allowing practical freedom, and hoping the law can prevent him from obtaining a gun is suicidal at best. If this guy cannot be trusted with a gun due to his murderous history, I fail to see how it's safe to allow him access to kitchen knives and kids walking home from school. Unless the guy really isn't a threat (I can't say one way or the other), in which case he should be free and (if he chooses) armed.

    I tend to agree.

    If he is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun that we know he has (through a CCW permit) then why is he on the street where he canillegally acquire a gun or any other means of doing harm,that no one knows about?



  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    SFCRetired wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    I thought rights were absolute? Doesn't this guyhave a "god given"or "innate" right tohave agun? :quirky

    That right can be abrogated by one's deliberate decision to violate the law.


    Impossible. Absolute is absolute. If something is innately owedand absolute you cannot rightfully remove it. You cannot pick and choose with "absolute."



    If the criminal "elected" by his own volition to give up the right, then what is he whining about now? That semantical argument is a joke, and a funny one at that. If someone violates the law, they give up their rights, not because they WANT to give up their rights, but because the law requires it. That means that, #1: the right wasn't absolute in the first place, and #2: you're trying to be the almighty authority that sets the limit as to how "given up" the particular right is. There is no voluntary"givingup" of these "absolute" rights unless the guy walked up to congress andsigneda statement saying hewishes to have his rights revoked. Even that brings up the issue that rights are now government granted if government is allowed to take them away. Again, your "absolute" rights idea has been shot down. Absolute means absolute, there is no way around it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Why don't I read about .....
    Lieing to the police in this story. I had to turn my application to the sherriff.
    Or can you not lie to police in writing, in which case there is a double standard
    as a mute person has more protections than the rest of us.

    My app ask if I was ever arrested, not have I ever been arrested as an adult.
    Although there ws nothing on it stateing I had to answer truthfully, nor
    a place to sign it stateing the above was true. Had to go over it 3 times
    looking for those disclaimers that are on everything else the government makes
    you fill out.

    There is a big difference in juvy records being used in a court of law, and
    as administrative background check. Now if he is charged for the weapon in the
    future, it will be interesting if the prior act that gets him denied could be
    used in the subsequent trial. But he would have to enter it into evidence himself
    to challenge the denial, thus making it a public document that can be used to deny.
    Once in a while a catch 22 is a good thing.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    So if this guy had simply submitted the address of the detention facility as the place of residence for the time in questionhe might have gotten his permit? Barring any other disqualifiers I mean.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    SFCRetired wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    I thought rights were absolute?* Doesn't this guy*have a "god given"*or "innate" right to*have a*gun?* :quirky

    That right can be abrogated by one's deliberate decision to violate the law.*
    *

    Impossible.* Absolute is absolute.* If something is innately owed*and absolute you cannot rightfully remove it.* You cannot pick and choose with "absolute."

    *

    If the criminal "elected" by his own volition to give up the right, then what is he whining about now?* That semantical argument is a joke, and a funny one at that.* If someone violates the law, they give up their rights, not because they WANT to give up their rights, but because the law requires it.* That means that, #1: the right wasn't absolute in the first place, and #2: you're trying to be the almighty authority that sets the limit as to how "given up" the particular right is.* There is no voluntary*"giving*up" of these "absolute" rights unless the guy walked up to congress and*signed*a statement saying he*wishes to have his rights revoked.* Even that brings up the issue that rights are now government granted if government is allowed to take them away.* Again, your "absolute" rights idea has been shot down.* Absolute means absolute, there is no way around it.
    Rights are absolute, however one does not have a right, absolute or otherwise, to aggress against another and escape punishment. Clear enough for you? The ability to make a claim to a certain right may be estopped by the violation of another's rights. But this does not mean that any rights have, in any way, ceased to exist.

    It's an extension of self-defense. A person attacking you has no less a right to life than you do. However, in forcing you to defend yourself, he estops himself from having a claim to a violation of his rights by your defending yourself with lethal force. He has a right to life, what he doesn't have is a right to survive his attempt to deprive you of your life and liberty.

    Nobody has a right to be enact aggression against another. By aggressing, one is engaging in behavior that is unprotected by rights, outside the realm of rights.

    I believe that the issue of semantics in question is one of scope, not of absoluteness: you argue that this makes rights not absolute; I maintain that rights are limited in scope to such an extent that they enable justice and self-defense, but within that scope are absolute.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I thought of another way to express the distinction I'm trying to make: Your argument is that, for example, imprisonment amounts to a de facto abrogation of the right to freedom for the imprisoned.

    I ask, if this is so, then what concept of natural law prohibits me from kidnapping prisoners? If prisoners have no right to freedom, then whose rights am I violating by kidnapping one? Against whom am I aggressing?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    There is choice and accountability. At 11 he was accountable for his actions.

    He should have been executed for his crimes, then this would be a mute point.

    He should still have the right to defend himself and be accountable for his use of that right.

    With true freedom there is inherent risk.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    I thought of another way to express the distinction I'm trying to make: Your argument is that, for example, imprisonment amounts to a de facto abrogation of the right to freedom for the imprisoned.

    I ask, if this is so, then what concept of natural law prohibits me from kidnapping prisoners? If prisoners have no right to freedom, then whose rights am I violating by kidnapping one? Against whom am I aggressing?


    That's exactly my point. There is no natural law and there are no absolute rights. Thereare socially contracted laws and societally accepted "rights," nothing more.

    The law prevents you from kidnapping them because they are prisoners of the state, not simply people deprived of freedom andopen to be treated as anyone sees fit.

    There is also a huge difference between someone attacking you and you being allowed to defend yourself with deadly force, and an authority punishing someone after the fact. In the case of your self defense, I agree, by choosing to violate your right to life (which I don't believe in, but I'm arguing this with your belief system as a given) the attacker has put his own in jeopardy. However, when we come to the case of state punishment after the fact, the LAW (not himself)has now become the determinerof whether the attacker will forfeit rights against his will (not willfully give them up, there's a big difference and it's basis of why your idea is flawed) and what rights he will forfeit. That implies that government (through the will of society) is the creator of "rights" and what government giveth, government taketh away. That meansabsolute rights and punishment cannotcoexist. Again, your argument is all semantics. You can say that he still hashis rights, he just can't exercise them, but that'slike saying people in DChave the right to own RPG's, they just can't exercise it, or that my imaginary unicorn friend named bob is real, you just can't see him. :quirky

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •