Seattle case raises issue about felons and guns

[Dave_pro2a]

I still maintain that it's a very rare occurrence. For example, how many cases in Seattle in the last year of intentional car violence? Compared to gun violence?

And it's too bad you're not mature enough to refrain from questioning my motives or insulting me. The power of your ideas and arguments are not strong enough, so you attack me personally. Sad.

I attack what you represent: a Sara Brady lilke anti-gun agenda.

And I've already refuted your BS. Vehicles ARE used as weapons. So what exactly makes a gun inherently worse than a car?

Why should an accused criminal automatically face a life sentence for using a gun, but not for using a car or a knife.

There's only one reason, to further the anti-gun agenda. To place blame squarely on the gun. To vilify the tool. To further a anti-gun 'stigma.' You place good people at risk with your anti-gun idea of automatic life sentences.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

REALLY??? I don't know any reasonable person on the planet who actually believes Goetz acted in self defense! And that's the single best incident you can come up with?!? From 20+ years ago?!? That is truly funny - thanks for the laugh!

Just the jury. But apparently in your mind they don't count.

There are many more recent cases. Waste your own time finding them, it isn't that hard.

 

[Tomas]

<=== is glad he's not a lawyer...

 

[Bob Warden]

I attack what you represent: a Sara Brady lilke anti-gun agenda.

And I've already refuted your BS. Vehicles ARE used as weapons. So what exactly makes a gun inherently worse than a car?

Why should an accused criminal automatically face a life sentence for using a gun, but not for using a car or a knife.

There's only one reason, to further the anti-gun agenda. To place blame squarely on the gun. To vilify the tool. To further a anti-gun 'stigma.'

You refuted NOTHING! You embarrassed yourself. And citing Goetz as the preeminent example of a persecuted defender of self has destroyed any credibility you may think you had. Definitely a chuckle I won't forget for a long, long time!

 

[Bob Warden]

Just the jury. But apparently in your mind they don't count.

There are many more recent cases. Waste your own time finding them, it isn't that hard.

So Goetz was acquitted, which means he wouldn't have been impacted by my proposed law at all. So your entire amusing Goetz argument really only served to prove how safe my proposal is: Even a dangerous provoking loon like Goetz got off!

 

[Dave_pro2a]

has destroyed any credibility you may think you had.

Funny, when you started letting your anti-gun beliefs sneak out you eliminated any credibility that you may have had.

 

[gogodawgs]

You both have such holes in your arguments...LOL.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

So Goetz was acquitted, which means he wouldn't have been impacted by my proposed law at all. So your entire amusing Goetz argument really only served to prove how safe my proposal is: Even a dangerous provoking loon like Goetz got off!

What area of law do you practice? Tax law? Real estate law?

Do you know the coercive power that the DA brings to bear in regards to plea bargins?

Would any rightious self defense shooter take it to trail, if they faced a life sentence... when they could instead plea bargin to a lesser felony with little or no time served?

And me bringing up Goetz did a world of good, it brought forth your knee jerk anti-gun response. Well worth it

 

[Bob Warden]

Funny, when you started letting your anti-gun beliefs sneak out you eliminated any credibility that you may have had.

I have no anti-gun beliefs, so they can't be sneaking out. That theory exists only in your "mind."

BTW, since proving self defense is an absolute bar to conviction for a violent crime, my proposal is perfectly safe as it only applies to people convicted by a jury of their peers. Your entire self defense argument is incoherent. Anyone who acted in self defense in the opinion of a jury is perfectly safe.

 

[Bob Warden]

What area of law do you practice? Tax law? Real estate law?

I practice civil rights law, specifically 2nd Amendment law. You?

 

[gogodawgs]

I practice civil rights law, specifically 2nd Amendment law. You?

? I don't believe this is an accurate statement.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I practice civil rights law, specifically 2nd Amendment law. You?

LOL

So you expect me to believe you pay your mortgage due to representing cases that relate to the Second Amendment?

Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicion. You don't do criminal law.

 

[Tomas]

I practice civil rights law, specifically 2nd Amendment law. You?

? I don't believe this is an accurate statement.

LOL

So you expect me to believe you pay your mortgage due to representing cases that relate to the Second Amendment?

Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicion. You don't do criminal law.

Per The Seattle Weekly the correct answer is he works for "a federal government agency in a field of labor and employee relations."

 

[TechnoWeenie]

Then you have 'idiots', who make a dumb mistake.....

I'll use Kommifornia as an example..

Guy gets in his car... sees a prostitute.. and decides that he really wants some.. and solicits the prostitute, who turns out to be an undercover cop...

So, he gets a ticket, learns a life lesson..

Same guy, miraculously gets a concealed carry permit.....

He goes to that same prostitute, and solicits...

Now he's committing a crime 'while armed', which is a felony, and now he's used his vehicle to aid in that felony... So he now is looking at his car getting SEIZED (not towed, legally STOLEN by the gov't, since it was used to commit a felony), and a felony and a misdemeanor, with a mandatory minimum sentence..... because he solicited a prostitute....

You think it's far to go to jail for 5 years and have your car taken because you solicited a prostitute and just so happened to be exercising your rights at the time?

 

[Lammo]

Washington has a procedure to restore rights

One of my best friends is a convicted felon. He was 19 or 20 when he was arrested for stealing from a lawyer that hired him to set up a modern computer network. During that time he went ahead and ordered some stuff for himself to sell. He was convicted and spent about a year in a "bootcamp" style prison.

I can honestly say my friend is no longer the "boy" he once was. In fact, I would have never known until he told me that he was a convicted felon. My friend and I went to a gun show with my inventation. At the show I was rustling through all the cool guns looking for the best feel and best price. My friend on the other hand just stood back watched. He never once touched a single firearm. He felt that he couldn't even handle a gun. The reason being is that he had a moral convition that he might be breaking the law. He has also turned down many inventations to go shooting with me and another friend. Nobody would have known except for us. He still insisted that that would be breaking the law as well. My friend, to me, is no longer a convicted felon. In my mind, he is an averaged citizen. He is grown now with a wife and kid. How does he defend from a intruder with the intent of doing harm to his family? If he has a right to life, then he must also have the right to defend with any means.

And I suspected Mississippi did as well. Sure enough:

§ 97-37-5. Unlawful for convicted felon to possess any firearms, or other weapons or devices; penalties; exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or of the United States to possess any firearm or any bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack, or any muffler or silencer for any firearm unless such person has received a pardon for such felony, has received a relief from disability pursuant to Section 925(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code, or has received a certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to subsection (3) of this section.

(2) Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or committed to the custody of the State Department of Corrections for not less than one (1) year nor more than ten (10) years, or both.

(3) A person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state may apply to the court in which he was convicted for a certificate of rehabilitation. The court may grant such certificate in its discretion upon a showing to the satisfaction of the court that the applicant has been rehabilitated and has led a useful, productive and law-abiding life since the completion of his sentence and upon the finding of the court that he will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.

Sources: Codes, 1880, § 2985; 1892, § 1026; 1906, § 1103; Hemingway's 1917, § 829; 1930, § 853; 1942, § 2079; Laws, 1898, p. 86; Laws, 1960, ch. 242, § 1; Laws, 1962, ch. 310, § 1; Laws, 1993, ch. 482, § 1; Laws, 2007, ch. 322, § 1; Laws, 2007, ch. 530, § 2, eff from and after July 1, 2007.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Go here: http://michie.com/mississippi/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=
Click on the folder icon for the Mississippi Code of 1972. Enter "firearms" in the search window and click the arrows. The section above came up as result number 50 when I did this. Can't swear you'll get the same result but it should be close. Now, if your friend's conviction is in some other state, he will have to go there. I'm pretty sure most states have a similar procedure, at least except for the usual suspects.

PS - - Washington's procedure is here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.047. We do several of these every month in Spokane and they can be done without a lawyer. Somewhere there's even a form and directions on how to do it but I can't seem to find the link right now.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I know someone close to me who was a repeat felon and has now had his record expunged, of course his last arrest conviction was when he was 17.

I don't trust juries either, the mindset of many people now is very disturbing their faith and trust in Gov./police/the system often seems to trump the idea of freedom and proving beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[gogodawgs]

Pierce County deputies face charges of perjury (in gun siezure case)

Two Pierce County sheriff’s deputies are charged with first-degree perjury for allegedly lying under oath about the circumstances of a gun seizure earlier this year.
Jeffery Ray Montgomery, 34, and Rex Alan McNicol, 47, are expected in Superior Court on Aug. 5 for arraignment.
Sheriff Paul Pastor put the deputies on paid administrative leave in late May or early June when the allegations came to light.
He changed that leave to unpaid Monday when the state Attorney General’s Office charged Montgomery and McNicol each with a single felony count, sheriff’s spokesman Ed Troyer said.
“This is a very serious accusation because integrity is essential to the mission of the department,” Pastor said Tuesday.
An internal investigation into the deputies’ actions continues, Troyer said.
McNicol’s attorney, Clifford Morey, said his client intends to fight the charge.
“I believe the charge is totally unfounded,” Morey said. “He was trying to do his job and was telling the truth on the witness stand.”
Efforts to reach Montgomery and his attorney were unsuccessful Tuesday.
The department hired both men in 2006.
Assistant Attorney General Melanie Tratnik wrote in court documents filed Monday that the deputies lied from the witness stand March 16 when testifying about their seizure of a rifle from an Orting man’s home in January.
Dispatchers sent the deputies to the house to check the welfare of a 12-year-old boy who lived there. The boy called 911 to report his mother and her boyfriend were drug addicts and that the boyfriend had a gun hidden in a bedroom, court records show.
The boy’s mother later told investigators he was in trouble for bad grades when he placed the call.
Montgomery ran a background check on the man and learned he was a convicted felon prohibited from having a firearm.
When the deputies arrived on the scene, according to a report Montgomery wrote of the incident, he spoke to the boy while McNicol followed the boyfriend inside to retrieve the rifle.
The deputies then arrested the man on suspicion of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He later was charged with that crime.
The man’s attorney, Kirk “Chip” Mosley of Tukwila, challenged the validity of the seizure, saying the deputies didn’t have a search warrant and hadn’t gotten appropriate consent from the boyfriend to go inside.
Plus, the “tip” they received about the gun was suspect because it came from a disgruntled juvenile, he argued.
It all added up to an unconstitutional intrusion into the man’s home, Mosley wrote in court records.
Deputy prosecutor Kawyne Lund disagreed, and Superior Court Judge Rosanne Buckner held a hearing on the matter.
Montgomery and McNicol testified under oath that neither of them entered the home that day. McNicol said the man went inside the house alone to retrieve the gun while the deputies waited outside.
The testimony of the boyfriend and Montgomery’s report contradicted the deputies’ statements, records show.
“Deputy Montgomery wrote in his report that he actually walked into the home and grabbed the rifle from Deputy McNicol,” court records show. “Deputy Montgomery explained in his testimony that numerous references of the deputies being in the house were all mistakes in his report.”
Buckner later ordered the gun charge dismissed after ruling the seizure improper and declaring the deputies’ testimony “does not produce clear and convincing evidence as to their credibility,” court records show.
The Sheriff’s Department then launched an investigation and assigned it to homicide detective Sgt. Ben Benson.
McNicol told the detective neither he nor Montgomery went into the house, according to court records.
“When asked why he would allow a convicted felon to enter a home alone and retrieve a gun, McNicol had no explanation other than he might have exercised bad judgment,” Tratnik wrote in a declaration of probable cause.
Montgomery told Benson he knew “that what he testified to on March 21, 2010, was not correct because ‘I had the report, and that’s (what) I wrote it, and that’s what I recall happening,’ ” Tratnik wrote.
Morey said his client contend’s Montgomery’s report is wrong.
First-degree perjury is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The sentence for a first offense is usually between six months and a year in jail.​

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/...ing.html#storylink=omni_popular#ixzz0uzjmFuHQ​

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So does the case get thrown out? And the man released from prison, and the firearm returned to his wife? I hope so.

Do the officers loose their firearm priveledges? I hope so.