NYC’s ‘Broken Windows’ Policing Yields Sex Offender’s None-Too-Lovely Beretta .22

Beretta .22 (courtesy nypost.com)

“Two officers were on patrol in the Morrisania section of The Bronx at about 5 p.m. Monday when they spotted Ronnie Brown, 41, relieving himself outside 505 E. 162nd St.,” nypost.com reports. “Brown — who has prior busts for attempted murder, rape, robbery and burglary — took off running when he saw the officers heading his way, but the cops chased him down. While he was in custody, the officers discovered a loaded .22-caliber Beretta semiautomatic handgun on him.” Brown claimed self-defense . . .

The convicted sex offender told cops that he needs the weapon to protect himself because others might suspect he is a deviant.

“A lot of people think I’m a rapist and they are looking to kill me,” Brown told cops after he was busted. “That’s why I carry it for protection.”

The Post is delighted that New York’s “Broken Windows” policing policy – arresting people for relatively minor crimes – has “taken another gun off the street.” Not to mention removing a violent sex offender from the Big Apple. Presumably. It’s hard to argue with that. But not impossible.

Question: does Mr. Brown forfeit his right to self-defense because of his past crimes? If someone attacks him without legal cause, doesn’t Mr. Brown have a natural right to defend his life? By permanently removing his gun rights, the government denied Mr. Brown the most effective method of personal self-defense – as New York City does for all its residents save the rich and powerful. But that’s another story.

Or is it? If convicted criminals can obtain firearms – even in cities with a de facto handgun ban – law-abiding citizens should be able to keep and bear arms for self-defense against them. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but some laments never grow old. And must be sung, lest those suffering from government tyranny be forgotten by those free from oppression.

More to the point – and I catch heat for this all the time – I don’t think ex-cons should lose their Constitutionally protected gun rights forever. If people like Mr. Brown are too dangerous to allow amongst us armed, they’re too dangerous to allow amongst us at all. If they’re not, they should not have to sacrifice their rights when they’re released. At least not permanently. Yes? Meanwhile . . .

The bust comes as City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and other council members clamor to decriminalize quality-of-life violations, such as public urination, public drinking and fare-beating.

Mark-Viverito says arrests for such minor violations drive a wedge between police and the community.

The issue is still under discussion in the council, a source said.

Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch said the Bronx bust shows why the council should back off.

“This arrest shows both the advantage of enforcing quality-of-life regulations and the danger police officers face in doing so,” Lynch told The Post.

I’m not sure why this case highlights that issue. Illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a felony. The question for me: will New York City send Mr. Brown back to jail. And, given his record, should he have been released in the first place?

comments

  1. avatar live says:

    Rape shoukd get you the death penalty so the scumbag should haveaalready been dead.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      You’re confusing actual rape with what legally passes for rape. I know a guy who was framed for rape and another who was convicted even though no clothing ever came off either person; the only contact was on the outside of the clothing. Then there are three guys who were convicted of rape because they had sex with their girlfriends after a birthday when a week earlier it wouldn’t have come under any criminal offense.

      So long as we have “the rule of law” where law is god and reality is irrelevant, there shouldn’t be ANY death penalties except at the hand of the intended victim.

      Finally, I agree with Thomas Jefferson: better a thousand guilty walk free than one innocent person be punished.

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        Finally, I agree with Thomas Jefferson: better a thousand guilty walk free than one innocent person be punished.

        THIS!!!!

        Every F*CKING TIME, this!

      2. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunniess says:

        Here here. We must not lock up or kill innocents.
        He was not identified as a rapist but as a sex offender. That can mean a lot of things from BS statutory rape charges to public exposure.

        1. avatar Mini14 says:

          In Dewey Beach, De public urination will get you arrested and put on the sex offenders list.

          Yes, you read that correctly.

        2. avatar WedelJ says:

          Heck, the act he was doing at the time (urinating in public) can get you legally labeled a sex offender forever. F that. Almost happened to a guy I knew in high school. It was 9pm in his own fenced backyard, too.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      The only thing you would accomplish with a mandatory death penalty for rape is to ensure that very few victims would survive the ordeal in order to testify against their attacker.

      History has shown time and again that mandatory draconian punishments for crimes ALWAYS result in a desire by the criminal(s) to remove potential witnesses to the crime.

      My stepson was falsely accused of rape by a girl (not their first time together) who had second thoughts the morning after. The charges were eventually dropped, but it would have been a severe travesty of justice if he had been convicted at all, much less sentenced to death, on a she said/he said case.

    3. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      No… Just no

    4. avatar rosignol says:

      I know two guys who have been accused of rape.

      In one case, it was a vengeful ex, in the other, she regretted it after the event.

      In both cases, the guys were innocent of anything except not realizing the chick was crazy.

      1. avatar Mongo says:

        They are all crazy , even if you got a good one , she still crazy!

  2. avatar Roymond says:

    Given that “sex offender” now includes people who send nude pictures of themselves over their phones, teens whose GF’s moms got angry at them, men urinating in public, and guys passed out at parties who got their pants taken off by underage girls, the term is as close to meaningless as makes no difference. Thus, any blanket prohibition against “sex offenders” possessing guns is idiotic and unjust.

    Secondly, the article says he has prior busts, but doesn’t mention convictions. Arrests are also near to meaningless, especially given how prosecutors get the police to arrest people they don’t like just to get arrests on their records.

    Third, that council member is right — such things shouldn’t be criminal, any more than spitting on the sidewalk.

  3. avatar Special K says:

    Ronnie Brown should be released immediately, and the charges against him dropped. Having to carry that clunker is punishment enough. That is one brutal piece…

  4. avatar jwm says:

    In what court are natural rights protected? Natural rights are that you’re born into the food chain. If on the day of your birth you and your mother are eaten by hungry wolves whose natural rights are violated or honored? Yours? The wolves natural right to eat?

    And unless I’m mistaken that looks like a .22 long mixed in that mag full of long rifles. His natural right to self defense would have clicked to a halt when that round came up.

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      Your not mistaken, that is a “long” not a long rifle. The dumb ass doesn’t even have brains enough to know it might not cycle the action, and that he should have put in the first, so it would be at the bottom of the stack, and not jam up the action half way through the mag.
      Of course it should have never been in there in the first place. The dudes only got one oar in the water!

    2. avatar Chris. says:

      Does appear that way; .22 long should fire in a LR chamber though; but probably wouldn’t cycle. So rack the slide and back to shooting. Then again that things springs are probably so worn it just might.

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        Beat me to it, by a minute.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        Possible, of course. But what you want to bet that this rocket scientist gets a click and scratching his head is the go to method of trouble shooting?

        Thankfully, these bad guy types are rarely much better prepared than this. Hollywoods version of a bad guy just doesn’t even come close to reality.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Or the action doesn’t cycle to retain the casing to discard elsewhere.

          Either way the people of NY, who are sh_ttng on NY, pay people to round up people who p_ss on NY (everyone with marginally functioning bladders and can’t rock Depends) and sometimes they get free guns.

  5. avatar Siris says:

    I often wonder about the term ‘loaded’. I see 10 rounds not 11. Does having rounds in a mag make your gun loaded, or is having one in the chamber a loaded weapon? Without one in the chamber it is basically a paperweight and is as safe as it can get right? I guess I’m looking for a one word term to distinguish between a loaded mag and a loaded pistol that’s ready to fire.
    If the pistol doesn’t have a round chambered, to me it’s just a pistol and almost as safe as having the mag in a separate pocket.
    But we know how the media and the lawmen like to play up everything.
    Even when they actually carry loaded pistols and know the difference.

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      States and maybe cities vary on the meaning “loaded”
      Christ! My wife says I’m loaded after one beer!

    2. avatar billy rohe says:

      In NYC having a pistol and a loaded magazine at the same time is considered loaded. If you have a pistol in the glove and a mag in your console that is a loaded gun.

    3. avatar Chris. says:

      Short answer, your safe with the Federal transportation statute definition- no rounds in chamber, no rounds in magazine/cylinder (if revolver).

      Otherwise, consider it loaded; that said, you say you count 10; not 11… It isn’t necessary to top off the magazine. I usually don’t.

  6. avatar california richard says:

    The Feds are going to trigger lock this guy. Career criminal in possession of a firearm is mandatory 15-20 years in fed pen.

    I agree with you. Too dangerous to trust with gun = too dangerous period. Great litmus test

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets a plea bargain and ends up back on the street in less than two years. They’ll take the gun off the street, but the attempted murderer/rapist/burglar? Catch and release.

      1. avatar Bob R says:

        The police need criminals on the streets to justify their obscene pensions that start at age 50.

  7. avatar Jake says:

    That newer looking long is probably the one the officers put in there to add another violation to the list.

  8. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    So I guess Robert would be satisfied if the convicted felon crossed his heart hope to die promised never to use his gun in anything other than self defense.

    Do you know why legal gun owners are so law abiding? It’s because felons are prohibited persons. If there were no prohibited persons gun owners would be no more law abiding than the general population.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      “Do you know why legal gun owners are so law abiding? It’s because felons are prohibited persons. If there were no prohibited persons gun owners would be no more law abiding than the general population.”

      When I read the above, the natural first response is “Well, DUH!”, but after some reflection, I’ve decided it is a truly interesting and yet simple concept that I had never really considered before today.

      Thank you for posting that message.

      (And no, this is not sarcasm)

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Gun owners are the general population. And to suggest that the only reason we’re law abiding is to retain our 2a rights is insulting. Not one of your brighter moments

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        I didn’t take it like that at all.

        I think he was just pointing out that if disqualifying convictions prevent formerly convicted criminals from owning/buying guns in the future, that’s one of the reasons that gun owners, as a group, are statistically more law-abiding than the general public at large.

      2. avatar NineShooter says:

        I’m also cool with requiring juvenile or first-time minor offenders to read and sign a statement that lists the rights they will lose forever if they continue down the path of lawlessness.

        After all, we’re not doing it them; they’re doing it to themselves.

    3. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunniess says:

      So what ? Every felon that commits a crime was going to anyway.
      And I think Robert was saying safe enough to be allowed in society and should be able to own a gun. He would likely be for longer sentences for violent crimes.
      I agree. I would make exceptions on parole and probation. Also I might prescription some felons from carrying for many years as a condition of release or early release. Likely only those who used guns in a crime before.
      I might as that if a guy keeps his owe clean for 10 years his odds of reoffending go down a bit.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Yes — lifelong restrictions on the exercise of rights are offensive in a number of ways, not least with the implicit assumption that people cannot change.

        No post-paperwork restriction should last longer than the imposed confinement plus imposed supervision.

  9. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Attempted murder, robbery and rape? I’m guessing the reason it’s attempted murder is because his intended victim didn’t die.
    The guy should be behind bars. Permanently.

  10. avatar Jjimmyjomga says:

    If, as has been noted several times here in the past, bats, cars and knives are equally as lethal as a gun if used for harm, then a proven violent criminal not allowed to have a gun would not be giving up any right to self defense if he can own a knife or bat or car. (I have yet to see a story of a 6 year old killing a healthy adult or 2 with a baseball bat, but I’m open to any opinions)
    What say Ralph?

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Not Ralph, but to your point: the guy who started all the trouble in Baltimore last summer when he died in police custody was originally arrested for possession of an allegedly illegal “switchblade” knife. It was actually an “assisted opening knife”.

      To RF’s larger point, the Second Amendment includes NO QUALIFIERS on the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it include ANY authorization for the government it was intended to protect us against creating a litmus test for who may or may not exercise that right. It is a pure and simple PROHIBITION against government infringement.

      The only Constitutional method of dealing with criminals or the violently insane is to shoot back, accurately, when they present a threat, or to incarcerate them and keep them there. Any other proposition is in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Sorry if that bothers you, but your concern does not trump my or anyone else’s natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

      1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunniess says:

        A conviction by a court is due process. Rights can be taken away under the constitution with due process.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          If rights can be taken away at all, then they are not inherent.

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          Your natural rights, especially your right to self defense, can NEVER be taken away short of death. At best they can be more or less successfully suppressed during incarceration or by oppressive government control when not incarcerated.

          Look carefully at the numbers of weapons devised by prisoners and the associations they create or join in order to obtain security. Look even closer at the many oppressive governments throughout history – Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union come quickly to mind, and tell me the people in occupied countries lost their natural right to keep and bear arms against their oppressors. In countries occupied by the Third Reich and also by Imperial Japan partisan groups were a constant threat regardless of how dramatically the occupying forces attempted to suppress them.

        3. avatar David B says:

          If you tried any harder, you couldn’t come up with a worse comparison of US felons to the victims of the Holocaust.
          I agree with the idea of inherent rights, but those rights can be forfeited.

  11. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Minor violations forgiveness for quality of life, yet no arms allowed to lawfully protect it.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Attempted murder, rape, robbery, burglary. Don’t sound minor to me.

  12. avatar Hannibal says:

    Everyone committing a sex crime now should know (or can know) that your legal ability to carry a gun can be taken away as part of the punishment for your crime. This is no Ex Post Facto law. Just because you are released from prison does not mean you have paid your full debt to society. Just like you can be on a sex offender list and have to notify neighbors, you can’t legally carry a gun. Oh well.

    I think we have a lot more to worry about in NYC than sex offenders getting pinched for having a gun that would get them arrested even if they WEREN’T a sex offender.

    1. avatar ASAsjjkk says:

      The threshold between legal citizen and sex offender gets more thin every damn day. This is an issue that should concern us. Before, you had to rape or sexually assault someone to be considered a sex offender. Now if you piss drunk in from of “kids” (kids can be 6 or 16) or bang a chick when you were both drinking and she decides the next day to “regret” it or you’re 19 and your girlfriend is 16 and her dad decides to take out his anger on you because his daughter is *gasp* a sexual being.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      And here again people are ignoring the simple text that solves the problem. Where in the 27 words of the Second Amendment does it give the authority to any level of government to decide that ANYONE, much less someone convicted of being a “sex offender”, the definition of which is determined by the government the Second Amendment was intended to protect us against, can be deprived of their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for the rest of their life?

      Not long ago sodomy was a crime and would get you on a sex offender list where you would “lose” your 2A protections for life. I have never met a man who has not committed (oral) sodomy or at least been willing to give it a try, if she’s willing. Adultery is still illegal in many jurisdictions. Prostitution is illegal almost anywhere except Nevada, I believe. In some places your soon to be ex-wife can accuse you of rape. That girl who swore she was 18 turns out to be only 17 – oops. If the government has this ability to decide who permanently loses their 2A protections against the government then the government has the ability to fine tune the list to include more and more people, possibly even you. Homosexuality now seems to be a protected class. What if the government (Liberals) decide that discriminating against gays or lesbians should be classified as a sex offense? Slippery slope, camel’s nose, don’t let the government have an inch because if you give them enough rope they will hang YOU.

    3. avatar Roymond says:

      “Sex offender” =/= “committed a sex crime”. An unpublished study by a major newspaper on the west coast found that nearly two in five registered sex offenders were innocent, but had pled guilty to a lessened sex charge because the odds of winning in court are so slim, and they didn’t want their lives totally destroyed. Add in teens who merely had consensual sex with a GF and it’s three-fifths. Add in those who were engaged in behavior that would have gotten merely a warning or fine if no minors had been present and it’s over two-thirds.

      It astounds me how people who don’t trust the government with control over guns bow down and worship the legislative and court systems as though they were divine.

  13. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    The pistol appears to be a Beretta 76. They were an OK pistol for target shooting. In much better condition than this, you can find them from $400 on up. They came with either plastic or wood grips. I honestly can’t remember much about them, I’ve handled only one, and that was back in the mid-80’s.

    1. avatar Herb says:

      Yeah, it’s a shame that a fairly snazzy handgun like a Beretta M76 gets beat all to h*** like that. But look how they had to build up a medium .22 pistol into a `target’ model with all the extended add-ons.

      Much prefer the Beretta M71 with the faux suppressor & the 11 round magazine if you get my drift.

      ;^)

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    Violent convicts should be given guns in prison. It would satisfy all the 2A absolutists and at the same time reduce prison overcrowding — two birds with one stone.

    Meanwhile on the outside, the victims of the criminals — who never receive any restitution from the people who harmed them — can take comfort in knowing that the criminals have paid their debt to nobody.

    1. avatar Jjimmyjomga says:

      Ralph for president!

    2. avatar ASAsjjkk says:

      I’m all in favor of the criminal paying the debt to the victims or victim’s families, not to “society” aka government. Let’s be honest, the guy who beat some girl at a bar doesn’t owe me shit, but he owes her.

      Once released they are released and if released need to have their rights restored, or they need to be locked away. Otherwise we are one step closer to a police state. If the victims are worried, hopefully they decided to make use of their natural right to armed self-defense.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      I have suggested before that when incarcerate a prisoner should be issued a 5 shot .32 revolver with the crane welded shut so it cannot be either unloaded or reloaded. That’s it for his entire stay. Waste your ammo and you stay helpless for the rest of your term. There should also be a severe penalty for being caught in possession of someone else’s pistol.

      This might also serve to keep the guards honest and civil, although the guards can re-load.

    4. avatar int19h says:

      I never understood this whole “debt” thing. What exactly is the nature of that debt, and how exactly is it “paid” by locking someone up or otherwise punishing them?

      Soviets had a better idea: they called it “measures of social protection”. Death penalty was the “highest measure of social protection”.

  15. avatar AhClem says:

    Felons are released into society for a number of reasons: rarely, if ever, are they released as they have been proven to be reformed or proven to be no longer a threat.

    Reform, rehabilitation and disminished threat comes, if at all, long after their release. So, no automatic restoration of gun rights.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      This ^.

      I also not a fan of felons voting again, for similar reasons. Why should we allow people who have a demonstrated history of poor impulse control and poor decision-making skills, people who have refused to (or cannot) live within society’s rules, to vote for referendums and lawmakers which will be directing our country’s future?

      1. avatar Gopher says:

        Seconded (Thirded?)

      2. avatar Xanthro says:

        Because voting is a right, dumb people get to vote, stupid people get to vote, people who make exceedingly poor decisions in their life get to vote, because voting is a right.
        People don’t have to prove they know what they are doing to vote. They can just randomly choose candidates if they wish.

        1. avatar NineShooter says:

          And none of that is a positive argument for letting people who have been convicted of making EXCEPTIONALLY poor decisions have any say in directing our cities, states, country, and referendums.

          With two choices on the ballot, using random selection means that 50% of the time, they’ll get it “right” (by anyone’s definition of “right”), just by chance. That’s still better than “usually wrong”, on purpose.

        2. avatar Retired LEO says:

          I sat at an election last Tuesday that 4 convicted felons voted in 2 had done time for voter fraud, 1 distribution of pounds of coke and the last for child rape. In addition to a deceased voting. Notified the state and D.O.J. reply: who cares. Shows that our rights are already gone in some areas just haven’t noticed.

      3. avatar int19h says:

        Because being a felon does not demonstrate “poor impulse control and poor decision-making skills”. It only demonstrates non-compliance, often not even voluntary or conscious (look up “strict liability”), with some arbitrary law that may not be “common sense”, and may even be so obscure that no-one except for half a dozen lawyers even know it exists. You can say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but do you know all the laws that apply to you yourself? The sheer amount of them makes it practically impossible.

        Meanwhile, the obvious problem with making felons unable to vote is that it provides a simple mechanism for the state to exclude arbitrarily large groups of citizens from the political process, simply by declaring something that they’re likely to do illegal. It only needs legislature to vote such a law in, and there’s no judicial recourse so long as the law doesn’t directly criminalize voting per se – that it would disenfranchise those affected is merely a side effect in such a scheme.

        No, voting is one thing that should be sacrosanct, and the only reason why anyone should ever lose their right to vote is if they are stripped of their citizenship – something that should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes that have to do with that directly, like treason.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      What other parts of the Constitution are you fellows opposed to? There is an amendment process, you know. How hard are you working to get your ideas legally and Constitutionally amended into the document itself?

      Fascist: “We have decided what is best for YOU. If you know what’s good for you then you will not argue with us.”

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      Ok so…

      Violent felons:
      • Need their gun rights removed because they are violent and released back into society rather than keeping them locked up, air dropping them over Australia, or eliminating them by firing squad.

      All the rest of all gun owners (law abiding) need:
      • FFL dealers who accept firearms transferred from other states and prison sentences and permanent gun rights removed for transfers not through an FFL.
      • Form 4473’s, the oath, and the associated FFL fee for the transfer along with matching ID and proof of address at time of purchase, and prison sentences and permanent gun rights removed for lying on the form 4473 or purchasing a firearm for someone else.
      • Gun dealers ready to accept the responsibility of trying to determine if a person is buying the gun for someone else or not and the liability of possibly being sued and their FFL revoked because some guy was wrongly turned away or some guy was not turned away and later shot someone.
      • NICS checks through FFLs to ensure they are not felons. Prison sentences and permanent gun rights removed for firearms transferred without a NICs check.
      • Denials of transfers until NICS checks are completed. Prison sentences and permanent gun rights removed for those transferring firearms despite the government mandated denial.
      • Universal background checks (end of private sales) and Universal Registration permits (you can’t enforce UBC’s without registration) to ensure they are not providing guns to felons bypassing an FFL and a prison sentence and permanent gun rights removed if they are not followed.
      • Safe storage requirements and routine inspections by federal agents to keep thieves from stealing your guns and a prison sentence and permanent gun rights removed for noncompliance.
      • Increased taxes on firearms/ammunition to make sure the above happen and a prison sentence and permanent gun rights removed if those taxes aren’t paid.

      _

      You get what you ask for. If you ask to keep firearms from felons you’ll get all the above to make sure it happens. Those above points forced on the entirety of the American people to keep a handful of felons gun-free. It might work to some degree however some felons will successfully steal guns or make them (some are very simple). I personally prefer to sacrifice my safety against that handful of felons rather than force the entirety of the American people to perform the above sing and dance to try to keep them gun free.

  16. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

    “fare-beating” is a quality of life issue? In my book, would be thief.

  17. Peeing on someone’s building or steps may seem rather small in the hierarchy of crimes, but, it’s one of those quality of life crimes that will doom a neighborhood if unenforced. There’s nothing like the small of last night’s urine on a hot and sticky July morning.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I don’t object to public urination being a crime, I object to it being a SEX crime, putting a man on a list of registered sex offenders for the rest of his life. That requires you to notify your neighbors and all manner of crap, forever. Because you had to take a leak.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Peeing in public should not be a crime. If you pee on a sidewalk or a wall or steps, that should be minor vandalism or causing a public nuisance. Peeing on a bush or grass should be an offense requiring an hour of community service — no criminal record.

        1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          I agree.

          But you see, once we allowed women to vote, there’s a cohort of women who get the vapors at the mere thought of a man relieving himself upon a bush, and so they trump up the statutes until you get what we have here in Wyoming: Urination in public can be charged as a sex crime – unless you have a catheter in and running down your leg, so you can do it without dropping your fly.

  18. avatar Wee Liam says:

    Looks as if everyone who came to the party got what they came there for.

    Account later regarding how my local Po-Po handled a guy off his meds in my parking lot, about 4 am last night…

    Perfect escalation of force continuum!

  19. avatar Bob says:

    Mr brown is clearly a “turd in the bowl” that someone should have flushed down long ago. His rights are forefit because he’s a comleplete pos and thus not worthy to be a citizen.

  20. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

    If they can’t be trusted with a gun, how can we trust them with cars, or hammers, or high capacity gasoline cans?

    Don’t focus on the tool, focus on whether the person is a danger or not.

    Our society has guns, and anybody who wants one will get one anyway. I support instant restoration of gun rights on release.

    1. avatar Chris. says:

      I personally am even good during a period of supervised release/probation.

      But after? Yeah – either a full citizen again or lock them the fudge back up.

      1. avatar David B says:

        FUDD here weighing in on this subject yet again. While I read the TTAG, I disagree with RF on many moral issues namely homosexual marriage, restoration of felons gun rights, and the legalization of drugs. I like the gun reviews, but differ on his op-ed pieces as each item I listed only leads to the greater disintegration of our society as we know it. It’s like we both say “Ice cream tastes great.” RF goes further and demands that all fat people be given copious, free amounts plus free medicine to cope with their diabetes plus protected legal status if they have sex with ice cream cones. Whether on guns or ice cream, it doesn’t make sense and it makes me worry about this nation. Just as ice cream in the hands of fat people creates more problems than it solves, so do guns in the hands of the wrong people.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          And to whom will you assign the power of a god, to determine whose life is valuable, and whose is not? FOr to tell a person he/she may not be armed is to say, “Your life isn’t worth protecting”.

        2. avatar NineShooter says:

          I suppose that’s one way to look at it.

          Another way might be to say “By your actions, you proved you were not to be trusted with arms, so now you will be without the use of those same arms for a good long period, until you have proven you can be trusted with them once again.” How can placing them in the same position they placed their victims (unarmed and/or at the mercy of the actions of those around them) be in any way considered unreasonable?

          After 5, maybe 10 years with a continuous clean slate, they get to own/carry again. Through their own actions, they proved they couldn’t be trusted, now they have to prove the reverse in the same manner.

          It’s not the power of god, it’s the power of the parole board. If you don’t want to be subject to the powers of the parole board, there IS a way to prevent it. It’s the same existence that the citizens of many cities/states in this country now put up with (disarmed by the government) by choice, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all for convicted criminals.

  21. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Is their such a thing as a non violent sex crime? Should exposing yourself in public be a felony or a crime at all? Or masturbating in public? Remember streakers? The naked homosexuals in their pride parades are not arrested.

    I’m just using libertarian logic. Libertarians say public non violent drug use should not be a crime.
    I’m one of those neanderthals who believes public exposure /sex should cause a jail term for you. Same thing for public drug use.
    I say keep it behind closed doors.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Not much for freedom of expression, huh?

      If you want laws insisting nudity be “behind closed doors”, then I am going to stand with people who insist that no one should be allowed to wear a cross or put one on a building, and no guns be seen in public either.

    2. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunniess says:

      So you never made out with a girl in a parked car ? Ever pee outside ? Moon somebody ?
      Even if you think these things should be punished , they should not be prison type sentences.

  22. avatar Avid Reader says:

    If this happened in Chiraq he’d be back on the street within a day or two.

  23. avatar Dave says:

    Perhaps judges and parole boards would act differently if they knew the person being released could legally own a firearm. Perhaps, just perhaps, they would release only those who truly rehabilitated.

    Naw, who am I trying to kid….

  24. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “If people like Mr. Brown are too dangerous to allow amongst us armed, they’re too dangerous to allow amongst us at all.”

    2A purists toss this one out there all the time. Who the hell made you God? What the hell gives you the right to declare theorems unilaterally? No one and nothing.

    You don’t get to fashion your own cutesy little tenet which conveniently forecloses all counterarguments, then dare all comers to argue to the contrary.

    The fact is that NOTHING in the Constitutution precludes post-incarceration punishment. The Constutution refers to life, liberty and property as available for loss, subject to due process. Nothing says that loss of liberty consists entirely of and ends with incarceration. In fact, there are many losses of liberty that accompany probation, parole, or even completion of full prison sentences.

    These thugs have proven their character, their poor judgment and weak impulse control. They shouldn’t have a firearm because they cannot be trusted with a firearm. A firearm gives them too much power to kill instantly.

    Can the violent kill by other means? Of course they can. Ask yourselves, though, all factors considered, are those other means comparable to a firearm? “Yes”, you lie? Then ask yourselves another question: why do YOU carry a firearm, instead of relying on one of those other allegedly comparable means?

    Ex-con thugs can be violent by other means, but why make it easy by allowing them legal access to firearms? Ex-con embezzlers and pedophiles may still find new victims, but we don’t make it easy by putting them in charge of banks or classrooms.

    1. avatar David B says:

      Bless you for these thoughts. Well said.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      The amount of trust in the infallibility of the court system displayed here both astounds and disgusts me.

      Besides that, how is a lifelong sentence not “cruel and unusual”?

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, gee. Who the hell made *you* god, to decide that the clear intent and precise wording of 2A doesn’t really mean what it says? 2A has been written down and the law of the land for over 200 years, your opinion that it can simply be tossed, in order to follow *your* personal beliefs, is just nonsense.

    4. avatar Anonymous says:

      The current state of the US is not a constitutional one – it is a socialist/statist one. So while you dream about due process as it applies within the constitution and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals/felons (because it is allowed by the constitution) – don’t complain when the populace wants guaranteed enforcement of “no felons will acquire guns” with the following:

      • FFL dealers who accept firearms transferred from other states and prison sentences and permanent gun rights removed for transfers not through an FFL.
      • Form 4473’s, the oath, and the associated FFL fee for the transfer along with matching ID and proof of address at time of purchase, and prison sentences and permanent gun rights removed for lying on the form 4473 or purchasing a firearm for someone else.
      • Gun dealers ready to accept the responsibility of trying to determine if a person is buying the gun for someone else or not and the liability of possibly being sued and their FFL revoked because some guy was wrongly turned away or some guy was not turned away and later shot someone.
      • NICS checks through FFLs to ensure they are not felons. Prison sentences and permanent gun rights removed for firearms transferred without a NICs check.
      • Denials of transfers until NICS checks are completed. Prison sentences and permanent gun rights removed for those transferring firearms despite the government mandated denial.
      • Universal background checks (end of private sales) and Universal Registration permits (you can’t enforce UBC’s without registration) to ensure they are not providing guns to felons bypassing an FFL and a prison sentence and permanent gun rights removed if they are not followed.
      • Safe storage requirements and routine inspections by federal agents to keep thieves from stealing your guns and a prison sentence and permanent gun rights removed for noncompliance.
      • Increased taxes on firearms/ammunition to make sure the above happen and a prison sentence and permanent gun rights removed if those taxes aren’t paid.

      The founding fathers should have addressed the rights of people after incarceration and release and instead they simply described it in the vaguest sense possible: “…imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.” Because your current government is and will be using “due process” to permanently remove people’s rights alongside frivolous penalies and releasing them back into the population after a prison term and coupling that with loads of hassles and circus rings to jump through for those that were not even incarcerated.

    5. avatar Anonymous says:

      2A purists toss this one out there all the time. Who the hell made you God? What the hell gives you the right to declare theorems unilaterally? No one and nothing.

      You don’t get to fashion your own cutesy little tenet which conveniently forecloses all counterarguments, then dare all comers to argue to the contrary.

      They toss them out there as their opinion. Which carries with it no more weight than yours I might add. Keeping in mind that the populace fashions the laws and their penalties of breaking them by means of representatives expressing their opinions in debate and fashioning them into legislation.

  25. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

    “More to the point – and I catch heat for this all the time – I don’t think ex-cons should lose their Constitutionally protected gun rights forever.”

    “No Gun For Felons” is a fairly new concept.

    Back in the days of the “Wild West,” as a convicted felon left the state or territorial prison after serving his term of incarceration, the prison guards returned his property to him — including his gun(s), holster and ammunition.

  26. avatar Retired LEO says:

    A guy about a mile from my house got out after raping, beating and posting pics of her online 14 years. He got out in January
    to live with his sister & 10 y/o niece..He reoffended just before Halloween molesting both his niece and a friend of hers. Should he have any rights restored, ever? He’s an example of why the sex offender laws exist, peeing on a true isn’t what they were meant for. They need a rewrite & clarification in most cases predators need an hour with the victims male relatives and a ball bat with full immunity. A little old testament but child rape would go down

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      He should be released without any requirement for supervision immediately following his physical (not chemical) castration. Otherwise, no, not ever.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      Recidivism with sex offenders is a sort of two-sided issue: it isn’t common, in fact one of the rarest repeats of any criminal type with those who faithfully register, but when it occurs it’s devastating — it’s kind of a game of Russian roulette with ten thousand rounds in the cylinder, but just one or maybe two with primers.

      And the inconsistency is appalling: in this county, a guy with 300 counts of child sexual molestation gets to live where he wants, not being judged a predator, but a guy with just one victim is judged a predator for one simple reason — he was in possession of a gun at the time of the crime. The gun wasn’t used, the victim was told he could access it, for that matter, but because of a gun one guy is a “predator” despite only one offense but the guy with 300 counts isn’t a predator. And a guy in his thirties who could pass for a teenager went regularly to high school parties and had sex with underage girls, but wasn’t labeled a predator, while a guy who over the course of five years ran into three almost identical girls and compulsively seduced them got labeled a predator because one of the moms claimed he had been stalking her daughter.

      There’s no sense behind the laws. A guy can go to a party where all ID is being checked by off-duty police, pass out due to a spiked drink and get carried to a bed in a back room, wake up with no pants, and get arrested for rape because a girl with fake ID played with his anatomy while he was unconscious. A guy can be in his own house taking a shower, and get erect while scrubbing himself, and a teenage criminal breaking in sees him erect and touching himself, and get arrested for sexual indecency. A teacher can dive into an ice-cold lake to rescue a student, and peel off his and the student’s clothes to prevent hypothermia, and get arrested for sexual molestation. And meanwhile, real pedophiles and serial abusers do a few years, get out, abuse again, and while in prison learn better methods for seduction and escaping being caught.

      Plus the laws often specify that no child’s testimony will ever be false, so we get Salem Witch Trials all over again. And real offenders will accuse others, with no basis in reality, to get reduced sentences. Mothers will get angry at a daughter’s BF and make accusations, and the girl’s denial of the truth is taken as evidence that the accusations are true — that’s the Spanish Inquisition all over again, every statement turned to support the prosecution regardless of any contradictions.

      It’s what comes from having “the rule of law” instead of justice: truth is irrelevant; the law has to be bowed down to and served.

      And politicians wonder why respect for the law continues to decline.

      1. avatar Retired LEO says:

        I had 1 judge rule that a 12 y/O was in capable of lying because of age another rule a 4 y/O was lying about molestation even though the bastard had pictures of it. Then over 2 years allowed others of his kind to abuse video taped it & sold them. The laws need to be uniform for crimes of this type. They perpetrators claimed it had been done to them so not guilty by mental defect in one he committed suicide so he would not do it again, according to his note.
        The other made the mistake of suing to be put in general population, as he didn’t want to be around “lesser of his kind” got what he wanted. Black, White & Hispanic gang in prison came together to pass him around & then he was celled with a guy doing 3 life sentences for murder. He got a 4th, I transferred both Agencies and went to cover homicide & internal investigations. Moved South got put back into special internal operations. Only 3 people even new I was still a cop Chief, payroll had me listed as a clerk & my wife only time I ever put on a badge was during bike weeks & a riot of spring breakers. Funny that’s when I became injured 1st time. Second almost put me in a wheelchair. So with 29 years 10 months took disability @100%. Getting rich on $853 a month. Luckily house was paid off , wife makes O.k. money. So we all are not getting rich as some think. In 9 years I can draw an additional $300 a month if the pension system doesn’t go broke.

        We did it to help people, after seeing everything I’ve seen damned if I know why a decent or sane person would do the job. I personally think that’s the reason Law Enforcement is no longer trusted. To many places hire anything that can pass a drug test & PTqualification. Apologize for going off topic at the end. But the power given is to great today with to much politics and correctness involved.

  27. avatar SuperG says:

    Anyone convicted of three separate violent felonies should be executed. Anyone who tried to murder a policeman should be executed. Not only would that cut down on repeat offenders, it would clear a lot of prison bed space. Most major busts come from enforcing the traffic laws and minor infractions, so to stop them would reduce the arrest rate of major felons.

  28. avatar JT says:

    Looks like there is a .22 Long mixed in with the .22 Long Rifle.

  29. avatar JT says:

    What’s that white stuff on the muzzle and magazine?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email