Gun control doesn’t keep guns out of criminals’ hands. You may have read that here before. Fortunately, they often use them on one another. Case in point: Last month in Troy, New York, police were called to a home after a report of a home invasion and shooting.
When they arrived, they did indeed find someone who had been shot. The wounded man was 37-year-old Daryl Sousie, who had been working with his brother Andy Sousie to burglarize a home.
That home was the dwelling of Shawn Rogowski, who was busy stashing “a large sum of U.S. currency, a large amount of marijuana, packaging bags, scales and other paraphernalia consistent with dealing illegal drugs.” Rogowski had previously been charged with endangering the welfare of a child, his girlfriend’s 11-month-old baby, when he discharged a weapon in the child’s direction during another, doubtlessly drug-related, home invasion. A felony possession charge has now also been added to the list.
Nothing to see here, really. Just another story demonstrating a blindingly obvious reality.
That might work for the shooting, but no jury will nullify over the charges related to the drugs or the charges brought on by having a gun while having the drugs, and since they won’t nullify on those charges it is highly unlikely they will nullify on charges related to the actual shooting. It is still always possible of course, but then again anything is possible regardless of how improbable it may be.
“… no jury will nullify over the charges related to the drugs or the charges brought on by having a gun while having the drugs..”
I can think of few places out here where they would.
I remember news in the 80’s about certain jurisdictions where a person of color will not be going to jail if they took it to trial.
Given the first sentence of Article 1, the preamble to the bill of rights, and the 14th Amendment, I’d nullify on that jury. And so should anyone else that doesn’t believe they are not illiterate than 18th century farmers and ditch diggers and that we don’t live in a nation of the whims of SCOTUS.
What sucks is that I would be in this category because I live in LA county and carry against the law, because i have a wife and children. I am not a criminal except for in these matters. There are many who practice civil disobedience in the interest of self defense, and God forbid we actually have to employ said deterrent.
I suggest that you get your non-resident Utah and AZ permits, and apply for your LA County CCW, if only to get the rejection letter. If (God forbid) you need to use your gun, you can at least show that 1) you tried to comply with the law, 2) you are backgrounded and permitted elsewhere, and 3) you really did need that CCW after all. It won’t get you completely off the hook, but it would give you a fighting chance to get charges reduced.
If you are the legal owner of that firearm, are not a probitited person, and the firearm isn’t a prohibitted weapon, then you can only be charged with a misdemeanor in California. Anything you do that can sway a jury to your favor will create a situation where the D.A. may not even prosecute the case. At worst your gun will be seized by the police as contraband.
**I’m not a lawyer and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. California law and big city politics are a screwed up mix, but California statutory law is black and white and that’s what I’m basing this opinion on.**
Every little bit helps. If you’re carrying a gun illegally, the whole focus might be on you, not the bad guy. Carry a gun illegally and using it will definitely get you arrested in LA, misdo or no. Best to do everything you can to show you’re a good guy, including having your lawyer present your out-of-state permits along with the rejection letter. Make the DA’s decision to prosecute you as difficult as possible.
Besides, he might someday have a chance of getting a CCW, and having a gun violation in his past will take some explaining.
Better to know and follow the law as best you can, and if you choose to break it, do so intelligently.
Right on. Hopefully I’ll be leaving this insanity soon though.
@Kevin That sounds like good advice.
Considering you’re a bad-ass federal marshal with a deadly stache, I think you should be okay.
Well played. It took me a second or two to get what you were referencing, but when I did I had a good laugh.
Used to live there long ago. Then I retired and moved my azz to MS. MS is the exact opposite of CA in regards to firearms. Permitless carry concealed or open, loaded gun on the car seat next to you, 2A tax holiday every year, no govt involvement in private sales, etc., etc. , etc.
But we advertise we are all poor trailer trash from border to border in order to keep the progressive gun grabbers out. 🙂
I understand your predicament. But I don’t understand why you wouldn’t leave CA.
I did, decades ago. Texas, my new home, has very lenient gun laws, although a CHL is still a requirement to carry.
What guns? What gangs?
Speaking of “gun violence” and who should have the guns.
That Canberra clip reminds me of a video out of Canada where a man’s home was attacked with Molotov cocktails and gun fire–but he was arrested for using illegal force when he shot at his attackers in fighting off the attack.
Damn upity vigilante subjects!! Their lives aren’t their’s to defend!! Only the designated government officials are professional and compitent enough to determine who should live and who should die.
Where’s the” every criminal should have a gun “crazies?!? Shall not be infringed blah blah blah…
Right here. There’s probably no one with a greater need for a self defense firearm than a drug dealer. Not that it justifies being a drug dealer, or that I want drug dealers anywhere but jail, but still.
In California this would be chalked up to an “urban gardener” protecting his “crops” from armed bandits…. might not even get prosecuted if the guy avoided any previous felony convictions.
I see you have the “The Second Amendment does not mean what it says” position covered. Any other rights you want infringed?
I see YOU support violent drug dealers who endanger babies…any other stupid remarks?!?
He never said that.. it just says shall not be infringed… but funny how anybody can make the constitution mean whatever they want..
Where in the constitution does it say you can’t smoke weed?
Yeah, but how are homies from the ‘hood gonna get money school if they don’t steal from white folks? Gettin’ shot because you need money for school just don’t seem right. //sarc//
This called a “two-for”!
Making pot legal will NEVER remove violence from a community. You are either a fool or a liar if you believe that.
Have you seen how bad violence and crimes have got because of prescription pills?
I’m sorry, when was the last time there was a major shootout over the distribution of alcohol?
I believe that was sometime in the early ’30s. Probably because of that thing they called “Prohibition”.
Making alcohol legal has not removed violence in any community. People commit violence all the time under the influence. Parents burn their own children with cigarettes because they want to. All the while under the influence.
I am sick and tired of people saying “if drugs are made legal violence will go away”.
You are a liar or a fool if you believe that. If you want to destroy your life doing drugs. Go ahead. But people want total strangers to say it’s ok to get intoxicated.
Tyrants demand the approval of others. Is that what Libertarians liberals and the left are who want to get intoxicated????
Now you can call me judgemental if that makes you feel better.
A cap-and-ball black powder revolver is not a firearm as far as the the federal government and most state governments are concerned.
I have to think it could be legally advantageous to have such a contraption for self-defense in certain dicey situations. Oh, and all the smoke that such a contraption would generate, if operated, could be tactically advantageous as well.
Caveat: I am not an attorney. The above is my opinion. The above is NOT legal advice. Consult a competent attorney to review the federal and state laws that could impact your possession of a cap-and-ball black powder revolver.
Just because, federally, black powder weapons are not considered ‘firearms’,
that does not mean that they are not considered to be deadly weapons, even if only by a local ordnance.
As I mentioned, check with a competent attorney to determine your legal exposure to local/state laws with respect to possessing a cap-and-ball revolver.
At least you would be clear of federal “felon in possession” laws.
“NY Burglar Shot by Drug Dealer”
Equally accurate return fire would have made this the perfect bedtime story.
I support the right of entrepreneurs to defend their homes and businesses with guns.
And for the record. Tax law should be changed. Pot should be treated just like alcohol taxes.