Old West re-enactor faces federal weapons charge

[MyrnaLoy]

"SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- An Old West gun battle re-enactor who injured three South Dakota tourists when live ammunition was fired instead of blanks faces a federal weapons charge because he should not have been carrying a gun since he's a convicted felon, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/27/3798440/old-west-re-enactor-faces-federal.html#ixzz1TM5FxwoL

[MineralMan]

1. Uff da! The plot thickens, eh?

This was a terrible incident, and some people who expected to just watch an old west reenactment were hurt. Off to the pokey with the idiot!

[madinmaryland]

2. Sadly, this country continues to support the rights of those like this man

to carry a weapon. Thanks to Wayne LaPierre.

[Hangingon]

4. I just took a few minutes to check the NRA web.

There is nothing I could find about the NRA or Wayne LaPierre supporting the rights of felons to have arms. Could you provide us with a source for your statement? I was at one of these western shootouts in New Mexico recently. Lots of people crowded out to see the show - loud guns and all.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Bzzt, wrong! The NRA *supports* the prohibition of firearms possesion by felons.

-1 to you for promulgating a faith-promoting rumor.


Would you like felons to undergo some sort of 'Clockwork Orange'-style conditioning against prohibited behaviors before release?

We're not talking about a group of people known for their impulse control, so short of 'The Ludovico Treatment', there's

really not much to be done beforehand.

[iverglas]

19. Yeah, NRA-ILA just opposes laws

that would actually interfere in criminals' ABILITY to acquire firearms.

To the unenlightened observer, that can look a lot like supporting criminals' access to firearms.

Oh look. It is the same thing.

[beevul]

26. You are consistent aren't you.

"Yeah, NRA-ILA just opposes laws that would actually interfere in criminals' ABILITY to acquire firearms."

Gee, tell us, are they doing that (if indeed they really are, its an allegation without any proof at this point) BECAUSE they want felons to have guns, or for some other reason?


I know the answer to that question doesn't matter much to YOU, but you opened that door, now you can just go ahead and deal with what walks through it.

[iverglas]

28. here's the thing, you see

Gee, tell us, are they doing that (if indeed they really are, its an allegation without any proof at this point) BECAUSE they want felons to have guns, or for some other reason?

We are all presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of our actions, and considered to be responsible for those consequences.

I believe this is the lesson that Kahr feared it might learn and settled instead.

I'm sure it's a principle you're familiar with.

Really. If someone threw a rock at your head and as you lay bleeding on the floor, said "But I didn't mean to hurt you", would your reply not be "WTF did you expect would happen if you threw a rock at my head??"?

Not all actions/consequences are actionable, obviously. If you throw a wad of paper at your recycle box and hit the dog lying beside it instead, nobody's gonna sue you. But you are still presumed to have intended the foreseeable consequence of throwing something at a target you may miss, i.e. hitting something else instead.


I know the answer to that question doesn't matter much to YOU, but you opened that door, now you can just go ahead and deal with what walks through it.

The answer to the question matters rather considerably to me. It's a bit of a basic, from our own dealings with other individuals to the dealings of the biggest corporations with the public.



Here's a succinct statement of the principle for the layperson:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0510/106_print.html

Say defendant D torches a building for the insurance and someone dies in the fire. Is D guilty of murder? It is no excuse to a charge of murder if he protests that he did not intend the death, that he was in fact hoping no one was inside when he lit the match. It's enough that D knew it was likely the building was inhabited. Reason: A person is presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of his intentional acts, even if he did not desire those consequences.

And from a friendly source:
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/briefs/Tobacco/articles.cfm?ID=990

The voluminous administrative record established that manufacturers knowingly exploit the pharmacological effects of nicotine in tobacco products. Together with the principle that actors are presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their conduct, and the fact that the addiction and disease that result from use of tobacco products is well-established, these findings provide a firm basis for the FDA's position.

And an authoritative one from your perspective:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/American_Ship_Building_Company_v._National_Labor_Relations_Board/Concurrence_White (United States Supreme Court)

A similar test is applicable in § 8(a)(3) cases where no antiunion motive is shown. ... {I}n holding applicable the common-law rule that a man is presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of his own actions, the Court extended the reach of § 8(a)(3) to all cases in which a significant antiunion effect is foreseeable regardless of the employer's motive.

And just for good measure, a NAFTA panel order:
http://registry.nafta-sec-alena.org/cmdocuments/808bbbaf-a78c-416c-9879-08e994c6bea7.pdf

Legislatures, like persons, may be legally presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their actions. Thus, the evidence here strongly suggests that disproportionate benefit to hog producers was an intended or at least contemplated result of the Tripartite Program.

(Wouldn't you like your rep on an international panel to be named Antoine de Lotbinière Panet? Snork, here's a good reason why women should pick a bleeding name; must be a daughter or sister: Dr. Erica de Lotbinière Panet Campbell. Moron.)

Dealt with. Done and dusted. Do we never learn?

I do hope that has been helpful.

[beevul]

41. Well, thats juicy.

"We are all presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of our actions, and considered to be responsible for those consequences."

I'll remember you said that for future reference, and I look forward to some sort of "thats different", in the form of some sort of dogs breakfast of a semantic and or linguistically tortured pile of verbiage...when I apply it squarely to people like paul helmke and orgs like vpc and brady - or more specifically - the things they push for.

I do look forward to fitting that particular shoe on their feet, and your reaction to it, Yes indeed.

In fact, I can think of a whole slew of things that might just be applied to.

Thanks a bunch.

Of course, none of the above touches on your unsubstantiated allegation.

[gejohnston]

6. Actually

No, the NRA supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 which makes it a federal crime of felons to possess. The NRA also supported the NICS system, in fact it was the NRA's idea when the original Brady Bill's five day check was overruled (based on the 9th, unfunded mandate)

So, no one, including LaPierre, supports his right carry a weapon.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Well, we *know* he didn't know LaPierres' and the NRAs actual stance on the issue.

And that is being charitable- because he would have found this, given two minutes' searching:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQ/?s=21

What is NRA doing to address the problem of violent crime in America?

For more than a century, NRA has aggressively supported the strict enforcement of laws against violent criminals who misuse firearms and has worked to improve the criminal justice system. As just one example, NRA actively worked to insure that the Career Armed Criminal Act became federal law in 1984. During the 1990s, NRA worked with state legislatures and governors to increase prison sentences, reduce probation and parole for the most violent criminals and to impose mandatory sentencing guidelines for repeat offenders. Today, NRA continues to lead the call for expansion of “Project Exile,” a federal program that throws the book at felons who illegally possess firearms. Measures like these have been credited for violent crime decreasing for nine consecutive years....

Oopsie!

[gejohnston]

10. Speaking of Project Exile

the Wiki page actually has the NRA and Brady agreeing on that.
While FFA-38 made felon in possession up to five years, and GCA-68 a mandatory min. While I support the latter in the case of violent felons, but how about some guy that did a year for pot when he was 19, then 15 years later, inherits grandpa's deer rifle? Put it another way, should John Dean get the same FIP time as G Gordon Liddy?

[madinmaryland]

12. Interesting what the mentality is in this forum.

:mimshakeshisheadindisgust:

[oneshooter]

13. Explain please. n/t

[madinmaryland]

14. Sigh. Your SN explains it all. nt

[oneshooter]

38. Thanks!! I like it also, n/t

[petronius]

15. I don't know if you visited this forum when the story first came out, but the attitude

then (as now) was disgust and condemnation at this fuckstick. I'm not sure what you're seeing in this thread to suggest anything different... :shrug:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petronius]

17. Some of us only need one hand to type. Not sure it's any of your business

what the other hand is gripping... :shrug:

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Untruth, followed by warmed-over Freudianism. Were you expecting a "hail fellow, well met?".

Straight off the bat, you claimed the head of the NRA supports arming felons, when the truth is exactly the opposite and

could have been discovered by you via a few seconds' search on Google.


Then, after getting righteously called on that, you insult the other posters.

NOBODY here supports the asshole in the OP. Any jail time he gets will be well earned.


I started the whole "Protocols of The Elders of The NRA" thing to lampoon those NRA haters that can't be bothered to

research what they talk about. You know, I'd like posters at DU not to come across like the American Family Association

banging on about gays, or Glenn Beck talking about Democrats.


Apparently, I've hoped for too much...

[beevul]

27. But HES shaking his head in disgust...N/T

[Remmah2]

24. The mentality is that of self-preservation, civil rights and liberty.

Ignorance should be banned, not firearms for honest citizens.

[PavePusher]

25. Insinuate, or be specific. Your choice.....

One gets you a seat at the adult table. The other.... meh.

[iverglas]

30. "Insinuate, or be specific. Your choice....."

One gets you a seat at the adult table. The other....

... gets you a warm welcome in the Guns forum.

Not necessarily in that order.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. Wrong. The NRA supports keeping firearms out of the hands of felons.

n/t

[SteveM]

35. Any sources? Links? There are laws against felons having guns.

...You knew this but only wanted to keep pumping out a lie; y'know, the ends justify both the means and your endless universe of pseudo-compassion.

[Hangingon]

3. If you are prohibited from having arms and you shoot

someone, you should pay the price. Aside from that, I see no purpose for this post.

[iverglas]

20. oh do please tell

If you are prohibited from having arms and you shoot
someone, you should pay the price.

What is the price of a human life these days?

Whatever it is, I'm sure it's fair compensation.

I'm especially sure that it's eminently fair to the person who is dead.

[Hangingon]

22. In the US. sentences for crimes are established by law.

[iverglas]

29. do you read what you write?

This is what you wrote:

If you are prohibited from having arms and you shoot
someone, you should pay the price.

Serving a sentence is not "paying the price" of shooting someone. This is not a bargain struck between state and offender. As you say, it is a sentence established by law, in the exercise of the state's legitimate powers.

Your phrasing was telling. Shoot somebody, pay the price, nothing to see here, move along.

Some of us would rather see an unshot person than another person "paying the price" for the shooting of a person.

If you are prohibited from acquiring and possessing firearms, there should be measures in place that will actually interfere with your ability to do so.

I mean, come on. Criminals don't obey laws, right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. I await Canada's imposition of speed governors on all motor vehicles.

120 Kph should be sufficient for all non-police and emergency vehicles. While we're at it, require in-dash breathalyzers and

seat belt interlocks as well. All of these are currently available.


I await the news that you or your SO/one of your friends/family members have installed these things on their personal

vehicles.


Don't bother thanking me- I'm just as concerned about Canadian traffic fatalities as you are USAian gun deaths.

After all, are not more Canadians killed by motor vehicles than firearms?

Priorities, people...

[iverglas]

34. interesting you should mention

Where you are, have you ever noticed things in residential neighbourhoods like speed bumps, road/intersection narrowings, curbside landscaping, parking that varies from one side of the street to the other in a block, planters in the middle of intersections ... ?

We have them all in my neighbourhood. Except speed bumps -- snowplows don't deal well with them. We have speed humps instead. You can go over them faster, but too fast and you tend to get a bit airborne and your underside might not be happy. This lesson is learned quickly, and there are signs pointing to the speed humps.

Why do we have them? Because on straight long residential streets, quite a few drivers don't obey speed limits. Even the speed limit itself is way too fast for a street like mine: extremely narrow, houses very close to the sidewalk, no grassy area between sidewalk and curb, near a school and a busy convenience store, lots of kids and other pedestrians. So all these things are put in place not just to deter speeding, but to prevent it. And they are all arranged so as not to interfere with emergency vehicle access and the like.

Now, "speed regulators" would have foreseeable negative consequences that could be serious. Unlike licensing of firearms owners and registration of firearms transfers, eh?

Seeing the big picture here?

Dashboard breathalyzers are in use for drivers convicted of drunk driving where I am.

http://www.madd.ca/english/news/stories/n030518.htm
(never mind the source; it was handy, and this isn't the US anyway)

... Before some convicted drunk drivers can start their vehicles, they must hum. The drivers are in a new Ontario Ignition Interlock program that allows them to regain their driving privilege a year after completing an alcohol-related licence suspension. A device tied to their ignition system ensures they must be cold sober to drive.

Humming is crucial. "It's one of the ways we ensure that people can't cheat the tests," says Ian Marples, whose Guardian Interlock Systems provides the ignition-locking breathalyzers used since December in the program.

"Humming helps the machine ensure that there's a human being on the other end doing the blowing," says Marples. The devices, attached below the driver's side dash of a vehicle, are being hailed as one of the most promising new measures to combat impaired driving.

... While impaired driving accidents have dropped by 44 per cent in Ontario over the past two decades, drunk driving continues to be the leading criminal cause of death in Canada.

Equipping all cars would be a wonderful idea, and I do foresee it happening. Drunk drivers are in fact notoriously impervious to deterrence (large numbers of them being addicts), but look what laws, enforcement, massive public information and education campaigns and the suggestion/provision of alternatives (designated drivers, New Years's eve cab rides) have done to reduce the more casual drunk driving incidents.

There we might have a good analogy for the predictable effect, on otherwise law-abiding people, of safe/secure storage regulations and laws requiring firearms transfers to be registered. With information and encouragement, and the facility to obey the law (an easily used registration system, so they can avoid inadvertent transfers to ineligible persons, e.g.), law-abiding people are likely to obey the law. Just as the behaviour of the otherwise law-abiding casual drunk driver can altered.


Don't bother thanking me- I'm just as concerned about Canadian traffic fatalities as you are USAian gun deaths.

Oh, but I must thank you. I am very grateful when someone provides such an excellent opportunity to lay out such a comprehensive explanation of how these things work.

Do Canadian traffic laws affect anyone in the USofA? If you never cross the border, they have nothing to do with you. We, on the other hand, can stay home all our lives and still have our lives destroyed when a firearm purchased in the US enters the picture.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Interesting reply. I would respond thusly:

1. I am familiar with speed humps, as my work has them on the approach roads. I just wish they would 'cant' or angle the approaches

to the nearest traffic circle to keep the Masshole-normal drivers from flying through it at full speed. For some reason, the larger

traffic circles have fewer accidents than the smaller ones.


2. Speed regulators are far more sophisticated than they used to be- nowadays, the ECU simply won't allow the vehicle to accelerate

past a certain speed, and they work normally up to that preset speed. Most over-the-road buses have them, and the van I occasionally

drive at work has one.


3. You'll note I suggested that you purchase an in-dash breathalyzer for a friend or relative (or number-entry lock; the driver must

enter via a keypad within a certain number of seconds a longish random number displayed on the device or the vehicle will not

start).


Practice what you preach- that would set an example, remove the ability to commit the crime of driving drunk, and would also

demonstrate that you're genuinely concerned about a problem that kills more Canadians than guns do and not merely conducting some

crusade against gun ownership.



As for restricting gun ownership in the States in order to cut down on smuggled guns ending up in Canada:

That will not happen in the forseeable future (if, indeed, it ever was going to happen), thanks in no small part to that

carnival of criminal stupidity, ass covering, and mendacity known as Operation Fast And Furious.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Just a technicality.

it added a touch of realism.



I see some victims becoming very wealthy here.

[gejohnston]

9. realism is sometimes over rated

As they should, just as the shooter will be doing a mandatory min. of five years

[Euromutt]

21. How wealthy could they get?

I mean, who are they going to sue who has sufficiently deep pockets that they'll make any money off it? Doering himself? The re-enactment society? The Hill City Chamber of Commerce?

There's a phrase in Dutch civil law, "one cannot pluck feathers off a bald chicken."

[ileus]

11. wonder if he's in one of those areas where you can't ask about personal history?

[Remmah2]

23. Only the federal government should provide firearms to felons. nt

nt

[rl6214]

32. Unrec for drive-by news reporting.

Something the OP has spoken out against in the past.

[SteveM]

37. See? A gun law supported by the NRA properly enforced. Thanks. nt

[krispos42]

40. Good.

He's a dangerous idiot. If we can get Dubya in the same cell with him, for the same reason, I'd be very happy indeed.