A story about what gun control laws can do, one life ruined

This is a story about what a gun control law can lead to.

It's a story about a man who never really did anything that wrong, but once he entered the system, other additional laws ended up applying to him, and things sort of ended up spiraling out of control.

Man never should have been arrested, sentenced to 105 years for repeated escape attempts

This man would have never gotten into all the trouble he got into if it was not for a gun control law. There was a series of links in the chain, and that law was one of the links.

It began when he was sentenced to a year in prison for something he arguably should not have been arrested for at all.
His dad had some tools and he used to work on mechanic projects with his dad. When he got a little bit older his dad let him borrow the tools at any time. But then his dad died, and his stepmother did not like him. When he went to take the tools, the stepmother called the police. She had no use for the tools, and no doubt the dad would have desired to leave the tools to his son, but she called the police anyway and claimed it was "theft". He was only 19 years old, and when police came for him he was afraid and ran away, carrying a gun with him. (He never even brandished the gun at the officers) But police caught him, and he was sentenced to a year in prison for the "theft", and as a result having a felony on his record.
Legally it could be seen as theft, since he had not inherited the tools yet, and it was taken from property that had automatically passed to his stepmother, but in every other way it was not stealing. The stepmother should have just let her stepson take the tools and not called the police.

But once a person has a felony on their criminal record, that then makes owning guns a crime, under the law. Not long afterwards, he was arrested again and sentenced to four years in prison for "firearms possession", something which also constituted a violation of the court-ordered probation restrictions he was under.

The conditions in prison were brutal.
After he suffered a horrific gang rape by 15 inmates which required surgery to repair the damage, he tried to escape from prison.
Over the years he made 13 escape attempts, and managed to escape from the prison 7 times. Because of this they kept adding time to his sentence, and finally the prison time added up to a cumulative total of 105 years. (Never had he actually harmed anyone during any of those escape attempts)

This situation would never have been able to get to this point if it had not been for that gun control law in the first place, which made it a crime to have guns even though this young man had not really done anything that wrong.

And this guy is still in prison even to this day. His life has been ruined.
In my very strong opinion, he did not deserve this.

Laws have consequences. I think we need to be very careful what laws we put into place, because they can sometimes have terrible consequences like what happened in this story.

Gun control laws put people into prison and ruin lives.

 

From what you are saying he got time for the theft. Did they charge him with having a gun?

And on a related side note at least in Florida if you are not on probation there are certain muzzleloaders that you are allowed to have as long as they were made on or before 1918 or are reproductions thereof.

 

If one can walk freely on the street, one should have the right to be armed. If one is too dangerous to be armed, one is too dangerous to walk freely on the street.

 

I haven't been in trouble in nearly 20 years and I still bear The Mark of Cain.

Well there was that unfortunate fishing without a license ticket about 8 years ago but it was a civil offense.

 

Working as intended.

 

There was no real theft.

His initial crime, the first time he was sent to prison, did not involve any gun charges.
Although it's easy to imagine he could likely have been treated differently by the law enforcement system because he tried to run away from while carrying a gun. That wasn't a crime, but just because something is not a crime doesn't mean it will not affect the punishment for another crime.
Had he not done that, it is possible the police might have been more willing to talk with him and possibly might not have arrested him, or the prosecutor might have offered him a better deal and he would not have had a felony conviction.
I mean, it was the type of situation where they could have chose not to arrest him or chose not to criminally charge him.

I wouldn't even go that far in my claim.
I'm just saying, this guy definitely did not deserve what happened to him. Based on the circumstances of the original "crime", they should not have later put him in prison for four years just for having guns.
There's not any real "point" to that, and it's really not fair.

When people hear the word "convicted felon", they automatically imagine persons who did really bad crimes, like armed robbery, murder, rape. But the reality is not all "convicted felons" committed crimes like that. There are a huge number of things that could be classified as "felonies" under the law, and many different individual situations, such as in this story.

 

Opinions do not matter when it comes to legal matters.

If the property legally transferred to the stepmother upon the father's death then it was legally her property. Therefore he legally had no right to it.

That's the bottom line here regardless of what we feel like was right or wrong.

 

Taking the tools is a theft. If the father had a valid, probated will which left the property to the son then fine. Otherwise his heir at law was likely his spouse.

He shouldn't have been divested of his right to keep and bear arms because of it, but he shouldn't have taken the tools either.

 

I'm told pellet guns dont apply. Theres some quite lethal pellet guns out there that are not firearms... like, legal to hunt deer with. Wise to hunt deer with... that I cant say. But capable, certainly.

(after a quick look) theres some ambiguity regarding felons and pneumatic non-firearm projectile weapons... generally I cant find any federal restrictions, varies by state, common in some and, shall we say frowned upon in others.

 

Theoretically. But the father almost certainly would have intended to leave the tools to his son after he died. The son had also gone into the cabin on his own and borrowed tools before, while his dad was still alive, and it was never a problem. I'm sure the stepmother had never touched the tools in her life.

Remember he was 19 years old. That's almost like a child. This was like an issue within a family. I think the stepmother was wrong to even call the police. The right thing would have been for her to just let the son of her recently deceased husband take the tools. The cabin where the tools were kept was not even the house where she lived in.

In some versions of the story I can find, it says that the father did specifically leave the tools to his son in his will, but seems to indicate that the legal process had not finished yet, it was still in the process of probate, so the tools were still not technically his. (I'm not entirely sure about that though)

I think you can see this was not like a "real" theft.

Probably the only reason they charged him at all is the mean stepmother wanted to press charges, and also they had a bad view of him because he had tried to flee, while carrying a gun, when police came.

 

Even if he should have been punished, it was still wrong to later put in him in prison for four years because he still owned guns.

And if that hadn't happened, he would not still be in prison today, more than 40 years later.

Seems like if someone makes one little mistake, all their freedoms are taken away, and then if they don't do what government says, they get held in prison for a very long time.

 

That's kind of the way it works. I never criminally Miss used a gun and have bot been in trouble in almost 20 years now. Aside from the certain muzzleloaders that I mentioned in an earlier post...... If I was caught with a gun guess where I would go?

 

Not theoretically, in actual fact. His intent is meaningless if he didn't take the proper legal steps to evidence that intent. We call that a will.
Done before while dad was alive with PERMISSION. That's the key there. When dad died? DAD WAS NO LONGER THE OWNER AND NO LONGER ABLE TO GIVE PERMISSION.

Its not like a child. He's a adult. It was not an issue within the family, he stole that's a valid criminal complaint. Likely she had already made clear he was not allowed to do so.
What she morally should've done and what legally was required are different things. Morality does not overrule legality. He fairly caught the theft charge.

If the process wasn't done, its a theft. If it was in contest and he took it: Its a theft.

Well let's see: Did he take something not then legally his? Yes? Ok then its a "real" theft.

Yes, running from the cops while armed when they're chasing you for theft does tend to lead to additional charges. Its why you beat the RAP not the RIDE.

 

Even if in your view he should be punished for that action, it still does not justify the later four year prison sentence for not getting rid of his guns.

If someone is going to be punished for gun possession, in my opinion it matters very much what exactly the situation was concerning the original crime.

This idea that "He broke the law, so too bad" is dumb, and morally wrong.

 

Why not? Does not a conviction result in being a prohibited persoen?

 

The whole point is that the law is very wrong, and in part responsible for this man's life being ruined.

I think lawmakers who originally passed this law were envisioning criminals like robbers when they came up with the concept of "prohibited person".

 

I agree this guy was unjustly convicted.

On the other item, once a person has paid the penalty for a crime, then that person should have all the rights restored. Including the right to vote and own a gun. With one exception for incorrigible criminals, they don't get their rights back, but as previously stated if they are too dangerous to own a gun then they are too dangerous to be walking the streets.

 

Well, it could depend on what the crime was.
All I'm saying is that gun rights shouldn't automatically be taken away. There needs to be, there should be, more specifics that get input into that decision.
The specific situation concerning this man's crime did not justify what the law says.

 

Opinions do not matter. The laws as they are written matter.
The only person whose opinion about the law matters is a supreme Court judge if he chooses to change or modify it.

 

I disagree. Cops have discretion and they used to use it, now they just arrest people and say “tell the judge, work it out in court”. Prosecutors have a ton of discretion but some have political ambitions and are mor concerned about having a high conviction rate than justice.

 

Under current law? Yes it would.

Under what SHOULD be the law, if we applied the Constitution? You're correct, he shouldn't have been divested of his right to keep and bear arms.

Sure is, but that's how it works or you can argue with the nice men with guns.

 

What you're saying is besides the point. I'm saying the law is wrong. You seem to be arguing that it's not because that's the way it should work under the law.
That is a circular argument.

Unless you admit that the law is wrong, both pragmatically, logically, morally/ethically, and being against the spirit of the Constitution.

 

I seem to have 1) outlined how the actual law works and why what he did was legally and morally theft; 2) outlined how I think it should work if we followed the documents themselves vis a vis gun rights; and 3) I've pointed out that morality has no effect in law.

Can you read? Serious question.

 

I'm sorry, you weren't the most clear. You agree that what was done to this man was not right, and things should be changed, right?

 

What was done in that his right to keep and bear arms was removed though he had been released from custody having served his time? Yes.
That it somehow wasn't theft when he 1) broke and entered in to a home he had no right or permission to enter, 2) stole items therein not legally his own at the time of the taking he knew for a fact he had no permission to take? No.