I keep guns cuz theres a whole crapload of people in America who DONT subscribe to your logic.
Many guys are perfectly happy committing crimes and getting away without a trace.
Don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.
You have an incorrect understand of strict liability laws, friend.
They work specifically because of mens rea.
Guy goes in and robs a bank. Guard shoots at the robber and hits the teller instead. Robber is guilty of felony murder, derived from his mens rea over the robbery. He clearly didn't intend murder.
The key to understanding is the word "strict." That's why you don't look at intent. And felony murder laws are something else. Compare, say, joyriding statutes to this gun crap. derp
Three years doesn't really sound like a long time. If you are going to carry a gun then you should face consequences if you break the law with it and the consequences should be more severe.
How long should people go in for pot possession for?
Far far less than walking into a school with a weapon.
And why is that? The gun owner has hurt far fewer people (namely 0).
Let's just be honest: you all want to make an example out of him to discourage gun ownership. This guy did everything right to correct the situation and was honest and forthright when confronted about the situation.
How many people has a person who is carrying some pot hurt?
There should be a policy of zero tolerance for people who walk into schools with weapons. And he wasn't honest and forthright - he lied and said it was a switchblade which is very suspicious. This person doesn't have the brains to own a gun and should be thrown away for a long time.
Comparing joy riding to carrying a firearm. Mega derp.
There should also be a zero tolerance policy for people who use or distribute illegal narcotics. Obvious you have your own little pet peeves though, which is cute.
No one is saying he should get off scott free, if you review the thread you'll see several of us agreed that there should be an esclataing penalty related to his CCW permit. It is ridiculous to punish this man to a greater degree than many other offenders.
Link I read last said he told the security officer switchblade and the police gun. I'll grant you though, not as forthright as I recalled.
And why is that? The gun owner has hurt far fewer people (namely 0).
Let's just be honest: you all want to make an example out of him to discourage gun ownership. This guy did everything right to correct the situation and was honest and forthright when confronted about the situation.
There should also be a zero tolerance policy for people who use or distribute illegal narcotics.
Our Federal gov't decided to classify Marijuana (pot) as a narcotic.
Missing the point. You were/are wrong. If someone dies during the commission of a crime deemed sort of inherently dangerous, such as robbery, then there's sometimes a murder charge, even if the dead person wasn't killed intentionally, or even directly by the perp. This isn't the same as something like this:
(2) Possession of firearm in school zone.
(a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is in or on the grounds of a school is guilty of a Class I felony. Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school is subject to a Class B forfeiture.
Looks like the relevant section. Does seem to require him to have known he had it, which he demonstrated by saying, hey i have a gun in my car? Though even if he didn't know and was told, at that point he would know, and then it would be a felony. lol?
Felony murder still needs the culpability for the underlying crime. Here the weapon possession is the crime. Get it? So it looks like there's automatic liability here once he admits to knowing he had it, or once he knows he has it, on school grounds, even if he didn't know he was in a school beforehand, since he probably had reasonable cause to believe that he was on school grounds.
He even lied about his bringing a gun into a school full of children. He is obviously dumb and untrustworthy. A joint cannot kill a child, but a gun obviously can. He should receive a very strict sentence and should also never be allowed to own a gun again.
You seem like some politically correct ninny. Society has bent over backwards for this man just so he can practice his obscure cultural beliefs involving guns. And then he breaks the boundaries and rules society set for him by bringing the gun into a school.
It's time to stop the PC nonsense.
No, it didn't. Stop being an Obamabot.
I already linked the relevant statute, in a car is legal in his state.
Bolded should make clear why this charge is inappropriate.
Go look it up. MJ is not a narcotic.
Obamabot, thanks for dismissing my post easily and exposing what kind of person you really are.
I did not vote for Obama either time for a number of reasons. Not to mention he supports the zero tolerance that you yourself promote.
Still, the point of strict liability offenses is that they don't require intent, and you seemed to be saying that they do, which doesn't make sense.
But anyway, on whether it was appropriate or not, he was witnessed trying to take the gun through a scanner and then putting it under his seat, which would mean it wouldn't be "encased or locked in a firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle."
On the bolded part, we all know he had a gun, so how could it be the case that he didn't know? lol. Even if he's christian, he would know. sheeeesh
You should really read my link. Locked in a car is legal in Wisconsin in a school zone. And he didn't go through the scanner.
According to the criminal complaint against Guyton, the woman told police she observed Guyton, a parent, enter the school, sign into the MPS log book and walk toward the scanner. The safety assistant told police the man then grabbed at his right side waistband area, turn quickly to his right, and run out of the school.
The complaint says the safety officer told police she observed Guyton place an object under the front passenger seat.
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
So you tell me no, the Federal govenment hasn't classified it as a narcotic, then you link me to the DEA site where it's classified as a narcotic....even though chemically it's not a narcotic?
Wow....thanks for the insight. It's a Hallucinogenic, just in case you want the truth.
It's classified as a "controlled substance." I think they reserve "narcotic" in their legal writings/notices for the exact technical definition of relating to opioid derivatives (iirc). Few people, if any, actually use the word narcotic in the exact technical manner since it has basically just become a catchphrase for any illegal drug.
I just searched for it. Wikipedia had the word originations