But, what happens to the other two hundred guns he owns? Wouldn't he be a disqualified person now?No jail. But no round-the-clock freedom, either, for Gilbert Arenas.
The judge found a halfway point — literally — between prison and probation Friday when he sentenced the three-time NBA All-Star to 30 days in a halfway house for bringing guns into the Washington Wizards locker room.
Arenas remained expressionless as District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Robert E. Morin described a litany of conditions associated with the sentence — two years of probation, a $5,000 fine, 400 hours of community service that can't be done at basketball clinics — then turned to his lawyer for an explanation of what it all meant. After several minutes discussing logistics, Arenas eventually cracked a smile while talking to a court official.
Arenas made no comment leaving the courthouse, but his lawyer Ken Wainstein released a statement signaling his client considered the outcome a victory.
"The result was a sentence that serves justice very well," the statement said. "Mr. Arenas is grateful to the court, and looks forward to serving the community and once again being a force for good in the District of Columbia."
The halfway house was an unexpected resolution to weeks of suspense as to whether Arenas would be sent to jail. Prosecutors wanted him locked up for three months for the felony gun possession charge.
Do you think it's a fair sentence? Arenas himself seems to have thought so, but that could be because there was a serious possibility of doing time in jail. Do you think that's fair?
This story again brings up the concern that too many gun owners care nothing for the 4 Rules of gun safety. Doesn't that create a problem with trying to accommodate the folks who feel gun ownership is for everybody?
Please leave a comment.
MikeB: “But, what happens to the other two hundred guns he owns? Wouldn't he be a disqualified person now?”
ReplyDeleteYes, he is a convicted felon and permanently barred from firearm ownership. And there’s something about “registering as a gun offender”??? Must be another DC thing.
MikeB: “Do you think it's a fair sentence? Arenas himself seems to have thought so, but that could be because there was a serious possibility of doing time in jail. Do you think that's fair?”
No, I don’t. I don’t have an issue with the NBA suspending him, voiding his contract, or even banning him (they are a private business and they can have those policies if they want). But I have always had a problem with Gil’s legal troubles. As irresponsible as he was, his only charge was possessing a gun. He would be in the exact same trouble if he brought his gun in to show Jarvis how cool his Desert Eagle looks in tiger stripe gold. Including NY and Chicago, DC is the only other locale that can do this. So in the end they get to bar him from gun ownership for… that’s right, owning a gun.
MikeB: “This story again brings up the concern that too many gun owners care nothing for the 4 Rules of gun safety.”
Actually he didn’t break any of the four rules. He didn’t have it loaded (there was no ammo in the vicinity. Not sure if he handled it as if it were loaded though), he didn’t put his finger on the trigger, and he never pointed it at someone. He didn’t point it at anything- so there was nothing in front or behind of his target to be aware of. Yes, he was being irresponsible. Yes, the NBA should punish him (not the law). But no one was going to get hurt here, unless he was planning on pistol whipping Crittenton.
-TS
TS, Thanks for your comment. You know, when this story was in its headline-grabbing peak I treated it like the Tiger Woods story - I avoided it. Something about the over-emphasis of it bothered me. So, thanks for pointing out those details.
ReplyDeleteBut, why are you saying it was irresponsible then? Why not defend him all the way if he didn't break any of the 4 Rules?
Look at it from my point of view. We desperately need to cut the number of guns in America. Where do we start? Certainly not with guys like you and the other commenters who passionately follow the rules. We start with guys like this who bring attention to themselves with flaunting and stupid stunts. We start with the guys who commit "accidents" with guns. And of course we start with the real criminals whereever possible.
"Actually he didn’t break any of the four rules. He didn’t have it loaded (there was no ammo in the vicinity. Not sure if he handled it as if it were loaded though), he didn’t put his finger on the trigger, and he never pointed it at someone. He didn’t point it at anything- so there was nothing in front or behind of his target to be aware of."
ReplyDeleteWTF?
This:
"The two players had been arguing during a card game on the Wizards' flight back from Phoenix Dec. 19, and the dispute spilled into the team locker room at Verizon Center before practice two days later. Arenas has acknowledged bringing his handguns to the arena and displaying them in the locker room that morning in what he maintained was a playful gesture aimed at his teammate.
According to two first-hand accounts of the confrontation, Crittenton responded to Arenas's action -- which included laying the four unloaded weapons in Crittenton's cubicle with a note that read, "Pick One" -- by brandishing his own firearm, loading the gun and chambering a round."
and this:
"Mark Bartlestein, Crittenton's agent, declined to comment. Crittenton, in a series of text messages responding to a request for comment, said the account provided by the witnesses was "false."
"I have done nothing wrong. Let the investigation process take its course and you will see that," he said. "My name is dying in this situation.""
from here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010605167.html
indicate that Arenas thought the gunz were playthings or, perhaps, visual aids. Irresponsible behavior at the very least.
MikeB: “But, why are you saying it was irresponsible then? Why not defend him all the way if he didn't break any of the 4 Rules?”
ReplyDeleteBecause responsibility extends beyond the four rules. They are called the “4 rules of safety”, not the “4 rules of responsibility”.
MikeB: “Look at it from my point of view. We desperately need to cut the number of guns in America. Where do we start?”
True, from your point of view if you want to desperately reduce gun ownership you would want a “Responsibility Police” who go around confiscating guns anytime they hear of someone doing something stupid. Any chance that power gets abused? I draw the line at people committing felonious violent acts of crime.
Democommie: “indicate that Arenas thought the gunz were playthings or, perhaps, visual aids. Irresponsible behavior at the very least.”
It would seem to me that you didn’t read my post, considering I used the word “irresponsible” twice to describe Arenas, and nothing in your posted refuted what I said of the incident (the report of chambering a round refers to Crittenton). In fact, I am beginning to suspect you never even read Lott’s book since you haven’t detailed for us why you think he is a hack.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/03/judge-napolitano-ilya-shapiro-john-lott.html
-TS
Ok, I should not have used the phrase “no ammo in the vicinity” if Crittenton indeed brought ammo (he has denied this). My point was Arenas guns were unloaded, and he did not even bring ammunition.
ReplyDelete-TS
TS:
ReplyDeleteI've read enough of Lott to know that he's a terrible source if you want honest arguments to buttress your assertions. Of course if you're only interested in being right, that sort of thing is not a problem for you.
I read your previous comment. It doesn't indicate why you think he was irresponsible? Is it because he was doing something incredibly stupid or because he got caught doing something incredibly stupid?
You wrote:
" Yes, the NBA should punish him (not the law). But no one was going to get hurt here, unless he was planning on pistol whipping Crittenton".
And the law shouldn't punish him? Why would that be? He did in fact break a law, yes?
"Of course if you're only interested in being right, that sort of thing is not a problem for you."
ReplyDeleteYes, we know we are right and that is what we really care about. How does it feel to be wrong and on the losing side of the argument all of the time?
Democommie: “Of course if you're only interested in being right, that sort of thing is not a problem for you.”
ReplyDeleteAs I have made quite clear before, I personally haven’t taken the stance that more guns=less crime. Quite frankly, I don’t feel that argument is needed to justify gun ownership. Where CCW has a positive affect is not on society as a whole, but for the individual carrying (should carry percentages continue to rise, the benefit could be extended to society). The firm stance I do have is that the gun controller’s theory (that more guns could only mean more bloodshed) is profoundly untrue. Imagine Lott even trying to bend statistics to fit a pro-gun agenda if crime had been going up all this time. Let me ask you this, when Lott says he started his research with a gun control agenda, but switched sides under overwhelming evidence, do you think he is lying and was paid by the NRA the whole time?
Democommie: “I read your previous comment. It doesn't indicate why you think he was irresponsible? Is it because he was doing something incredibly stupid or because he got caught doing something incredibly stupid?”
He used guns as a prop in an argument, and that is irresponsible in my book.
Democommie: “And the law shouldn't punish him? Why would that be? He did in fact break a law, yes?”
He broke a draconian DC law that should not exist under our constitution. Keep in mind, he was not charged with “using a gun as a prop in an argument”. He was not charged with acting irresponsible. He was charged with owning guns, period.
-TS
"He broke a draconian DC law that should not exist under our constitution. Keep in mind, he was not charged with “using a gun as a prop in an argument”. He was not charged with acting irresponsible. He was charged with owning guns, period."
ReplyDeleteDraconian or not, the law is on the books.
As for the facts of the case; it appears that more information is forthcoming.
He was only charged with possession. Well, that sort of thing will happen with celebriperps. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that if he had done the same exact thing in a local gym--and was not a pro athlete--he'd probably be in the slammer for some period of time.
FatWhiteMan:
I did not say that you were right. I said if you were only interested in being right--Lott's a sloppy and dishonest "researcher". Most researchers who can't provide the "work" that their conclusions are based on are laughed out of the business. Lott has nothing to worry about since he has the support of the NRA and its lockstep adherents.
Democommie: “Draconian or not, the law is on the books.”
ReplyDeleteAnd hopefully these types of laws go down under Heller someday.
Democommie: “I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that if he had done the same exact thing in a local gym--and was not a pro athlete--he'd probably be in the slammer for some period of time.”
Actually I am going to guess that he would have never been busted in the first place had he not been a celebrity (especially if it were only at a local gym and not a place of employment). Certainly the media jumps all over celebrity wrongdoings more so than commoners, and the police investigation is much more thorough as well. It is the ability to throw money at a team of lawyers and the judge’s sentencing where celebs have it easier. Just my 2 cents.
-TS
TS asked, "Let me ask you this, when Lott says he started his research with a gun control agenda, but switched sides under overwhelming evidence, do you think he is lying and was paid by the NRA the whole time?"
ReplyDeleteI thought that was Kleck. Does this changing-sides-as-a-way-of-increasing-one's-credibility apply to both?
When is John Lott lying? Probably only when he's speaking or writing.
ReplyDeleteTS said:
"Actually I am going to guess that he would have never been busted in the first place had he not been a celebrity (especially if it were only at a local gym and not a place of employment). Certainly the media jumps all over celebrity wrongdoings more so than commoners, and the police investigation is much more thorough as well. It is the ability to throw money at a team of lawyers and the judge’s sentencing where celebs have it easier. Just my 2 cents."
I think you're wrong about that. He wasn't popped because he's a celebriperp; he was popped because somebody called the cops and it was then public. The fact that he wasn't charged with criminal menacing or anything of that sort says that they did not look at it the same way they would look at it if someone like me did it under similar circumstances. Is your comment on this some sort of justification for the activity?
Whether the law is draconian is immaterial. A violation is a violation. We all break laws, every day, often without being aware we're doing so. When we get caught the "It's a draconian law" defense won't serve us very well in a court of law.
Democommie: “The fact that he wasn't charged with criminal menacing or anything of that sort says that they did not look at it the same way they would look at it if someone like me did it under similar circumstances”
ReplyDeleteNo, it’s because they didn’t have anything to substantiate such a charge (remember; wasn’t loaded, didn’t point it, didn’t threaten anyone). All they had on him was having a gun in The District- something that in 99% of the rest of the country is not a crime at all. And no, I don’t think there would be the same police manpower and prosecution budget for Democommie. We know you wouldn’t get the media attention. Now it could be that someone in the Washington Bullets organization called the police before the media broke the story, but it sure seems like it was all over the news before the charges went down.
Democommie: “Is your comment on this some sort of justification for the activity?”
How many times do I have it say it was irresponsible?
Democommie: “Whether the law is draconian is immaterial. A violation is a violation.”
One more time, I have never argued that he didn’t break the law, just that the law is a violation of rights (particularly that they make it a felony). I would like to see this challenged under Heller someday.
-TS
MikeB: "I thought that was Kleck. Does this changing-sides-as-a-way-of-increasing-one's-credibility apply to both?"
ReplyDeleteBoth said they were anti-gun when they started their research.
-TS