Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Oliver King and Amir Zarandi

The indictment has come down on Oliver King, whom we've looked at before.

King and Zarandi were charged with unlawful dealing of firearms and conspiring to do the same in the indictment filed late Thursday. King has also been charged with unlawful gun possession and making false statements to a government agency.

Zarandi is expected in court Thursday, when he will be arraigned on the new charges. Unlike King, he has not been jailed in the case.


Isn't that charge of making false statements to a government agency what Lakeisha Gadson went to jail for. The only difference is it was her worst offense, for Mr. King it's the least of his crimes.

What do you think? Are King and Zarandi just persecuted and misunderstood gun dealers? Are they guilty of nothing more than violating immoral laws pertaining to guns? Are they modern-day Zorros or Robin Hoods?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

10 comments:

  1. Another example of the ATF enforcing those “unenforceable gun laws”. Their ability to enforce the unenforceable is mind blowing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Are they guilty of nothing more than violating immoral laws pertaining to guns?"

    Yes. They are criminals as defined by law. They are not guilty of a true crime as defined by morality. This is the equivalent of speeding or fishing without a license.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FWM, Doesn't it matter what exactly they do with the guns?

    Or, are you reading into the story now? That's OK around here, I'm just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mikeb:

    What do you think? Are King and Zarandi just persecuted and misunderstood gun dealers? Are they guilty of nothing more than violating immoral laws pertaining to guns? Are they modern-day Zorros or Robin Hoods?

    I don't know. I haven't seen the evidence, haven't heard any witnesses, or the arguments made by the prosecution and defense. The only information I have comes from sketchy news accounts.

    Oh, how silly of me to forget--around here, such limitations are not to be considered an obstacle in determining guilt or innocence.

    It will surprise no one, I would hope, that if all they did was break gun laws, I have no quarrel with their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "if all they did was break gun laws, I have no quarrel with their actions."

    Which gun laws are you talking about? The ones that say you shouldn't buy a bunch of guns and turn around and sell them to terrorists or mentally ill folks. How about selling guns to gangs, are you OK with that too?

    "if all they did," is that what you said. How about if they sell their product to all the prohibited domestic abusers who can't otherwise protect themselves properly? Is that OK?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mikeb:

    Which gun laws are you talking about?

    Any gun laws. All gun laws are evil, unconstitutional, and utterly without any merit whatsoever, and any violation of them is--at worst--morally neutral.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zorro, I'm afraid you weren't clear. I say again:

    "The ones that say you shouldn't buy a bunch of guns and turn around and sell them to terrorists or mentally ill folks. How about selling guns to gangs, are you OK with that too?"

    Let me add another one or two since you're about to either take a step backwards or show how fanatical you really are.

    What about the law in some states that says you can't let a 2-year-old play with a loaded handgun? Or the one that says you cannot shoot your guns in a residential neighborhood in a reckless and dangerous manner?

    Please tell us you want to take back that ridiculous macho statement you just made.

    "Any gun laws. All gun laws are evil, unconstitutional, and utterly without any merit whatsoever, and any violation of them is--at worst--morally neutral."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    "The ones that say you shouldn't buy a bunch of guns and turn around and sell them to terrorists or mentally ill folks. How about selling guns to gangs, are you OK with that too?"

    I'm running out of ways to say this, and I hate repeating myself, but yes--I think that all gun laws, including "[t]he ones that say you shouldn't buy a bunch of guns and turn around and sell them to terrorists or mentally ill folks," are illegitimate infringements on that which shall not be infringed. Same goes, of course, for selling guns to gang members.

    As for your 2-year-old and "shooting up the neighborhood" examples, you don't need separate "gun laws" to outlaw such behavior. Reckless Child Endangerment (or whatever the actual legal term) is, and probably should be a crime, whether it's letting a 2-year-old play with a loaded gun, or letting him bathe unsupervised with an electric space heater perched on the edge of the tub. You need neither"gun laws," or "bathtub laws" to proscribe such behavior.

    Likewise shooting up the neighborhood recklessly--I don't have a problem with hefty legal consequences for causing a rain of potentially deadly projectiles in the neighborhood--I would want someone punished for playing a game of car bowling on a public street, and I don't think we need any new "bowling laws," or even aviation laws, to prohibit it.

    Finally, sorry--no--I have no intention of taking back my statement about all gun laws, and furthermore have no idea of what is supposedly "macho" about that position.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Clearer than that I could not ask for. I shall not ask you to repeat yourself again.

    Thanks for "car bowling." You are a treasure trove.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for "car bowling." You are a treasure trove.

    If The Man ever does decide to come and disarm me, they'd be smart to bring Dave Barry along--that guy cracks me up so hard that I would be utterly incapable of fighting back.

    ReplyDelete