Deseret News reports on the continuing drama of Eric Charlton's plea bargaining.
Two misdemeanors means he keeps the guns or not?Eric Charlton had pleaded guilty to negligent homicide, a class A misdemeanor, and carrying a weapon while under the influence of alcohol, a class B misdemeanor, and faced up to a year and a half in jail.
"Please let me take my son home, and let us pick up the pieces and try to rebuild a family that is hurting and has been destroyed," Osiek said. "Nothing will ever bring Cam back, no matter what is imposed on Eric."
Eric Charlton walked out of court a free man for the time being Thursday after the judge sentenced him to a suspended sentence of one year in jail for the negligent homicide charge.
The judge sentenced Charlton to six months in jail for the class B misdemeanor charge, though a review hearing will be held Jan. 15 to determine whether Charlton will actually go to jail or whether he can come up with "an alternative to satisfy deterrence other than jail."
faced up to a year and a half in jail.
ReplyDeleteYou become a prohibited person if you are convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
Why is it, mikeb, that you push for gun laws but don't know the laws that we already have? You're just like the politicians that want to ban rifles, but doesn't know the first thing about firearms. Like the gun hating politicians that want to ban features on a rifle. What the hell difference does it make if a rifle has a bayonet lug or not? What the hell is wrong with a barrel shroud? and no, that's not the little thingie that goes up.
The primary goal is to restrict the features that actually contribute to the inherent lethality of a firearm, such as a larger capacity detachable magazine or (already restricted) genuine machineguns. Although the main goal is to simply reduce the damage that a single armed civilian may cause, the opportunity presents itself to extend the prohibition to encompass the most amount of firearms that is politically feasible. Therefore instead of merely banning magazines it is possible under certain political conditions to extend a prohibition to include other features which are not inherently dangerous such as collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, and pistol and thumb-hole grips in order for the ban to affect the maximum amount of firearms possible.
DeleteA better alternative is to ban, not simply features, but all weapons which fire semiautomatically, due to the fact that most Americans know nothing about firearms, and therefore don't have a clue what "semiautomatic" means (they are usually under the impression that such devices are a form of machinegun) the prohibition could be extended to weapons such as this:
http://www.tfsa.co.uk/norinco%20takedown.JPG
Such a ban on semiautomatics would also serve to prohibit most pistols in the U.S. as gun-nut favorites such as the M1911, Glocks, and Berettas, would be banned along with about 70-80 percent of all handguns. Revolvers would remain, although such could conceivably be prohibited if they are double action (and therefore will fire without being cocked until the cylinder is emptied) and such would make most handgun ownership illegal within the United States.
The next step would be to apply similar restrictions to pump action weapons such as the Remington 870, the most popular "civilian weapon" in the world. More Americans have this gun than any other firearm. It would yield a massive impact on the semi-illicit civilian arms market if such was prohibited as an "Assault Weapon".
Bill, I'm well aware of that law, I just have doubts that it's enforced. Do you know first hand that it is, in every state?
DeleteOh, yeah, because the judicial system is complicit in circumventing federal law. I forgot about that loophole.
DeleteBill, people are legally smoking pot in Colorado right now in spite of federal law. Yet, in this case you insist that the federal law is practiced. I don't buy it.
DeleteMikeb, you refuse to recognize the gun laws that we already have.
DeleteMikeb, you have an obsession with this man. We've answered your question before, but you won't listen.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the standards which you advocate, he is a "law abiding citizen", as (according to the information) he is not permanently prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law. Depending on where he is, the State law may be different.
DeleteHow so? He got drunk and killed someone. I'd have put his arse in prison for a long stretch.
DeleteYou're harsher than I am, then Greg. I don't see the good of putting him in prison. I just question why it is never mentioned that his guns have been removed and that he no longer can ever own any. If that's such a widely understood part of the conviction, why is it never mentioned?
DeleteMikeb, he's a murderer. I hold him responsible, not the gun. But here's a clue--not everyone is as obsessed with guns and taking guns away as you are, so reporters don't go into that. A lot of things get left out in the interest of brevity.
Delete