An Elgin woman along with her 14-year-old son were arrested on gun charges Friday after the mother fired a gun into the air in the Poplar Creek subdivision, police said today.
The boy was arrested after he allegedly brought out two rifles to his mother as she stood outside their home on the 1000 block of Peachtree Lane, according to a press release by the Elgin Police Department.
After police arrived, they were told that a woman had walked out of her home and confronted someone and then had fired a handgun into the air before returning to her home, police said.
Police said her 14-year-old son was charged after they became aware that the boy had brought two rifles out to his mother. After a searching the home, police confiscated three handguns and two rifles, officials said.
Mosley was charged with felony charges of aggavated unlawful use of a weapon, reckless discharge of a firearm and a misdemeanor charge of not having a valid firearm owner's identification card. Mosley's son was charged as a juvenile with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and not having a valid firearm owner's identification card.
Isn't failure to have a valid firearm owner's ID card the kind of thing Mike Vanderboegh and his buddy Kurt Hofmann recommend people do? I suppose the gun rights extremists will be coming to the defense of this woman now.
The problem I see is that people who live by the bad-laws-be-damned philosophy have a hard time distinguishing between the "bad laws" and those which should be respected.
What's your opinion? please leave a comment.
I thought that your definition of a hidden criminal was a legal gun owner who was a bad person.
ReplyDeleteThat wouldn't seem to apply in this case--without a FOID card in Illinois, those guns were illegal, so you've misnamed this post according to your own definitions bucko.
No, not at all. A hidden criminal can be the one who ignores some laws and hasn't yet been caught at it.
DeleteYou've always used that phrase, in the past, to denote someone who legally owned guns but hadn't been caught committing crimes that would disqualify them from ownership.
DeleteMaybe that would apply here if this were in any other state, but this is Illinois where you have gotten your way and they have licensing. Considering they have that, and this woman didn't have a license, there was no cloak of legality here.
If you're changing the definition, it's your prerogative to, but it's not your prerogative to pretend that the new definition was always the definition.
I'm getting good and fucking tired of your playing gotcha with me. It's become a real drag.
DeleteThe origins of the term "hidden criminal" can be found in this post.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2011/04/venn-diagram-of-gun-owners.html
Here's the key, pay attention to the phrase "not limited to."
A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.
1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.
To address your categories:
Delete1. That's being tricky, since you didn't specify whether you mean the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor, but regardless, until a person is convicted, the presumption has to be that the person is a good citizen.
2. So long as we're talking about cases of physical abuse that are verified by due process, I have no problem with putting the abusers away for much longer than we do now. Make abuse a felony.
3. Again, punishment before conviction isn't our way.
4. We've been over this ground many times. You have a vindictive attitude toward many things that don't warrant such a punishment.
5. Your prejudices are showing here.
Mike: May I point you to your own words in that re-iteration of your Venn Diagram post?
DeleteThe B item is LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS.
Again, these folks in Illinois were not lawful or law abiding gun owners--they had guns, but didn't have the required license for owning a gun. The guns were, therefore, illegally owned, putting in the A portion of your diagram that was Not in union with the B set.
Nice try, bringing in a Venn diagram to try and overwhelm me with your intellectual chops, but you failed. Your own definitions on your diagram show that these people are not "hiddn criminals" or "the in between guys."
So sorry. Please try again...
Will you please stop trying to tell me how I see things. The category called criminal gun owners is reserved for the true criminals who are already disqualified from owning guns. Lawful gun owners are the completely lawful ones. All the rest are in the middle category which I call hidden criminals.
DeleteNow, please drop it. You're becoming insufferable tedious.
Well, apparently you don't understand Venn Diagrams then. The intersection of the two circles you drew would mean that the people in AUB are members of BOTH SETS. You seemed to understand this when writing the post with the Diagram.
DeleteNow, you don't seem to, because you just now defined fields A and B in such a way that the could not intersect--there would be no AUB.
Your previous definitions worked better and made logical sense. However, under the previous definitions, these people would have been members of set A, and not of set
B. Therefore, They could not have been members of AUB, and therefore could not fall under your previous post's definition of hidden criminals. Either you have to change the definition, or you mislabeled these folks.
Q.E.D.
Gun control depends on absurdity, such as the notion that people who are too dangerous to make choices for themselves, but are responsible enough to comply with the law.
DeleteMike, a suggestion, if you will. One of the risks of providing definitions and diagrams is that they open you up to challenges. That's the nature of debate. In this case, it is the nature of Venn diagrams that's causing the issue you find so tedious, not Tennessean. By definition, the area covered by the intersection of A and B includes those who are members of both sets. So, here's a simple answer that avoids the acrimony. Either change the definitions or do away with the diagram and then say what you've done and how it reflects your current position/belief. Will that lead to further debate? Most likely, but that's only a negative if your goal is something other than lively debate.
DeleteYou may be right that the Venn diagram I posted is a poor tool to communicate my ideas. But, T., accused me of changing my definition of hidden criminal. That's not true. I've been perfectly consistent in my use of that term, I invented it fer feck's sake.
DeleteThe Venn diagram was part of your definition--a definition which implied that hidden criminals had purchased their guns lawfully when used in the past--something that cannot be said of these two.
DeleteBut I see that this argument is fruitless. You have taken on the persona of Humpty Dumpty, and whenever you say Hidden Criminal means exactly what you say it means at that time, neither more nor less.
I shall just go and light a hookah and consign myself to the role of the terse, sometimes rude caterpillar.
Did you guys notice this flavor of "hidden criminal":
DeleteIf you choose to use inventive ways to circumvent [an immoral law], then you are a sneaky hidden criminal.
Remember, we're talking about people who are openly (on CBS News, no less) engaging in the behavior Mikeb finds objectionable. Remember also that this behavior is completely legal under California law (the jurisdiction in which the behavior is taking place), as even rabidly anti-gun California AG (and Obama heartthrob) Kamala Harris acknowledges.
In other words, engaging in behavior that is neither hidden nor criminal can get one branded as a "hidden criminal" in Mikeb's world. It's as if he's inventing his own language, and pretending it's English.
Kurt, your obsession is really getting out of control. Are you off your meds, man? How much time do you spend looking for old quotes of mine that you can twist into some flimsy type of gotcha?
DeleteI did invent the term "hidden criminal," and it covers many different types.
My first thought when I read this was how could this woman possibly be in trouble? After all, didnt she do exactly what the Vice President recommended if you're afraid someone means you harm?
ReplyDeleteThough when I actually went to read the whole article, I discovered that this was some sort of family dispute. This would have made your post much clearer initially. Warning shots are pretty much always dumb. Not too long ago a woman was sentenced to 25 years in a Florida prison because she fired warning shots to back off a former lover that was violating a protection order by forcing his way into her home.
Is this "bad laws be damned philosophy" ok when governments provide services to people in the US illegally?
Again, Tennessean nails it.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, I have advocated civil disobedience of unconstitutional, ineffective, and immoral gun laws, and Illinois' requirement for a FOID card certainly qualifies, but I generally recommend having some kind of strategic thinking behind the act of defiance.
The article is a bit short on detail, but from what we've been told, I see no pro-rights strategy behind Mosley and son's behavior. This does not sound to me as if it were a protest of an immoral law. Further details may show me to be wrong about that--unlike some, I'm not the sort to "flesh things out a bit" with fabricated imaginings that just happen to support my viewpoint.
What "pro-rights strategy" would you recommend for people in Illinois?
DeleteMy first recommendation would be a state preemption law so that the laws are the same everywhere. The draconian gun restrictions in the city obviously arent having much effect on the criminals using guns. The Charges that Ms. Mosley is facing are state laws and apply to everyone.
DeleteAs for the crime problem in the city, if it were an easy fix, then I could be chief. Every time violent crime worsens in the city, the chief comes out and says all I need is just one more gun law and I can fix this. And then he doesnt.
The city needs to have some sort of performance clause in the chief's contract so that if he doesnt meet the expectations of his employers, they can find someone who can. But then, that kind of accountability has never been popular in the political circles of the city.
What "pro-rights strategy" would you recommend for people in Illinois?
DeleteSomehow, I don't get the idea that you'd take my advice even if you were in Illinois, so I don't really see any incentive to provide the requested recommendations.
Please humor us, Kurt. Otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude you really are all hat and no cattle.
DeleteNo, I won't come to the defense of someone who fired a round into the air in this manner. And as Tennessean said, since she didn't have a FOID, she wasn't lawful.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you want to discuss what I think of violating the stupid law of Illinois regarding the requirement to have an FOID in the first place, here's my opinion. Violating an unjust law is morally right, though it isn't usually practical or safe.
We have two laws here--the requirement to have an FOID and the ban on discharging a firearm irresponsibly. The former is unjust, while the latter is just.
Nice explanation, Greg.
DeleteSince Kurt won't tell us his advice, what's yours for your compatriots in Illinois? Do you recommend that they disobey this immoral law?
DeleteAt present, since Chicago represents only one sixth of the population of Illinois, I'd recommend that the rest fo the state vote out gun control freaks and in representatives who will tell the Windy City to shut up. Beyond that, law suits are doing good work.
DeleteOnce the processes provided in our system of government, we'll be well past the need for me to comment on what should be done.
Once the processes have failed, that is.
DeleteGreg, the question is do you recommend civil disobedience regarding the FOID card?
DeleteWhy is it so hard for you to answer a straight question?
You're asking me to advocate the commission of a crime. I say that residents of Illinois have basic rights that their state is violating. I would empathize with anyone who chose to break unjust laws. At present, I recommend working within the system--while that's possible.
DeleteIsn't walking outside and firing a gun into the air the type of thing Joe "double babble" Biden recommends people to do?
ReplyDeleteKurt, You've eloquently and adequately told us how you feel about me. There'll be no more of that. It's not the topic.
ReplyDeleteKurt, You've eloquently and adequately told us how you feel about me.
DeleteYou say that, but then you have the reprehensible audacity to imply that I would be disturbed by you being "forced to conclude" something uncomplimentary about me. Something, I might add, that you had already claimed to have concluded.
Anyway, if you're delicate little feelings can handle this much truth, I'll try again:
Otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude you really are all hat and no cattle.
What the hell? First, Mr. Vanderboegh and I are "all hat and no cattle" if we advise lawbreaking (killing, in fact).
Now I'm also "all hat and no cattle" (this time "really all hat and no cattle"--did you not really mean it the first time you said it?) if I don't advise lawbreaking?
You sound like the kind of guy who would believe that the passage of S. 649 would be a big win for "gun control," and the failure of S. 649 is a big win for "gun control." Nobody is that stupid, are they?
Oh--Never mind.