17-year-old Jvon Plas Sneed
Local news reports
Raleigh police have arrested a teenager accused of breaking into the same gun store twice this month and stealing a total of 34 firearms.
17-year-old Jvon Plas Sneed allegedly broke into the Eagle 1 Supply Store on Saturday morning and on May 11. The suspect is accused of taking 15 weapons from the business on Craftsman Drive around 1 a.m. Saturday and 19 firearms two weeks earlier.
Authorities said the suspect was charged with 34 counts of larceny of a firearm, two counts of breaking and entering, and misdemeanor larceny.
He also faces two counts of possession of firearm by felon, resisting public officer, and possession of burglary tools.
When breaking into a gun store is so easy that a high-school kid does it two weeks in a row, I have to question the gun store's security. Something's wrong.
And what's going to happen when this boy comes of age? I'll tell you. His extensive juvenile record will not disqualify him from gun ownership or from obtaining a concealed carry permit. That's why "may issue" is so important.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
What is your definition of insecure Mike? The place was alarmed and had video cameras. Other than that, we dont really know what other security measures are used there.
ReplyDeleteAbout the thought of his criminal record not disqualifying him when he becomes an adult? I dont think that's an issue here. Note the charges of possession of a firearm by a felon? So this 17 year old high school kid already is a convicted felon. I think he's already graduated into adult land in the legal system. One good indication of that would his not being charged with curfew violation.
Well, one definition of insecure is when a kid can get into the place two weeks in a row. Don't you think that's insecure?
DeleteWhile he may be a minor, we arent talking about someone who snuck out of his parents house and got into the store using his Bob the Builder or Spy Kids tool kit. According to his booking info, it looks like he is 6'3" and 180 lbs.
Deletehttp://wakemugs.com/wake-county-arrest-records-mugshots/jvon-plas-sneed-breaking-and-or-entering-f/
And at one point, according to the article you cited, he got stuck inside the locked down store. He was also in possession of burglary tools.
Kids don't break into banks with their amateur burglary tools. Gun shops need to be held to a higher standard of security.
DeleteIn other words, you want to run small gun shops out of business by imposing heavy costs on their operations.
DeleteMikeb, you're going after mice with an elephant gun--typical for control freaks. Rather than suggesting a minor change in the law, say to include juvenile felonies in the list of what makes a prohibited person, you go for may issue. And we know that you mean for ownership licenses, not just carry.
ReplyDeleteDoes it ever occur to you to try a small solution first?
I'll take that as an apology for all the times you accused me of having the hidden agenda of total disarmament.
DeleteI don't say one thing when I really mean another, in spite of all your personal attacks to that effect. May Issue is important, not just to weed out all the juvenile felons, but the many others who haven't picked up that all-important felony conviction but who are known to the police to be trouble. When those guys reach 21, the local cops are in a unique position to make the call.
No apology was intended or made. You always go for the sweeping level of control rather than a small solution.
DeleteBULL SHIT, Mike. On All counts.
ReplyDelete1: You like to claim that cheap safes are enough to satisfy your safe storage laws, but here, where this kid managed to burgle the place twice, you use the fact that he's a high schooler and the fact that he broke in twice as proof that the place wasn't secured. Unless you have a several thousand dollar vault, a determined person can break in--safes and locked and barred doors just slow them down. Your reaction here shows what we've been saying: if we give you safe storage laws, you'll still call for the head and rights of everyone who has something stolen from the, because they must not have stored it properly.
2: Most of a criminal record goes away upon majority, but prohibited person status remains. Try again bucko.
BTW, The lie about how this kid would be eligible for a permit is the very type of thing that used to work for your side, but which has become less useful. Maybe you didn't know that juvenile felonies can continue affecting someone's ability to own a gun and you were just repeating something you've heard elsewhere. However, there are people who know better who give that kind of line to scare people onto your side.
DeleteWe see all kinds of other lies being perpetrated by the media and politicians who say that various things are "legal" when they are not. Back in the early 90's when your side made so much headway, they did it by telling many lies of this nature. The NRA would sometimes get on TV and poke a hole in one or two, but the left had a pretty solid hold on the flow of information except within small conservative echochambers like NRA publications and talk radio.
Things have changed now, and whenever a politician tells a lie like this, the lie and the truth about it get trumpeted on thousands of blogs and in millions of e-mails. People who may not care much about the issue, or who might have otherwise been scared into supporting the new law, now learn that the politicians pushing the law are lying to get their support and they don't like being lied to like that.
The loss of control over the flow of information means that a formerly effective tactic is now one of your side's biggest liabilities.
As far as I've always heard, juvenile records are sealed when one reaches adulthood. They start over with a clean slate.
DeleteSorry if I'm not convinced because two or three of you guys say it ain't so.
Mikeb, Tennessean is a lawyer. Don't you imagine he knows more about the law?
DeleteThe loss of control over the flow of information means that a formerly effective tactic is now one of your side's biggest liabilities.
DeleteExactly, Tennessean. Since support for "gun control" absolutely demands large numbers of low information voters, the inability of the forcible citizen disarmament jihadists to control the flow of information is dooming them.
That, and the precipitously plummeting "gun violence" stats (the victim shortage has gotten so bad that now we're seeing bombings cited as justification for more "gun control").
Current law in North Carolina seems to be as follows:
Delete"RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Legislators, advocates and prosecutors are talking about changing a century-old law that calls for lawbreakers to be prosecuted as adults starting at age 16 — a measure that remains in effect in only one other state in the country."
http://www.reflector.com/ap/staten/changes-proposed-ncs-juvenile-justice-system-2054547
This would explain a seventeen year old already being considered a felon. And the fact that his photo and name were used in the news. I think most dont indentify offenders in the juvenile justice pipeline by name.
Mike,
DeleteThis isn't just me saying this. This is actually something I learned at a CLE that I took shortly after being licensed. There were lots of cases where attorneys were assuming what you are assuming: that the sealing of records would mean that there would be no continuing "prohibited person" status. These attorneys, therefore, weren't warning juveniles that if they took a plea deal they would be giving up their gun rights in perpetuity.
Once these kids, who had straightened up after growing up learned that they were barred from gun ownership, many of them were pissed off and going after the lawyers for not fully briefing them on the effects of the plea deals--hence 3 speakers at one event mentioning the matter.
There may be some circumstances where the issue gets expunged upon majority and the person is no longer prohibited, but saying that all juveniles have their prohibited person status wiped out is false.
So, because they mentioned "lots of cases" in your CLE class, you're saying that's how it works all over the country except for rare instances?
DeleteIt sounds to me like juvenile records don't get considered EXCEPT IN RARE INSTANCES.
Mikeb, why is it so hard for you to believe that juvenile records do exactly what we say they do? Having a record like this thug makes for a prohibited person. And as several have said to you before, why would he bother to apply for a license? He's a criminal. He's not going to try to follow the law so as to carry a gun legally until he reaches the location where he plans to commit a crime.
DeleteOk, I just used the magical skrying glass called Google and found this: http://smartgunlaws.org/prohibited-purchasers-generally-policy-summary/
Delete27 states, over half of them, prohibit juveniles with certain convictions. Looks like NC isn't one of them, but VA, where I was doing criminal work at that time, does.
So there are a minority of states where juvenile convictions don't affect one's later status. A far cry for your comment that it's extremely rare for a juvenile conviction to stick with a person into adulthood.
I'd call that about half. Then you have to consider how effective their reporting and screening is. Some of the 27, who supposedly have this rule, probably don't enforce it properly.
DeleteThat's a far cry from what you said too.
As I said way up there above, why don't you call for a small change in the law that would make violent junvenile offenders prohibited persons? I'd support that. I used to work with examples of such children, and I have no objection to barring them from being legal gun owners or carry licensees.
DeleteBut I can answer my own question. Doing what I suggest here would involve working together on something we both support. That means you wouldn't be able to stand off to one side and sneer at us gun owners. You'd also be accepting a small change, rather than getting your whole dream fulfilled. You'd be using something that could be called common sense.
In the case of this miscreant, he is already a prohibited person due to state juvenile law regarding prosecution of felonies by some minors. One challenge is that they are now looking to make the law less harsh in order to prevent some potentially recoverable offenders from entering the adult criminal justice system.
DeleteWhat, if anything can be done about the states that dont have similar laws? That is up to the citizens. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the states that dont default minor felons to prohibited status are "Blue" states.
To answer your final question first, yes, I implied that this was a more common rule in my earlier posts because I had the impression that it was. I used slightly different terms, apparently, in my first google search to see if this was a widespread thing or just a Virginia thing, and it seemed pretty widespread.
DeleteIn the course of our discussion of the matter, I said this:
"There may be some circumstances where the issue gets expunged upon majority and the person is no longer prohibited, but saying that all juveniles have their prohibited person status wiped out is false."
That was because I've stopped taking criminal cases, not kept up with the law, and hadn't done exhaustive research into the treatment of this matter in all 50 states and in all of the state and Federal caselaw.
Before my most recent post, I did some more checking on Google and found that linked article. You're questioning it's veracity on the laws in the states, but it's a posting on one of YOUR side's sites--Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. I gave you one of your own people's evaluations, but you still question its truthfulness since it doesn't fit with your framework.
You also toss out a bunch of accusations about non-enforcement and poor enforcement--things you have no basis to say, but which you say anyway so that you can sneer at the number 27 and pretend like it is the minority rule in the country and of no effect.
Is it even worth continuing to discuss this matter?
Sure it is. I think we were both equally wrong. I thought all states ignored juvenile records. You thought none do except for rare exceptions. And, your loyal partners-in-commenting agreed.
DeleteIt turns out that almost half the states have this very serious problem. Eventually, when the country comes to its senses, the may-issue policy will take care of it.
Eventually, when the country comes to its senses, the may-issue policy will take care of it.
DeleteAh--you must be talking about the trend of carry laws becoming more restrictive, as states realize the dangers of failing to very heavily regulate defensive firearm carry.
Wait--what's that? There is no trend of states making carry laws more restrictive? Do you mean to tell me that since the '80s, carry laws have only moved in one direction--toward a more progressive, permissive policy, as the "blood in the streets" fear mongering was exposed as fantasy, over, and over, and over again? And what--the very last state to ban firearm carry is expected to correct that horror (with "shall issue," mind you), perhaps as early as today, and if it fails to do so within the next two-and-a-half weeks, the state goes straight to Constitutional Carry?
The country is indeed "coming to its senses" regarding firearm carry--and that's very bad news for the state-mandated defenselessness zealots.
What serious problem? Can you show that large numbers of juvenile offenders are going on be legal gun owners and carry license holders?
DeleteBut you have yet to address my point that you refuse to consider the small solution to this, rather than demanding sweeping changes that would affect large numbers of Americans.
If he could break in the first time, why do you think it is not repeatable?
ReplyDeleteIt's all the crime victim's fault!
ReplyDeleteNo, not ALL. The gun shop owner may have been guilty of inadequately securing his premises. That's a seperate issue from what the boy did.
DeleteThe gun shop owner may have been guilty of inadequately securing his premises.
DeleteHe or she wasn't.
His extensive juvenile record will not disqualify him from gun ownership or from obtaining a concealed carry permit. That's why "may issue" is so important.
ReplyDeleteThe guys have already eviscerated your "he'll be eligible for a concealed carry permit" claim, but I'll approach it from another angle.
Let's say your "so important" "may issue" law becomes reality (yeah, I know--deeply hypothetical--in every state with concealed carry, any movement in the law is always toward more freedom, since the states' experience dictates that nothing else makes sense) in North Carolina, and that young Jvon here applies for a permit, and the issuing agency exercises its discretionary authority to deny the application.
Do you really think that would deter him from carrying a gun if he wanted to? Do you think it would even seriously enter into his decision-making process? How likely do you think it s that he would apply in the first place, rather than just carry illegally without trying to "go legit"?
I'm thinking North Korea's "unicorn lair" is at least as likely.
Then again, you do have an active fantasy life, don't you, Mikeb?
"Do you really think that would deter him from carrying a gun if he wanted to? "
ReplyDeleteKurt, that has to be the weakest argument you've ever offered. The fact that unqualified people can easily get guns illegally is clearly no reason to make it legal for them to do so. Only a guy like you, who holds the bizarre position that NO RESTRICTIONS are acceptable could possibly put forth such a ridiculous argument.
And you consistenly ignore the ways that criminals would get guns if your proposals became law. The only people who would be disarmed are the people who deserve much less scrutiny.
DeleteThe fact that unqualified people can easily get guns illegally is clearly no reason to make it legal for them to do so.
ReplyDeleteNo, but it is a superb reason not to put any legal hurdles in front of qualified people's anonymous acquisition of life and liberty preserving firepower.