A 26-year-old man being investigated for accidentally shooting a girl was arrested after deputies found several stolen weapons and learned he was not allowed to own firearms.
The Butte County Sheriff's Office was called to Oroville Hospital about 11:10 p.m. Sunday, after a juvenile female arrived with a gunshot wound to her back, according to a BCSO press release.
Deputies learned it was likely an accidental shooting by an acquaintance, Donald Patrick Browning. However, deputies determined Browning was prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.
The BCSO started searching for Browning, but did not locate him at two Oroville residences where search warrants were served, stated the press release. Deputies, however, did allegedly locate five firearms that had been reported stolen to the Oroville Police Department.
Deputies continue to search for Browning and ultimately located him at a Thermalito residence where he was arrested early today, according to the BCSO.
Patrol deputies allegedly also located to more firearms in the area where Browning was arrested, one which was reported stolen to OPD.
Browning was booked into Butte County Jail on multiple weapon violation charges. His bail is set at $70,000.
You see, only after determining he was not a lawful gun owner were charged brought. This is how they protect each other. Lawful gun owners are allowed to be as negligent as they want because they're the good guys. But don't expect to get away with shooting someone accidentally if you're a disqualified person.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The police and prosecutors are not noted for protecting people who break the law. You just want a whole lot more laws than are actually needed.
ReplyDeleteGreg, How dare you expect Mike to be honest about how the police and prosecutors carry out their duties. If he were honest, it would ruin the Conspiracy Theory!
DeleteYup, gun control depends on violating rights and ignoring duties.
DeleteIt is much to the chagrin of the civilized world, of the propensity at which Americans lacking even the most rudimentary exposure to the traditions and matters of the law will make absurd claims as if they are entitled to the legal protections associated with some form of fundamental right, to apply to "rights" which exist only in the imagination of the beholder.
DeleteSuch is the case as to Greggy's home State of Arkansas where the constitution provides no textual basis for any claim of an individual "right" to "keep and bear" certain arms, instead restricting the context of such a protection to a strictly collective use in the context of militaristic service.
But instead of flinging poo in the usual manner, let's look at the text, shall we? (Assuming that your handlers have trained you to read and understand common English)
Article II Section V of the Arkansas Constitution of 1874 serves to both establish and clarify the context of the collectivist right to arms:
"The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense."
Please note that the right strictly applies to the use of arms for the collective (or "common") defense of the authority of the state. The context of the extent of the protections of this right and the applicability of such may be found in other rights established by the 1874 Constitution, and therefore provide guidelines on the manner in which the legislature ought to regulate and appropriate arms for militia and civilian purposes.
Clarification may be sought in Section XXVII of Article II, which provides:
"There shall be no slavery in this State, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime. No standing army shall be kept in time of peace; the military shall, at all times, be in strict subordination to the civil power; and no soldier shall be quartered in any house, or on any premises, without the consent of the owner, in time of peace; nor in time of war, except in a manner prescribed by law."
Section XXVII provides the constitutional basis in which to interpret the collective right established by Section V, as well as textual justification for the regulation of arms and munitions within the state. It is with this knowledge that we find Section V to apply solely to arms allocated by an act of the legislature to a state authorized militia to be utilized in event of a state of local emergency. It may also be inferred that the personal acquisition of arms by non-state actors may substantively present an unauthorized illegal militia operating in violation of the rights of their fellow man, and thus bestows the duty upon the legislature to provide a appropriate means of disarming those civilians in violation of the 1874 Constitution, and the duty to provide for the establishment of punitive legal sanctions upon those who are unconstitutionally armed.
But feel free to follow the herd.
More of E.N.'s usual level of piss poor legal interpretation that goes out of its way to ignore period definitions and interpretations so as to make the laws state the opposite of what they actually state.
DeleteSadly, this is about the level of proficiency we get from Laci when it comes to the Constitution and to Blackstone.
So Jadegoldguy has no comprehension of how the Federal Constitution is superior to state constitutions in matters of rights incorporated against the states.
DeleteI believe it was just yesterday that you were all about how California's gun laws have resulted in a drop in gun deaths and (presumably) injuries. And today you are suggesting that those very same laws aren't enforced or prosecuted? How exactly does that work?
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty weak gotcha.
DeleteIt doesn't have to be terribly strong to show the contradiction. California is the Brady Campaign's test state. It seems like every time the good idea fairy hits someone in the head there, California wants nothing more than to be the first to pass a law supporting that idea.
DeleteSo you suggest that law enforcement and prosecutors are colluding to only punish "bad" guys. I'm assuming you have no data to support your assertion, or you would have already shared it.