Sunday, August 7, 2011

The Other Side of Michigan's Coin reports

Two men have been sentenced in federal court on felon in possession of a firearm charges, the first such cases completed since an initiative to aggressively prosecute gun-toting convicts was announced last month by U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade.
Dedrick D. Harris, 19, of Flint was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Mark A. Goldsmith to 70 months in federal prison, according to the U.S. Attorney's office.

Dwan L. Brown, 38, of Flint was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison and another 18 months for violating terms of a federally supervised release, according to McQuade's office.

According to court records, Brown, who was convicted in 2006 of possession with intent to distrbute cocaine, pleaded guilty in March to possessing a firearm in April 2010.

Harris, who was convicted of attempted carrying a concealed weapon in 2009, pleaded guilty in March to possessing stolen .38-caliber semi-automatic pistol in May 2010, according to court records.

"Cases like this should put felons on notice that we are aggressively prosecuting those who illegally possess firearms and that federal prosecution brings stiff sentences," said McQuade in a news release.
It's not all bad in Michigan like it seems in our other discussion. In this they're certainly doing the right thing. But, how much you wanna bet the pro-gun guys oppose this? They'll tell you about those poor pot-possession felons who've led exemplary lives for the past 20 years who need to protect their families. They'll remind us of that supposed natural human right all of us have.

Just like they do when choosing statistics to "prove" their points, the gun-rights crowd pick and choose the times they want to be tough on crime.  In restoring gun rights, they're suddenly as liberal as can be.

What's your opinion? Should convicted felons be allowed the restoration of their gun rights in some cases. Should it be allowed in all cases?  Is my position of "no, never" too harsh?

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.


  1. This is a start to breaking the cycle of felons with guns, who if one is honest with the data, are absolutely the people we need off the streets for a very long time.

    This has been a pet peeve of most gun owners that these laws have been in place for decades but never used to get the most dangerous thugs. Don't pass more laws. Use the ones in place to lock up repeat offenders.

  2. You're correct P. These are the people we need to get off the street - but whom we also need to stop having the guns in the first place.

    There's no use doing one without the other; this country already has the most people, per capita, behind bars of any nation on the planet - and it is not making us safer. Doing that is expensive, and a total waste of money if we cannot break the cycle of recidivism, and of violence.

    Warehousing these felons is not the total answer, in and of itself.

  3. The gun has nothing to do with it. Thugs are thugs with guns or without. In fact, the threat of a "victim" becoming a risk is a major factor in controlling these vermin. These are not people we want in society, all forms of rehab and reintegration have failed so we lock them up, because whiners lime you can't stomach the cheaper alternative

  4. Finally! A gun possession law being used for something beyond an easy bargaining chip for a plea!

    Most major cities have had onerous gun laws - felon in possession, use of firearm in the commission of a crime, etc. - for decades, but they're usually charged as adjunct charges in some overlying situation (i.e., murder, robbery, assault, etc.).

    Then, as the case nears trial, the prosecutor will offer to drop the gun charge (with its sometimes-consecutive penalties) in exchange for a guilty plea to the main charge.

    Usually works. Something like 98% of all criminal charges end with a plea instead of a trial.

  5. So, are we all in agreement that my postion of "no, never," is not too harsh?