In spite of Greg's continual assurances, I'm not convinced this means loss of gun rights. When we first looked at this story, he was charged with felonies. Now he plea bargains them down. Besides avoiding jail, isn't the whole point to keep the precious guns? It seems to me that misdemeanors, unless they have to do with wife-beating, do not result in the loss of gun rights.A Weber County man who accidentally shot and killed his younger brother during a May camping trip will plead guilty to misdemeanor charges, his defense attorney said Wednesday.When Eric Charlton, 27, appears in court Oct. 23, he will plead guilty to a class A misdemeanor count of negligent homicide and a class B misdemeanor count of carrying a weapon while under the influence of alcohol, said defense attorney Susanne Gustin.As part of the plea deal, prosecutors will dismiss one misdemeanor charge and abandon their fight to have Charlton face a felony and potential prison time for the death of 17-year-old Cameron Charlton.
How does this work in Utah? That's what I want to know.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Violent criminals often do the same thing which puts them back on the streets just as quickly. And they don't observe laws which "revoke" their gun rights. They carry whatever objects they wish.
ReplyDeleteAnon: Change the subject much? So if criminals fail to obseve the law--that makes it ok for everyone to ignore the laws?
ReplyDeleteThis case points up the fact that many "law-abiding citizens"--the gunloon term for folks who often have been charged with felonies but plea bargain down to misdemeanors--really have no business with guns.
Look, I'm sure Charlton feels really, really bad about his brother. But I guarantee most folks looking at jail time feel really, really bad about whatever crime they committed.
Let's review the facts. Charlton said he brought a gun for "self protection" on a camping trip. BS. He was part of a camping group of 20. They were in Utah which isn't exactly Syria. Fact is he brought a gun because he thought it made him a badass.
Second, Charlton was drinking at the time he was demonstrating his "fiream techniques." Now, Charlton haz a sad face because the badass demo went really wrong.
I will guarantee that if I decide to drink and hop into my car to demonstrate some badass "driving techniques" and I wind up killing someone--I'm gonna get a felony. No matter how sad I look.
1. Law-abiding citizen means someone who follows the law, not someone who gets a plea bargain. This man is not law-abiding.
Delete2. I carry a gun for self-protection. When I have a gun on me, I don't drink alcohol.
Jade: "I will guarantee that if I decide to drink and hop into my car to demonstrate some badass "driving techniques" and I wind up killing someone--I'm gonna get a felony. No matter how sad I look."
DeleteAnd when they let you out you might have to ride a bike for a little while, but you'll get your license back. And they won’t even bother trying to prevent you from buying alcohol. Did you know that there are virtually no laws preventing known alcoholics and repeat drunk drivers from buying booze at the corner store? Shocking, I know.
Greggy: Per the gunloon mantra--"law-abiding" means someone who doesn't have a felony. Second, I don't know whether you drink and carry. Some gunloons admit they do. But I do know every gunloon professes expert knowledge on all things firearm-related and sometimes maintain this assertion even after they've done something stupid.
DeleteTS: Frankly, I wouldn't mind someone with a DUI losing his license permanently. Regardless, if one does get their license back, one will get to pay higher insurance premiums. Additionally, some states may require your car be outfitted with an ignition breathalyzer.
And thanks to the gunshow loophole--Charlton will always be able to buy a gun to look badass.
So, Baby Goblin, are you now saying that I'm not a part of the "gunloon" crowd, since I just gave you a differing definition of "law-abiding"?
DeleteGreggy, you are definitely part of the gunloon community.
DeleteWe both know that any gun law or regulation is greeted by gunloons as an attempt to strip "law-abiding citizens" of their God-given rights. And we both understand that "law-abiding citizen"--per your NRA masters--is a pretty low bar meaning anyone who doesn't have a felony (but can have a long list of misdemeanors).
Jade: “And thanks to the gunshow loophole--Charlton will always be able to buy a gun to look badass.”
DeleteAnd thanks to the “Craigslist Loophole”, Mr. Breathalyzer Interlock can buy a car from a private seller with no interlock and no questions asked.
TS: He just can't get it licensed--which is a bit of a problem.
DeleteBaby Goblin, law-abiding doesn't include committing misdemeanors, either. In addition, the NRA is not my master. I'm a member because the NRA represents my position on the national stage.
DeleteGreggy: According to your NRA masters, "law-abiding" means no felony. But you can have a long, long misdemeanor record.
DeleteYou're just a puppet for Wayne LaPierre.
Jade: “He just can't get it licensed--which is a bit of a problem.”
DeleteIt is not much of a problem for illegal immigrants. Just buy a cheap car with 11 months on the tags then buy another when it expires. Oh, the horror of loopholes!
But when you are talking about guns, you are not satisfied with applying punishment to those caught having made an illegal purchase. You always attack the point of sale, which you give a complete pass to for drunk drivers buying cars or alcohol.
P.S. this is about the point where I expect Mike to jump in saying how I am making ridiculous comparisons, ignoring that Jadegold is the one who made these comparisons and I am simply shooting down his logic.
Mikeb and Goldilocks criticizing the logic of others is like Rosie O'Donnell making nasty comments about how fat someone is. Somehow, I doubt that they'll like that analogy.
DeleteWhen Jadegold makes a comparison it usually works for me. When you guys do, it usually doesn't. I occasionally make comparisons myself. They have to make sense, that's the rule.
DeleteYour rule is that they have to agree with your point of view. That's not logic; it's bias.
DeleteUnder Utah law, he's guilty of a crime of domestic violence:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.utahdefenseattorney.net/criminal-defense/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-laws-utah/
That means no more gun rights, whatever else disqualifies him.
Greggy: Not necessarily. As your website notes, defense attorneys can often get the domestic violence charge tossed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Greggy, the charges in the plea deal for Mr. Sadface don't necessarily mean a domestic violence charge.
DeleteYou know, the more one looks at this case--the more it's clear this guy belongs in prison.
ReplyDeleteMr. Sadface is an NRA member. His facebook page indicates he likes/participated in some of these BS NRA-"certified" self-defense silliness.
The facts are he took a gun into a situation where he clearly did not need one. He chose to drink. He chose to drink and play "Dirty Harry' with his firearm. His demonstration went badly.
During his trial, he claimed he was unfamiliar with his firearm. I'm unsure how this absolves him of his crime but I really doubt he was that unfamilar with the weapon. After all, he was a Marine and it appears that he took an active interest in those gunloon NRA "certified" fantasy courses.
The claim "the family has suffered enough" is also meaningless in terms of justice.
Goldilocks, would you care to provide sources for your information? I freely admit my lack of interest in Facebook skills. That being said, I don't see his page anywhere with anything about the NRA or those other claims of yours.
DeleteYeah, settling a major one-strike-you're-out crime as a misdemeanor is a miscarriage of justice. This guys is a pathetic example of what many gun owners are, irresponsible, stupid and unfit to own and use guns safely. These types are not the rare statistically insignificant percentage you pretend they are.
DeleteIf I had been the judge or the prosecutor on this case, there'd have been no plea bargain. This fellow would be going down for as long as could be under the law. But if you look at the number of accidental deaths due to firearms, you'll see that it's tiny in comparison to the number of guns and gun owners. There are around six hundred deaths due to accident in a year. There are 100,000,000 gun owners. You do the math.
Delete