Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez
Boston Herald
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management says one of its agent's guns was used in the shooting death of a woman walking on a popular San Francisco pier.
BLM spokeswoman Dan Wilson said the service weapon was issued to an agency ranger, and was stolen from the agent's car while he was in San Francisco on business.
Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez pleaded not guilty Tuesday to murder charges in Kathryn Steinle's death. He told television news stations he found the gun on the pier and it accidentally fired.
Sanchez has been deported to his native Mexico five times and is suspected of living in the United States illegally.
dangerous and irresponsible gun owners
ReplyDeleteIn this case, would the "dangerous and irresponsible gun owner" not be the U.S. government, because doesn't the BLM (a federal agency) own the sidearms it issues?
Blame anyone but the person responsible for the gun. Typical gun loon garbage.
Delete"Blame anyone but the person responsible for the gun. Typical gun loon garbage. "
DeleteSo we have both the federal and the City of San Francisco governments both getting some responsibility for the death of this woman. Tell me, does the person who actually killed her get a piece of the blame too?
Nobody is talking about exculpating the shooter. In this post I'm talking about the dangerous habit of leaving a gun in the car - many lawful gun owners do this.
DeleteIn this post I'm talking about the dangerous habit of leaving a gun in the car - many lawful gun owners do this.
DeleteAnd in this case, the "lawful gun owner" is the U.S. government. The very entity you just hours ago said we are to trust to secure our liberties.
MikeB: "many lawful gun owners do this."
DeleteSo would you say having a myriad of gun free zones is a bit of a problem then?
Kurt, government issued firearms are the responsibility of the person to whom they're issued. HE is the "lawful owner" in the sense that HE is responsible.
DeleteTS, gun free zones are a part of life. Leave the gun at home is you can't deal with it.
HE is the "lawful owner" in the sense that HE is responsible.
DeleteYeah--I guess that if you believe that the term "lawful gun owner" includes the person who steals guns from their rightful owner and kills her with one of them, it's silly of me to be surprised that you think the government's weapons are "owned" by whomever happens to have been issued them at the moment.
But tell me--when the alleged SF Pier killer (allegedly) stole the gun, would he have not in your eyes become the new "lawful owner," just as Lanza was the "lawful owner" of the guns he stole?
Ah, so you don't want legal carry to be possible. Why am I not surprised?
DeleteAnd may I remind you that you previously said you don't oppose carry any more than you do gun ownership- so long as they pass your ever increasing bar. So should we take this to mean you would like to see the same type of rules making ownership impossible to practice?
Delete"Kurt, government issued firearms are the responsibility of the person to whom they're issued. HE is the "lawful owner" in the sense that HE is responsible."
DeleteSo let me see if I get this right, the government official/soldier/police officer is issued a government owned firearm along with the power to use it in the government's behalf right up until he misuses it or it is stolen from him. At which time he is immediately personally on the hook for it with no responsibility going to the government which gave it to him.
Sounds like a pretty sweet deal for the government, not seeming to have any responsibility for the actions of its agents.
ss, I can't believe you're questioning this. The dishonest contentious commenters I expext this argument from, but not you.
DeleteA soldier or policeman who misuses his weapon should NOT be held responsible because the gun was issued to him? Are you really saying that?
"But tell me--when the alleged SF Pier killer (allegedly) stole the gun, would he have not in your eyes become the new "lawful owner," just as Lanza was the "lawful owner" of the guns he stole?"
DeleteKurt, your need to twist goes beyond all reason.
The SF pier shooter was a prohibited person. Adam Lanza was not. That's the key point you keep trying to obfuscate. Most of the mass shootings are committed by folks who, just like yourself, up until that time were perfectly free to own and use firearms. Proper screening would disarm many of them before they have the opportunity to act.
That's the key point you keep trying to obfuscate.
DeleteI'm not "trying to obfuscate" a damned thing. What I'm trying to do is figure out what the hell difference you think it would have made if Lanza had been prohibited.
"A soldier or policeman who misuses his weapon should NOT be held responsible because the gun was issued to him? Are you really saying that?"
DeleteNope, I never said that. I was commenting on the various government agencies and political figures tap dancing like hell to avoid accountability for their actions and their words.
As for the storage in a car thing, the only thing I've heard so far from the BLM is that they would investigate to see if any rules were broken. Have you heard anything different?
So you want to make people pass a screening test before being allowed to steal a gun? Wait- it's more likely that you want the whole family to have to pass the screen before one person could buy. Is that it? That would be a new one for you, right? But tell me this, what would make the killer fail your idea of a proper screen? The haircut? The "crazy eyes"?
Delete". What I'm trying to do is figure out what the hell difference you think it would have made if Lanza had been prohibited."
DeleteBullshit. We were arguing about the meaning of "lawful gun owner," not what difference it would have made in the Lanza case.
This is a typical fallback argument - "what difference would it have made?," or " what could have prevented this?" Often the point is simply that people who can legally own guns are dangerous, not that identifying them as such would have prevented whatever they did. The group known as "lawful gun owners" is comprised of many who are anything butm hence the category I invented called "hidden criminals."
We were arguing about the meaning of "lawful gun owner," . . .
DeleteWhich, according to your . . . novel definition of "lawful gun owner," includes those whose possession of guns came about by theft from and murder of the rightful owner.
Often the point is simply that people who can legally own guns are dangerous
Some undoubtedly are but it's not as if ones ability to legally purchase firearms is an identifying characteristic of "dangerous" people.
hence the category I invented called "hidden criminals."
You "invented" it, alright, and fear not--I don't think anyone is going to try to steal the "credit" for that "invention."
Actually Kurt, if you look it up "hidden criminals", he didn't invent it. He stole it and changed it up slightly to be his "invention". The term is older than he is.
DeleteSo what responsibility should the City of San Francisco bear for refusing to hold Sanchez until he could be picked up by federal authorities? A lot of politicians are now hurriedly trying to distance themselves from their earlier support for the sanctuary movement, including Ms. Clinton.
ReplyDeleteIn 2007 she said,
"Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.”
And a week after Sanchez committed murder,
"The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/08/flashback-hillary-clintons-longtime-support-for-sanctuary-cities/
And of course, whenever local governments talk about not enforcing new federal gun control laws, everyone gets the vapors. My question that I've asked before is, how is refusing to enforce federal gun laws so reprehensible and refusing to enforce federal immigration law so noble?
"My question that I've asked before is, how is refusing to enforce federal gun laws so reprehensible and refusing to enforce federal immigration law so noble?"
ReplyDeleteFor one thing they are not comparable problems, but leave it to you to divert the point and say nothing about the idiot who had his gun stolen.
Can you explain why you believe they aren't comparable? In this case, it seem to have resulted in a homicide.
DeleteNo. If you can't see the difference, go back to school. Many different acts end in homicide, that does not mean each act that ends in homicide, is an equal and comparable act.
DeleteIn this case it is quite comparable since both cases have a common element. Which is the case with this killer, illegal immigrant and a gun. An illegal immigrant can not legally possess a gun. An illegal immigrant has already committed a felony just by being in this country. He has committed a felony by stealing a gun. He commits a felony by continuing possession of the gun. He commits a felony by killing a citizen of this country. He is a repeat offender, way past the three strikes and your out standard.
DeleteThis case goes beyond comparable, they are inextricably tied together.
Who needs to go back to school?
This is also the case with hundreds of thousands of illegal, if not millions. Comparable would be an understatement.
Idiot gun loon can not even keep his gun secure, but blames someone else for the misuse of his gun after he allowed it to be stolen. .
Delete"but blames someone else for the misuse of his gun after he allowed it to be stolen."
DeleteInteresting that you also have no problem throwing this law enforcement officer under the bus after being the victim of a crime. After all the firearm was locked in a big metal box called a car. Now if you've possibly seen any mention of him leafing the gun on the seat in plain view of left the car unlocked, I might even agree that he bears some responsibility for the theft. I haven't seen that though.
What I've read was that the car was broken into and items, including the pistol stolen. The BLM officer immediately reported the theft to the local police. If you've seen something different please supply a link so we can all learn of this.
It's no surprise you support an idiot who can't even keep his gun secure. Is an auto burglary rare?
Delete"Is an auto burglary rare?"
DeleteWe could also ask if home burglaries are rare, however, that doesn't change the fact that both places are completely legal places to store firearms. And certainly there should be an expectation by the citizen of their stuff being left alone.
Of course, if a certain sanctuary city wasn't, and had held on to the felonious illegal alien until he could be picked up, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Of course you won't answer the question. Auto thefts are common, which makes storing a gun in a car an unsafe habit. Expectations and reality are totally different things, except in your world of gun loonery. Your dishonesty is causing unnecessary gun deaths, which you applaud.
Delete"Auto thefts are common, which makes storing a gun in a car an unsafe habit."
DeleteWell Anon, I'm still waiting on the investigation by the BLM as to whether storing a service weapon in a vehicle is against the rules. It seems fairly common for law enforcement to do that.
No condemnation for the idiot who can't keep his gun secure, it's always someone else's fault. Your dishonesty is causing unnecessary gun shot deaths, which you support. Sick.
DeleteHi folks, just came upon an interesting article regarding this guy. First is that the defense is trying to blame the gun for the death,
ReplyDelete“This gun has no safety,” Gonzalez said of the .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol that was reported stolen in June by a federal agent. Gonzalez said the gun is a common weapon used by law enforcement and police have reported other accidental discharges.
“There is no evidence that he put his finger in the trigger,” the lawyer said."
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/09/04/illegal-immigrant-to-stand-murder-trial-in-san-francisco-pier-14-shooting-death/
And this was mentioned in the case of the firearm used,
"The family alleges in legal claims that a Bureau of Land Management ranger left his loaded service weapon in a backpack in plain view in his car before the gun was stolen.
BLM spokeswoman Martha Maciel said the agency is cooperating with the investigation of the shooting but she declined further comment."
Definitely not the best method of storing a firearm in a car.