Another Dubious DGU

The Dallas Morning News reports on the acquittal of country singer Billy Joe Shaver. At least this one was hard-won.

It took a McLennan County jury just two hours Friday to acquit Texas country singer-songwriter Billy Joe Shaver of aggravated assault in the 2007 shooting of another man in a bar parking lot.

An unlawful carrying charge remains pending. Judge Matt Johnson set a $7,500 bond on that charge and told Shaver he was free to go.

Earlier Friday, Shaver testified that he acted in self-defense when he shot Billy Coker in the face near Waco on March 31, 2007. But prosecutors maintained that no other witnesses described Coker as "violent or mean."

Some folks have accused me of thinking that no DGU is legitimate. That's just not true, but in this case there are a few things in the article that make me wonder. The first is, "no other witnesses described Coker as "violent or mean.""

Here's another one:

During cross-examination, prosecutor Beth Toben asked Shaver if he was jealous that Coker had been talking with Shaver's ex-wife, Wanda Shaver, in the bar.

"I get more women than a passenger train can haul," the defendant replied. "I'm not jealous."

That kind of bragging macho talk often betrays the very quality it attempts to deny. If I may venture into a comparison for a moment, it's not unlike the macho tough-talking gun owner who insists he's not motivated by fear and paranoia.

Coker had told authorities that Shaver told him, "Where do you want it?" before shooting him in the cheek. Friday, however, Shaver testified, "I actually asked him, 'Why do you want to do this?' For one reason or another, someone turned it into, 'Where do you want it?'"

After the shooting, he said he called friend and fellow Texas singer-songwriter Willie Nelson and asked for his recommendation of an attorney. Then, Shaver said, he left town out of fear of Coker and his family.

So, with Willie Nelson's lawyer and celebrity, I believe he appeared as a character witness, the jury believed the shooter's version of what was said immediately before the shooting.

I certainly don't claim to know what happened, but I suspect this may be another of the many so-called legitimate DGUs which are nothing of the kind.

What's your opinion? What do you think about the pending charge? Shaver was not supposed to be carrying a gun in the first place. Is it even possible to do something legitimate with a gun you have illegally in your possession? Even that sounds like a bit of a stretch. I'd say this is Texas Justice, but a different kind from what we usually point out.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Arizona's New Laws

AZCentral reports.

Within the next week, Arizona could become the first state with a large urban population to allow U.S. citizens 21 and older to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. Only Alaska and Vermont have similar allowances.

Senate Bill 1108, crafted by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, passed in the House of Representatives on Thursday with a vote of 36-19 and no comments from either side.

The bill will go to the governor Monday, and Gov. Jan Brewer will have until the following Saturday to sign it, veto it, or do nothing and allow it to become law. The law would go into effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, which could happen within the next few weeks.

What's wrong with these people? They started with a good idea, that having a gun can be useful for self-defense, then they kept pushing and pushing until the so-called "right" goes beyond the realm of common sense. The gun apologists are quick to point out that Vermont and Alaska have this policy and they're not awash in gun violence. I'm not sure that's exactly true, but in this article it was made very clear there's a big difference.

Arizona could become the first state with a large urban population to allow U.S. citizens 21 and older to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

They mentioned "with a large urban population." They might have added, "with a large urban population in which there already is a lot of gun violence."

The training requirements to get the permit would change under the proposed law. John Thomas, lobbyist for the Arizona Chiefs of Police, said the new provisions don't require the training class to be a set number of hours or include any hands-on use of the weapon.

A background check would still be required to get a permit, as well as to buy a gun in most cases. Brewer this week signed another law that exempts guns made and kept in Arizona from federal regulation, including background checks.

No training requirements will be required. Way to go, Arizona. That one makes a lot of sense, huh? And even better is the doing away with the background check for guns made and kept in-state. I wish someone would tell us how that'll make the world a better place.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Stemming the Flow

Thanks to khou.com in Houston.

What do you think about the 30 million unregistered cell phones? Could that be a way to make the richest man in the world even richer? Or, is that really going to help with the Mexican War on Drugs?

Speaking of which, is this a different kind of "War on Drugs" than the one in the States that everyone seems to think is a mistake?

Do you think it's good to attempt to raise awareness among gun dealers about the problem of straw purchasers?

What's your opinion. Please leave a comment.

Michigan Man Shoots Himself by Accident

Ohh Shoot has the story.

Man waiting in car at gas station unintentionally shoots self

A 21-year-old Michigan man shot himself in the leg while his family was stopped at a local gas station. The man was sitting in the backseat of his father's pick-up truck while his father was pumping gas when he unintentionally shot himself with his father's 40-caliber Glock handgun.
The father rushed his son to the local hospital were he is listed in good condition. Both father and son have licenses to carry a concealed weapon.
Ohh shoot.

That last line is worth repeating.

Both father and son have licenses to carry a concealed weapon.

Is it so rare? Is it really insignificant when an event like this happens? Or does this dangerous irresponsibility run through the entire gun-owning world?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Grandmother Charged in 3-year-old's Death

Freep.com reports on the case of a woman charged with the death of her 3-year-old granddaughter.

A Detroit woman charged in the death of her 3-year-old granddaughter who was killed while playing with a handgun has pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter.

The Wayne County prosecutor's office said Wednesday in a release that 44-year-old Dawn Bostick has agreed to a sentencing agreement that includes five years' probation, parenting classes and a ban on possession of firearms.

Bostick also faced second-degree child abuse and felony firearm charges.

Police say the grandmother was in another part of the house on Dec. 10 when the girl accidentally fired a 9-millimeter handgun that was left unlocked in a bedroom nightstand.

Prosecutors say the girl was under Bostick's care.

Bostick will be sentenced April 28.

Does that sound right to you? I know some of the pro-gun crowd like to emphasize personal responsibility, but in a case like this, I don't think even they would say the 3-year-old was at fault. Would that mean they accept the "shared responsibility" theory that I'm always talking about? Or does it end when a kid reaches a certain age?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

DC Gun Ban Upheld

Another one of the "righty" blogs that I look at is the Volokh Conspiracy. FishyJay sent me the link to this post, which I enjoyed, but it's the comments that really amaze.

After a confidential informant bought 1.9 grams of crack cocaine from defendant Brandon Hendrix on April 21, 2009, law enforcement officers obtained a warrant to search his residence. When they arrived, they found defendant present and under the influence of marijuana, crack cocaine and alcohol. Their search uncovered a loaded SKS rifle, a .45 caliber Ruger pistol, a Winchester shotgun, ammunition, knives and drug paraphernalia. Defendant was arrested the next day and charged in federal court with knowing and unlawful possession of firearms while being an unlawful user of marijuana and crack cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)....

[D]efendant’s argument fails because he has not shown that he is subject to any real burden. If he does not use controlled substances, then § 922(g)(3) imposes no restriction on his possession of guns. If he chooses to use them, then he cannot legally possess a gun. The choice is his, not the government’s....

[I]t is not necessary to consider ... whether a person prosecuted under § 922(g)(3) should be subject to a lifetime ban on gun possession, the natural consequence of a felony conviction for violation of this statute. One could argue that the prohibition should not last any longer than the person’s use of controlled substances, but defendant has neither made this argument nor suggested that he would qualify for relief if it were adopted, so I will not address it.

I think one of the reasons the Volokh Conspiracy is so popular is because of that sexy lawyer-talk. Non-lawyers like me feel proud of ourselves for just being able to follow. And who would dare question anything?

The comments immediately went into a discussion of the 1st Amendment and free speech.

What's your opinion? Should a person who uses drugs be allowed to own guns? Should the marijuana smoker be allowed and the crack cocaine smoker not be? How do you think it should work?

My idea is since there are too many guns around now, we should tighten up in every way possible. Using drugs, drunkenness, abuse of any kind should all be disqualifiers. Why would legitimate gun owners who don't involve themselves in those activities object? Wouldn't this benefit them as well?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

How Low Can You Go?

Glenn Beck's obsessive personal attacking of the President has reached new lows even as his twisting of the facts and his exaggerated delivery reach new heights.

What do you think?