OR Pastor won AR-15, could face charges
- Thread starter Ifishsum
- Start date
Koda94, it doesn't? Sorry sir, but here comes your loophole,
It fits the statute as written. If the state charges, how are they going to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the pastor was doing anything other than what Burdick has been quoted as saying the pastor was trying to do?
He was safeguarding the firearm with a person he has no reason to believe to be a prohibited person for the safety of his family because he couldn't store it in a safe and secure manner enough to prevent harm or death, until such time he could rectify the situation.
See where I'm going? Subsection F, my second quote in my previous post, is the provision as needed to keep it from being a transfer as defined in the initial quoted text. And it can be made to fit. Right or wrong in your opinion, it's what's going to happen, and in essence, is your safeguarding loophole.
.Burdick said:
It fits the statute as written. If the state charges, how are they going to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the pastor was doing anything other than what Burdick has been quoted as saying the pastor was trying to do?
He was safeguarding the firearm with a person he has no reason to believe to be a prohibited person for the safety of his family because he couldn't store it in a safe and secure manner enough to prevent harm or death, until such time he could rectify the situation.
See where I'm going? Subsection F, my second quote in my previous post, is the provision as needed to keep it from being a transfer as defined in the initial quoted text. And it can be made to fit. Right or wrong in your opinion, it's what's going to happen, and in essence, is your safeguarding loophole.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
No, it's not impossible. You just don't want to do it.mrray13 said:
If more police officers would just enforce the laws uniformly and objectively, and leave it to the courts to decide who should be convicted and who should walk, maybe then people would wake up and start pressuring their legislators to stop enacting stupid, feel-good laws that are designed to turn everyone into a criminal.
Who said anything about incarceration? It's the role of the judicial system to decide who gets incarcerated, not the police. The job of the police is to arrest people who break the law. The more you fail to do your job, the less people have reason to complain to their legislators about how stupid and invasive some of these laws really are.mrray13 said:
Aguila Blanca, lol, yep, Ijust don't want to it. I'm but one man, and if I enforced every infraction I saw daily, I would never be home. Regardless of your expert opinion based on your professor great-grandfather and his pupil that is your grandfather, it literally can't be done. I'd spend my shift at most making contact with two "criminals", instead of using officer discretion and making far more contacts and hopefully coming into contact with the real criminals. But which way would you rather have it?
And my point about both incarcerated and non incarcerated individuals follows;
I do make custodial arrests, thus my actions do house people.
The court system will impose custodial, and non custodial, punishments, which all have to be enforced.
If we enforced the letter of every law on every contact, the system currently in place will be taxed past it's already over populated, over burdened officers , judges and various other systems and people. Who pays for that? You want even more of that?
Think about what you are saying. Especially next time you're going 4mph over the posted speed limit and that writes you a ticket for that and the right rear tire that's just past the wear indicator. Or you drive that golf ball ob, and you ignore that no trespassing sign because the ball is just out of reach and the land owner wants you prosecuted. Or you yell in celebration for your favorite team while eating out, scaring that group of church ladies eating behind you, causing them alarm and they press Breach of Peace charges.
Yeah, those examples are extreme, but are all plausible based on your opinion of how we Law Enforcement Officers should act and enforce the letter of the law to the very crossed t and dotted i in it.
Say what you will about me and enforcing the spirit rather than the letter based on the totality of the circumstances of each incident, individual of all other incidents that I might deal with. At least I'm wearing those boots and trying to make a difference, as minor as that might be, and serving the greater good in my little corner of the world. /rant
And my point about both incarcerated and non incarcerated individuals follows;
I do make custodial arrests, thus my actions do house people.
The court system will impose custodial, and non custodial, punishments, which all have to be enforced.
If we enforced the letter of every law on every contact, the system currently in place will be taxed past it's already over populated, over burdened officers , judges and various other systems and people. Who pays for that? You want even more of that?
Think about what you are saying. Especially next time you're going 4mph over the posted speed limit and that writes you a ticket for that and the right rear tire that's just past the wear indicator. Or you drive that golf ball ob, and you ignore that no trespassing sign because the ball is just out of reach and the land owner wants you prosecuted. Or you yell in celebration for your favorite team while eating out, scaring that group of church ladies eating behind you, causing them alarm and they press Breach of Peace charges.
Yeah, those examples are extreme, but are all plausible based on your opinion of how we Law Enforcement Officers should act and enforce the letter of the law to the very crossed t and dotted i in it.
Say what you will about me and enforcing the spirit rather than the letter based on the totality of the circumstances of each incident, individual of all other incidents that I might deal with. At least I'm wearing those boots and trying to make a difference, as minor as that might be, and serving the greater good in my little corner of the world. /rant
kilimanjaro
New member
I would buy that carefully crafted weasel statement about the Pastor protecting his family from probable lethal harm, thereby making it all legal, but the rifle was unloaded and no ammunition was in possession. Sorry, I can't see that reasoning making it past a judge.
Kilimanjaro beat me to it, but how is the gun NOT SAFE IF ITS NOT LOADED???
Key point, is a gun, NOT LOADED, not in a safe, with no ammo (or the ammo locked up) HOW IS THAT DANGEROUS???
Did the good pastor think the gun would magically create ammunition and load itself???
I can understand (though not agree) if he was so obsessed with the gun as a symbol of "evil" he didn't want it in his house. But I cannot understand, nor credit his apparent fear that the gun itself was something dangerous.
He spends church funds (which he may have the authority to do, I don't know), to buy enough raffle tickets to ensure a win, spending considerably more than the cost of the gun at retail, so he can publically destroy it to make a political statement.
But for some reason, it takes time for him to set it up (poor planning, no doubt), and he's afraid to keep the gun until its sacrifice is ready. Based on that, I'd say he is not someone I would want telling me the word of the Lord. OR his own words, for that matter.
Not certain, but I'm fairly confident that irrational fear of an inanimate object is a clinically defined mental illness.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I believe you are correct.44 AMP said:
We must always remember: "Ignorance can be educated. Stupid is forever."
kilimanjaro, 44 AMP, you both make very valid points, but remember this, all they need is a liberal judge or prosecuting attorney, and that argument stands.
And that brings up a question, with the current state of the Supreme Court, if this case was to somehow make that far, how do you think they would rule?
As to my personal opinion, I hope they push prosecution. As a law enforcement officer in Illinois, in the county I work in, I wouldn't charge it. I'm also very certain that even if I did, I would be tempted too, BUT, my State's Attorney wouldn't prosecute based on what I've already pointed out.Why? Because, as he likes to say, a jury trial is 50/50 at best and he likes to err on the side of caution. And he, and his wife, currently hold valid Illinois CCL's.
And that brings up a question, with the current state of the Supreme Court, if this case was to somehow make that far, how do you think they would rule?
As to my personal opinion, I hope they push prosecution. As a law enforcement officer in Illinois, in the county I work in, I wouldn't charge it. I'm also very certain that even if I did, I would be tempted too, BUT, my State's Attorney wouldn't prosecute based on what I've already pointed out.Why? Because, as he likes to say, a jury trial is 50/50 at best and he likes to err on the side of caution. And he, and his wife, currently hold valid Illinois CCL's.
kilimanjaro
New member
Yes, prosecute. For certain. If a redneck from Antelope had done this, I guarantee you he would be prosecuted.
Looks to me like theft of church funds to buy a rifle for a buddy, all self-serving verbiage notwithstanding. Even discretionary monies come with restraints on it's use, and churches are no different.
Looks to me like theft of church funds to buy a rifle for a buddy, all self-serving verbiage notwithstanding. Even discretionary monies come with restraints on it's use, and churches are no different.
g.willikers
New member
Poetic Justice.
Getting tripped up by the very kind of laws he supported.
Very cool.
Getting tripped up by the very kind of laws he supported.
Very cool.
I could go with that, except for the statement about buying it so it could be destroyed ("this one won't kill anyone"), etc.
going on what has been reported (and how its been reported, and understanding that some facts may eventually be found to be different..)
I try to be a decent, fairly forgiving sort of person, but in this case, I don't want to just see him prosecuted, I want him disenfranchised, defrocked, deflowered, disemboweled, and his flayed skin nailed to the wall as encouragement for the others...
then, I would get nasty...
(this is, of course, not realistic, but without dreams, what are we??
)Seriously, I'm sure the pastor is a true believer, and committed to the "rightness" of his chosen cause, but buying a gun with money that isn't yours, for the avowed purpose of destroying it, and breaking a gun control law in the process isn't just stupid, its criminal, and he deserves more punishment than he is likely to get under the current administration.
"...rifle that won't commit mass murder..." Don't think it makes any difference what the guy does for a living. He, supposedly an educated guy, thinks an inanimate object can do evil by itself. Needs counselling.
"...if I enforced every infraction I saw daily..." You'd be shunned by your peers for giving 'em all moving violation tickets for their crappy driving and ignoring simple laws like signalling before making a turn or lane change and not using their private cell phones while driving. You could fill your quota in the station parking lot. snicker.
"...if I enforced every infraction I saw daily..." You'd be shunned by your peers for giving 'em all moving violation tickets for their crappy driving and ignoring simple laws like signalling before making a turn or lane change and not using their private cell phones while driving. You could fill your quota in the station parking lot. snicker.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Wasn't that the intent?rickyrick said:
mrray13, I disagree with you on the interpretation of the law but I do see your point and have no doubt if it goes that far they could use that as an argument. To me though, they would be walking a fine line because the ruling would set a precedence that opens a huge loophole in the intent of the law in the first place.
Also its worth noting that the Pastor won a rifle... only. I haven’t read anything that says it included 1000 rds of ammo or that he also threw in a few rounds for good measure. Therefore, he was in no immediate "imminent" danger of the gun harming anyone, in that regard. Also if we consider the "spirit" of that exemption provision, it was intended to allow someone to use another persons gun in an imminent self defense situation, not a storage problem.
Also its worth noting that the Pastor won a rifle... only. I haven’t read anything that says it included 1000 rds of ammo or that he also threw in a few rounds for good measure. Therefore, he was in no immediate "imminent" danger of the gun harming anyone, in that regard. Also if we consider the "spirit" of that exemption provision, it was intended to allow someone to use another persons gun in an imminent self defense situation, not a storage problem.
Koda94, interpretation, isn't that a wonderful word? Another reason why laws are written the way they are, to limit interpretation. Yet, here we are, disagreeing over the interpretation of the law. And it's completely understandable.
Anyway, this pastor is going to destroy the AR so it can't be used to commit mass killings. Not ammo, just the weapon. He believes the firearm is the culprit. So, in his mind, in his interpretation so to speak, the firearm is dangerous, and can cause great bodily harm and/or death. And the Burdick lady agrees. So in their eyes, in their interpretation of the statute, those sections I quoted do apply, and will most likely be the reason he doesn't get prosecuted.
If he doesn't, IMHO, they will have established a safeguarding loophole. It's honestly in the anti-gunners best interest to prosecute based on the arguments about ammo, the rifle being an inanimate object without, you, kilimanjaro, 44 AMP have all brought up. If they don't, uh oh, they have established a safeguarding loophole regarding transfers. But if they do prosecute, they stand to look like fools, because it'll be setting precedent that a firearm is harmless without ammo, which goes against their agenda, but we all know to be true.
After much thought, I think this pastor has backed the Oregon anti's into a bad corner, and it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
That got me laughing, lol. Don't you know quotas in Illinois are illegal? However, suggested contacts are encouraged! And I just wrote a Chicago officer for speed, 101mph on a 70mph, afterwards, I let two non-cops go without citations for being in the 80s/70. Guess I should've enforced the letter on them...not show any bias that way.
Oh, and we are exempted from the cell phone, and seat belt, law while on official duty. Although I buckle my seat belt and my phone is set up for hands free through the vehicle. There's that pesky letter of the law thing..
Anyway, this pastor is going to destroy the AR so it can't be used to commit mass killings. Not ammo, just the weapon. He believes the firearm is the culprit. So, in his mind, in his interpretation so to speak, the firearm is dangerous, and can cause great bodily harm and/or death. And the Burdick lady agrees. So in their eyes, in their interpretation of the statute, those sections I quoted do apply, and will most likely be the reason he doesn't get prosecuted.
If he doesn't, IMHO, they will have established a safeguarding loophole. It's honestly in the anti-gunners best interest to prosecute based on the arguments about ammo, the rifle being an inanimate object without, you, kilimanjaro, 44 AMP have all brought up. If they don't, uh oh, they have established a safeguarding loophole regarding transfers. But if they do prosecute, they stand to look like fools, because it'll be setting precedent that a firearm is harmless without ammo, which goes against their agenda, but we all know to be true.
After much thought, I think this pastor has backed the Oregon anti's into a bad corner, and it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
T. O'Heir said:
That got me laughing, lol. Don't you know quotas in Illinois are illegal? However, suggested contacts are encouraged! And I just wrote a Chicago officer for speed, 101mph on a 70mph, afterwards, I let two non-cops go without citations for being in the 80s/70. Guess I should've enforced the letter on them...not show any bias that way.
Oh, and we are exempted from the cell phone, and seat belt, law while on official duty. Although I buckle my seat belt and my phone is set up for hands free through the vehicle. There's that pesky letter of the law thing..
Last edited:
so far its been over a week and no arrest, and the local (anti gun) media has dropped the story.
by comparison, right now Portland has a high profile self defense case happening. In short, there was a BLM protest downtown. A guy was filming them when the mob turned on him and started following him as he was fleeing. He was walking backward leaving when the crowd flanked him.... he drew his gun in self defense, no shots fired. He was immediately arrested. No one in the mob was arrested. Initially charged with only misdemenors, hes since been charged with multiple felonies. The media is all over it. Despite all the video evidence as we read is "man pulls gun on protesters", we get updates as they happen.
crickets and silence on the pastor, no arrests made over a week.
Think there is a bit of corruption here in Oregon? The dishonesty and lies by the antis here is unparalleled, law abiding gun owners will never get an honest trial.