OR Pastor won AR-15, could face charges

[mrray13]

Man, that sucks. It's well established BLM protests can, and more often than not, turn violent. How is that incident anything but self defense? Again, based on my experience, I wouldn't have arrested the man filming, if everything happened as you say it did, and it's all on film. Sounds like he tried to retreat until retreat wasn't an option...

Victimize the criminals until there is no such thing as a criminal. That seems to be the path liberals would have us walk, then the government can step in and seal the deal. Not a path I want to be on for sure.

 

[ATN082268]

Laws do indeed have "spirits", but are written in such a way to avoid loopholes, abuse. In the academy, we were taught to know the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law.

So the police are taught on how to avoid upholding the law?

If we enforced every law as written, everybody would have an arrest record.

Then perhaps we should have fewer laws

 

[psyfly]

Then perhaps we should have fewer laws

Let's do it. No legislation, at any level, should be passed/signed into law without two existing laws attached to be repealed!

Due, in part, to the above belief, I have mixed feelings about prosecuting this particular criminal.

I am always distressed to see people hung out to dry because of a misbegotten bad law.

If one or more of the law gurus on site can advise; how do the people of OR go about putting the law on trial?

 

[rickyrick]

There's another "self defense" shooter sitting in jail in the Portland area

He was a landlord with a problem violent tenant, wouldn't move out even with a court order to move.
It ended with the tenant showing up at the landlord's dwelling claiming that he was going to kill the landlord's daughter.
The rest is unknown to me but the tenant was shot and the landlord arrested.


Certain vocal Portland residents are feverishly antigun, but typically outdoorsy gun loving types inhabit Oregon and Washington.

The unelected governor is antigun as well and plans more gun control for Oregon.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

It'll probably play out the same way it did for the pro-SAFE Act activist in New York, who was arrested for carrying a loaded handgun into his kid's school. His argument was that "he forgot" he was carrying.

If I remember correctly, no charges were filed -- he skated.

[EDIT] My recollection was faulty -- he was arrested, and THEN he skated. He was sentenced to 100 hours of community service, No felony conviction.

http://wivb.com/2014/09/22/community-activist-sentenced-for-bringing-gun-in-school/

 

[mrray13]

Agro says Ferguson always carries his gun.

Kinda defeats the "I forgot I was carrying it" argument.

Ferguson pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon. He then asked for leniency.

So, he owned up to his mistake, and got extreme leniency. Which, if he has no prior criminal record, happens a lot with plea bargains. It should also stand to reason that a sentencing precedent was set for future cases, with similar circumstances.

In the case of this pastor, I really see it as a catch 22 for the anti's. He doesn't get prosecuted, now there is precedent for safeguarding. He does get prosecuted, it shows the firearm by itself is not dangerous and defeats the purpose of the law itself. Under what I understand it to read, as what I think the defense would be.

Koda94, speaking of that, I think your view is a bit unique. To clarify, you believe the sections I quoted are in regards to strictly an imminent self defense situation? Ie; I hand you my firearm to defend yourself, and then you hand it back? If so, I can see how one could read it that way, but I'm still of the thought that it's more along the lines of securing the weapon to prevent harm. Interpretation, again, isn't it wonderful?


ATN082268, it's not about not upholding the law. It's about understanding the law so it can be upheld as intended, which, as we see with this case here, IMO, can be a little different than as it is written.


I wish a couple of our legal eagles can get in here and maybe clarify what I'm trying to say when it comes to the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the same law. Who knows? Maybe I'm waaaay off base and need my thought process revamped and overhauled. lol. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

 

[44 AMP]

The spirit of the law, and the letter of the law...an eternal dilemma, it seems, when laws are poorly written.

The spirit is what the law is intended to do. The letter of the law is what it actually does, and they are not always the same thing.

In this respect the law is similar to the procedures used in the nuclear industry, where I worked for decades. Very detailed specific instructions on how to do the job, step by step.

however, they were written by people who did not DO the job, and sometimes didn't get things right. Operator's options were to try to do the job as written (the letter of the law) or to do the job they knew needed done, ignoring those parts of the procedure that were incorrect (the spirit of the law).

When the procedure (law) was wrong, there was a change mechanism (challenge in court) which usually worked, but took time, and sometimes was ignored, OR follow the procedure as written, shutting the job down when the procedure could not be followed. This was often the fastest and most effective method.

Bad procedure, or bad law, MAKE THEM ALL PLAY BY THE RULES THEY WROTE!

when its a pain for them to do that, they rewrite the rules.

Yes, I do take a certain amount of glee in the fact that someone wanting to send an anti-gun message broke the very gun control laws his side got put in place. And I think if leniency is shown, then it should be firmly applied as a principle to ALL, from then on.

but if not, then the lunatics running the asylum should be made to wear the same straightjacket as everyone else. including law enforcement officers. perhaps especially law enforcement officers.

 

[berettaprofessor]

If I were the church members, I'd be pretty PO'ed about the $3000 of "discretionary funds" he used...and I'd stop adding to the collection plate. That money would buy a lot of homeless meals/blankets.

 

[rickyrick]

I feel that because I'm not a preacher and the fact that I don't have an antigun point to make, I would be prosecuted if I had won an assault weapon in a raffle and had passed it along to my friend without a background check.... In Oregon that is

 

[Chaz88]

I feel that because I'm not a preacher and the fact that I don't have an antigun point to make, I would be prosecuted if I had won an assault weapon in a raffle and had passed it along to my friend without a background check.... In Oregon that is

I feel you are correct. No "spirit" of the law for you! No soup ether!

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

Well you could pretend that you are anti-gun activist and you are planning on destroying the gun at some future date. Then they let you go.

 

[2ndsojourn]

From mrray:

"In the case of this pastor, I really see it as a catch 22 for the anti's. He doesn't get prosecuted, now there is precedent for safeguarding."

I don't think it sets a precedent unless he's tried and acquitted. Your point is well taken though. But it's all going to fall on deaf ears because the anti's don't see the double standard. As long as it's all in favor of the anti gun agenda, it's all good.

 

[44 AMP]

I don't think it sets a precedent unless he's tried and acquitted.

I believe you are correct. What happens in a Court can set a legal precedent. IF they decline to prosecute, that is a POLICY decision, and sets nothing as a precedent.

 

[KyJim]

Actually, a trial verdict sets no legal precedent, whether it's an acquittal or a conviction. It might sway the court of public opinion.

 

[P5 Guy]

A much publicized and denied straw purchase a few years ago has yet to be prosecuted. I seem to remember a well known Captain was going to buy an AR15 and give it away.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

A much publicized and denied straw purchase a few years ago has yet to be prosecuted. I seem to remember a well known Captain was going to buy an AR15 and give it away.

How was that a straw purchase? (I assume you're referring to Mark Kelly.)

 

[Snyper]

Originally Posted by P% Guy
A much publicized and denied straw purchase a few years ago has yet to be prosecuted. I seem to remember a well known Captain was going to buy an AR15 and give it away.

There's nothing illegal about buying a gun with your own money to give as a gift.

A "straw purchase" is fraudulently buying a firearm for another person, generally one prohibited from possession, who pays for it themselves.

 

[Spats McGee]

A "straw purchase" is fraudulently buying a firearm for another person, generally one prohibited from possession, who pays for it themselves.

Just bear in mind that "prohibited person" is not an element of "straw purchase." It is entirely possible for one non-prohibited person to make a straw purchase on behalf of another non-prohibited person. See Abramski.

 

[P5 Guy]

Thank you Mr. McGee.

 

[Buzzcook]

Courts don't have to over turn laws. They can also refer a problematic law back to congress.

More likely though is that a prosecutor will read the law as not counting storage as a form of transfer and thus not a violation.

IMHO the people that demanded that this case be investigated:

A. Just wanted to mess with a troublesome priest

B. Believe the law to be much more draconian than it really is.