Jonesboro Murderer is free - should he be allowed to own a gun?


PDA






rock jock
August 12, 2005, 11:24 AM
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - A teenager who helped shoot and kill five people during a school yard rampage at his middle school reached his 21st birthday Thursday and was expected to walk out of a federal detention center.

Federal authorities would not confirm Mitchell Johnson's release, saying privacy laws prevented them from commenting because Johnson was a minor when he and another boy gunned down four classmates and a teacher behind Jonesboro Westside Middle School.

Because of a since-closed loophole in Arkansas' juvenile justice system, the state had no way to hold Johnson and Andrew Golden beyond their 18th birthdays. Federal prosecutors used weapons laws to keep the boys locked up until age 21.

State Rep. Dustin McDaniel, who represents the northeastern Arkansas town, said Thursday that Johnson's expected release was a painful reminder of the violence.

"This young man should not be walking free today, but there was nothing at the time under the law to allow for any other scenario," said McDaniel, who is running for attorney general as a Democrat.

In the Arkansas court system, Johnson emerges with no criminal record after a juvenile court judge branded him a delinquent. He will not have to check in with a probation officer, deputy prosecutor Mike Walden said.

Gretchen Woodard has said that her son will not return to Arkansas when he is released from prison in Memphis, Tenn. She said he wants to become a minister and hinted he will move at least a day's drive from Jonesboro and enroll in college.

On March 24, 1998, Johnson, then 13, and Golden, then 11, stole high-powered rifles from Golden's grandfather. Dressed in camouflage, they waited in the woods behind the school until the lunch hour, when Golden ran into a hallway to trigger a fire alarm.

As classmates and teachers filed out of the buildings, Johnson and Golden opened fire. Children ducked or scrambled while teachers tried to herd pupils back into the building. Four students and Shannon Wright, an English teacher, were killed; 10 others were injured.

Johnson, on his 14th birthday, admitted in court that he took part in the slayings and offered an apology.

"I really thought that no one would actually be hurt. I thought we would just shoot over everyone's head. When the shooting started, we were not shooting at anybody or any group of people in particular," he said.

Jeannie Williams, Wright's mother, said it was wrong for Johnson to walk free because of the grief he caused.

"We just hate to see him released because he did such a bad thing," Williams told The Jonesboro Sun newspaper. "I've been dreading this day for a long time. We'll never be the same, and he'll go on with his life."

The Jonesboro shootings came amid a number of school yard assaults in which teenagers attacked their classmates. Thirteen died, along with two shooters, at Columbine, Colo., a year after Jonesboro. Luke Woodham killed two students in Pearl, Miss., in October 1997 after killing his mother, and Kip Kinkel killed two teenagers and wounded more than 20 at Springfield, Ore., after killing his parents in May 1998.

Woodham is in prison for life; Kinkel is serving nearly 112 years.
I am just wondering the how 2A purists feel about this guy, who murdered four little girls and a teacher, enjoying the same legal RKBA as you and I now that he is out. Would you have any qualms about him visiting your local gun shop?

If you enjoyed reading about "Jonesboro Murderer is free - should he be allowed to own a gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WT
August 12, 2005, 11:29 AM
He should NOT be allowed to possess firearms.

He should be in jail for another 50 years but, obviously that isn't going to happen.

That said, if he walked into a gunshop that I owned, I would not sell him a firearm. I would make him leave.

Kjervin
August 12, 2005, 11:48 AM
My understanding is that since he doesn't have a felony record, and is now 21, he will be allowed to own firearms. I would hope that learning from his experience with firearms and the consequences of misusing them, that he would not want to own a firearm. I would suspect that he is aware that there are many people out there wanting him to go away for life, so he, assuming he was prudent, would avoid anything that be too contraversial. That said, if it were legal for him to purchase a firearm, I would not be against it, after all there are probably a bunch of people who would be glad to shed his blood, and he has a right to self-defense as well. I wouldn't want to be the one that sold it to him though, and if I owned a gun shop, he wouldn't have one of mine. Let's hope he doesn't try, because if he did, imagine the public relations fiasco: "Arkansas Killer Rearms!!" and the hue and cry for new gun restrictions. ouch!!!
Kj

rock jock
August 12, 2005, 11:49 AM
he has a right to self-defense as well Tell that to the parents of the little girls he murdered.

cane
August 12, 2005, 12:05 PM
Let's see, laws he has already broken; 1. Possession of a firearm by person under 18, 2. Possession of a firearm on school property. 3. Conspiracy to commit homicide, 4. Homicide (multiple) Whatever the legal answer is, do you think the "law" will prevent him from obtaining one if he wants it?

rock jock
August 12, 2005, 12:08 PM
Whatever the legal answer is, do you think the "law" will prevent him from obtaining one if he wants it? No, it is simply a matter of principle. I don't think he should be legally allowed to own a gun (or even breath for that matter). And, if he is found with a gun, I want LE to have the ability to arrest his worthless backside and throw him in jail.

boofus
August 12, 2005, 12:11 PM
Gun rights and voting rights for this dirtbag are a moot point.

He never should have been released. You do an adult crime, you do adult time. If a 19 year old would get a dirtnap for it, then so should anyone under 18.

The criminal rights lobby got this murderer off easy with their liberal laws and now they are crying about the more than adequate gun laws.

Henry Bowman
August 12, 2005, 12:14 PM
And, if he is found with a gun, I want LE to have the ability to arrest his worthless backside and throw him in jail. I disagree. There are plenty of other reasons he should be in jail. He has not yet paid his debt to society (IMHO).

I agree with Boofus.

Control Group
August 12, 2005, 12:14 PM
No, it is simply a matter of principle. I don't think he should be legally allowed to own a gun (or even breath for that matter).
As a matter of principle, he should still be behind bars. So if you're asking for my answer based on principles, then the question is meaningless, because there's no excuse for him being out of prison. My answer is mu. As a practical matter, though, society has decided he's paid his debt, so yes, he should be allowed to own guns. I, personally, don't want him to have guns, but that's also true of a lot of people I know who haven't done anything wrong, and I wouldn't dream of denying them their RKBA.

And, if he is found with a gun, I want LE to have the ability to arrest his worthless backside and throw him in jail.
This, however, isn't a good argument even in principle. Just because you feel someone wasn't punished enough for a crime he did commit doesn't mean it's legitimate to invent crimes for him so we can put him away again.

HighVelocity
August 12, 2005, 12:20 PM
Given his history I have no doubt that he will continue to make poor decisions and He will meet his demise quickly once released.

scubie02
August 12, 2005, 12:24 PM
Well, he says he wants to be a minister. Maybe he does, and maybe he truly is reformed. The Bible teaches that you will be judged in the manner you judge others. Therefore if you are unwilling to forgive him, God will then not forgive you your sins when you some day stand before him.

Do I think the way the law works in this instance is right? Probably not. At the very least he should probably be on probation for a certain amount of time. Maybe he shouldn't be allowed guns, I don't know. If you are asking do I think its possible for someone to repent and be reformed? Yes, I do. Its the basis of Christianity and, once upon our time, of our legal system--in fact, and not just in words. If thats not the case, perhaps it would be better to just execute all criminals who commit a felony, rather than pretend they will be able to rejoin society some day.

If they really thought this guy was a menace, they don't need to let him roam free just because they have to release him from prison--the state could keep him in a mental insitution indefinitely. They can take anybody and put them in a mental insitution for 72 hours of observation, and then after that just sort of keep you indefinitely if they want to. If they are letting him loose, they must not be properly convinced he is a further threat.

There have been lots of instances in history where somebody did something fairly heinous as a youth but then reformed and lived a worthwhile life. If I am remembering correctly, even in the case of the Crime of the Century, a somewhat analagous situation perhaps, this was the case? Didn't Leopold eventually get out and become a dr? Seems like I remember something to that effect.

The Real Hawkeye
August 12, 2005, 12:28 PM
Here's the thing. A free man has a right to keep and bear arms, because a free man has a right to his life, and therefore a right to protect his life with whatever means are reasonable and available. Now, it is a separate question entirely whether or not he should be a free man. When you commit murder, you have, in justice, forfeited any reasonable expectation of continued liberty in all things, and belong in jail for the rest of your life, or dead at the end of a rope.

Mr. James
August 12, 2005, 12:50 PM
I will simply thank the last six posters to this thread.

I was, for a moment, beginning to despair of our membership here. Thanks for restoring my hopes.

SoCalGeek
August 12, 2005, 01:22 PM
I question whether he should be allowed out of prison at all, but definitely not so damn soon! Just because he happened to be under 18 at the time doesn't mean he didn't know what he was doing.

Vang
August 12, 2005, 01:38 PM
The question, for me, is irrelevant. He shouldn't be out of jail.

JohnBT
August 12, 2005, 01:39 PM
Sure, give him a gun. Maybe it will increase his chances of getting shot. ;)

John

TallPine
August 12, 2005, 01:41 PM
I have qualms about a lot of people owning guns - heck, everybody but me, in fact... I'm the only one that I trust :p

Really, the chances of this kid doing something like that again are likely pretty low - and if he does, then he will just steal the gun(s) like he did the first time. :rolleyes:

I am much more concerned about the organized crime of the government than I am about any freelancers. :uhoh:

BeLikeTrey
August 12, 2005, 01:45 PM
I would also wonder whether he would even want to touch a gun as at the ver least would increase scrutiny of him. I doubt he would want one... But, having said that, if he is allowed then we cannot deny him. To do so would help the cause of the very people we try and fight on a daily basis. Just remember he ain't in school anymore. If he tries those shenanigans again his carcass will be lying in a ditch to be sure. He aint in the "safety" of school anymore. He's now out on the streets with citizens, who have chosen to do their civic duty and ensure the safety of theirs and those around. (people like the population of this very site.- and a nice friendly note to that effect might be a good deterrent) :evil:

Too Many Choices!?
August 12, 2005, 01:48 PM
Just because we don't like the outcome of the situation does not mean we can seek revenge. The system failed on this one and that is that. This human vermin now has ALL rights that you and I have. To deny him the 2A would be unConstitutional. I would still like to see the bastich drawn and quartered.

DeseoUnTaco
August 12, 2005, 02:06 PM
His debt hasn't been paid. The law that let him out of jail is messed up. He should be in prison until he's old or dead. A mass murderer is not a juvenile delinquent. He should never own a gun.

He's one of those guys who fell through some crack in the legal system. Like if there's a serial killer, the police go into his house and find all kinds of evidence, but the police didn't have a correct warrant or something and so all the evidence is thrown out, and the serial killer gets to walk and there's nothing anyone can do about it within the law. It sounds like in this case there is a loophole in the law. Really, there should be a possibility of murderers of any age being tried as adults. It sounds like that may not have been possible under that state law. 13 and 11 year old boys may not have the maturity of adults but they know that killing is wrong with a capital W. This guy is not a reformed adult now. He will never be reformed. I bet that before his time here is over he will murder again.

People who commit felonies should have to go through a reasonable review process to own a gun. The review should take into account many factors, including the nature of the crime. For a crime like unprovoked murder, that should eternally bar someone from access to guns.

Yanus
August 12, 2005, 02:16 PM
I'm sure the good folks of Jonesboro will take care of the problem in good time, without spooking the horses.............. :evil:

Yanus

cuchulainn
August 12, 2005, 02:22 PM
Well, Sara Brady and Michael Barnes don't think so, FWIW ;)

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=51560
Brady Campaign: Jonesboro Killer, Leaving Prison Tomorrow, Will Be Free to Buy Firearms

8/10/2005 3:09:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 202-898-0792

MEMPHIS, Tenn., Aug. 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

You kill five people in cold blood, shocking an entire nation. You go to prison. Seven years later, you get out, and you are free to buy all the guns you want.

What a country.

Mitchell Johnson, who as a 13-year-old on March 24, 1998 joined with 11-year-old Andrew Golden to plan and execute the attack at Jonesboro, Arkansas' Westside Middle School that resulted in the death of four students and a teacher and the wounding of 10 others, pleaded guilty to murder. Under Arkansas law, he could only be imprisoned until he turned 21, which is tomorrow, when he will leave a Memphis, Tenn., detention center. Under Arkansas law, he is also not a prohibited purchaser of firearms because he was convicted of the murders as a minor.

"This individual and his accomplice planned their crime. They lured their victims outside with a false fire alarm, and then they slaughtered them. And now, Mr. Johnson is an adult, and he can legally purchase a firearm," said Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"I hope this young man has changed, and that he is not a threat to others. But this is a textbook case of an individual who should be deemed by society as forever barred from the privilege of owning a gun," Barnes said. "The fact that he will be legally allowed to own one is an absolute embarrassment in our society."

---

As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, working with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

MrTuffPaws
August 12, 2005, 02:29 PM
Tell that to the parents of the little girls he murdered.

Nice cop out and appeal to emotion there.

MICHAEL T
August 12, 2005, 02:35 PM
May be some one will mistake him for a deer during deer season :)

MrTuffPaws
August 12, 2005, 02:35 PM
So, this leads me to ask, if someone commits a crime, gets caught, is sentenced to prison of X amount of years, serves his time, and then is released, should he still be punished for that crime via a criminal record?

No where do the courts say, you are sentenced to 20 years in prison, after you get out, you will then be punished by removal of some of constitutional rights for the rest of your life.

Control Group
August 12, 2005, 02:48 PM
So, this leads me to ask, if someone commits a crime, gets caught, is sentenced to prison of X amount of years, serves his time, and then is released, should he still be punished for that crime via a criminal record?

No where do the courts say, you are sentenced to 20 years in prison, after you get out, you will then be punished by removal of some of constitutional rights for the rest of your life.
If the criminal serves his full sentence, then no, he should not still be punished for that crime. All rights and duties should be restored to him immediately upon release. The criminal record, however, should not be expunged. The fact that this will cause him problems down the road is tough luck, but the facts of the trial and conviction are a matter of public record.

MrTuffPaws
August 12, 2005, 02:56 PM
If the criminal serves his full sentence, then no, he should not still be punished for that crime. All rights and duties should be restored to him immediately upon release. The criminal record, however, should not be expunged. The fact that this will cause him problems down the road is tough luck, but the facts of the trial and conviction are a matter of public record.

So, do you think if that person had a felony and served his time, he should not be barred from certain jobs, firearm ownership, voting, etc....

In other words, the felony will remain on his record to be allowed as evidence for character judgments, but have no legal implications.

Jim Diver
August 12, 2005, 03:05 PM
At the least I think he should have a 10 year probation w/o firearm rights.

RavenVT100
August 12, 2005, 03:07 PM
As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, working with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

I'm the magical man, from happy-land, in the gumdrop house on lollipop lane.

Control Group
August 12, 2005, 03:30 PM
So, do you think if that person had a felony and served his time, he should not be barred from certain jobs, firearm ownership, voting, etc....

In other words, the felony will remain on his record to be allowed as evidence for character judgments, but have no legal implications.
Precisely correct. Everyone's got to live with the consequences of their actions; the fact that no one trusts a felon isn't anyone's problem but the criminal's. The government, though, shouldn't continue punishing someone who's paid his debt to society.

I do feel compelled to mention, though, that there are some crimes for which I do not believe the debt can ever be repaid. Among them, for example, real child molestation (and I do not mean many of the current "abuse" crimes, I mean actual sexual abuse of a child). A child molestor, in my mind, can never be trusted with children again, and so should never be released into the general population again.

DeseoUnTaco
August 12, 2005, 03:36 PM
As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign,
I had always understood that the NRA is the nation's largest non-partisan grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence.

Control Group
August 12, 2005, 03:50 PM
^^^^

Excelsior!

captain obvious
August 12, 2005, 04:00 PM
Is he a free man? - yes;
Is he a US citizen? - yes;

In that case, the answer is yes. Next question....


I don't like the fact he isn't dead nor still in jail any more than anyone else, however that's irrelevant now.

Powderman
August 12, 2005, 04:20 PM
I'm sorry.

He should NOT be out of jail.

He should NOT be allowed to possess firearms or other weapons.

As a matter of fact, he should not have even been able to walk away from his shooting position. In a perfect world, the teachers present should have been able to return accurate, aimed fire.

This guy is a convict, a felon, a criminal and a murderer. I want nothing to do with him or his kind. Period. He needs a dirt nap.

Cosmoline
August 12, 2005, 04:33 PM
Capt. Obvious nailed it. He's not a felon, he's a US citizen. End of discussion. What the law shoulda coulda woulda done is irrelevant.

rock jock
August 12, 2005, 04:58 PM
As a matter of principle, he should still be behind bars. So if you're asking for my answer based on principles, then the question is meaningless, because there's no excuse for him being out of prison. My answer is mu. As a practical matter, though, society has decided he's paid his debt, so yes, he should be allowed to own guns. So wait, let me get this straight. He hasn't paid his debt....but since our flawed criminal code has said otherwise, we are going to make a bad situation worse by restoring his RKBA. :(

The problem with your position (and that of others posted here) is that it is rooted in theory. You speak of hypothetical idealized scenarios that have no basis in reality. When our politicians saddle us with poorly conceived laws, our response should be to accomodate those laws in the best way possible until they can be changed, not to ignore their repercussions. Sometimes that means we deal with one bad law with another law. Yes, it is a bandaid solution, but it beats letting the patient hemorrhage to death. As an example, in a perfect libertarian fantasy world, we would have no sovereign nationalities as they imply and require an authority to maintain, but reality remains otherwise and thus dictates that we deny the "right" of people of roam freely across our borders.

Nice cop out and appeal to emotion there.On the contrary, these parents are more qualified than any of us to say that this POS has NO inherent rights after what he did.

rock jock
August 12, 2005, 05:02 PM
however that's irrelevant now No, its not. That's my point. Its only irrelevant when he has truly paid his debt. Society, and in particular, the surviving relatives, have to deal with the "relevance" of this issue on a daily basis.

Bruce H
August 12, 2005, 05:04 PM
Any family members of his victims should be outside the gates when he is released. If they choose to allow him to walk away fine. If they choose to decorate the wall with him fine.

Waitone
August 12, 2005, 06:34 PM
We'll see this kid again. He is not reformed, he is just released. There is no debt he owes to society. Whatever debt there is he owes to the victims and their families.

The state sees fit to release him because of age. Screwed up logic in my opinion but it is the law. If the law can be made to turn loose a convicted mass murderer the same law can be written to forbid him from owning firearrms. I am not sympathetic to any arguments on natural law or human rights. Mass murderers should be ostricized from society, period.

Downside? He is no longer nice and safe inside the prison.

Fletchette
August 12, 2005, 07:36 PM
Anyone notice this in the Brady statement?

But this is a textbook case of an individual who should be deemed by society as forever barred from the privilege of owning a gun," Barnes said

Keeping and Bearing arms is a RIGHT, not a privilege!!!

As for the criminal to be released: I think the question should really be should he be out at all. We shouldn't let one unreasonable law (young murder gets released with a clean record) undermine a just law (free people have the RIGHT to own and carry guns). This is exactly what the Brady Campaign is trying to do. Don't fall into their trap.

KriegHund
August 12, 2005, 07:41 PM
It wont matter anywyas. Legally, i think no.

But really if hes gonna commit murder hes gonna do it anyways, legal weapon or no.

captain obvious
August 12, 2005, 08:01 PM
No, its not. That's my point. Its only irrelevant when he has truly paid his debt. Society, and in particular, the surviving relatives, have to deal with the "relevance" of this issue on a daily basis.

Are you advocating he be subject to double jeopardy, and thus said scenario would become acceptable for the use of the state?

Kjervin
August 12, 2005, 08:33 PM
The families of the victim do not get to say whether he should be free or not. The law does. As a consequence of having a criminal justice system, we do not have a legalized system of vendetta. The shooter benefitted from a situation the crimal justice system was not set up to handle properly. That has since been remedied. People bring all kinds of grief upon themselves by refusing to accept the reality of their situation. He is a free man, whether he should be or not, and whether they like it or not, that's the reality. If, as some have recommended, they seek vengence, does that mean his mom can then kill them in revenge? That's why the state punishes instead of the families of the victims. Sometime we have to live with outcomes that seem unfair, becuase to correct them would create larger tragedies down the line. Once again you want to substitute your idea of who should be able to own a firearm or the Brady Bunch's. Both are wrong, theirs is just more wrong.
Kj

308win
August 12, 2005, 09:13 PM
Never

beerslurpy
August 12, 2005, 09:15 PM
The real issue is why he is on the streets, not whether or not he can legally own a gun. If he is on the streets, he can acquire a gun. It is just a matter of time. The only way to prevent this is to keep him off the streets.

A hanging crime is a hanging crime, regardless of who does it.

DMF
August 12, 2005, 10:39 PM
No where do the courts say, you are sentenced to 20 years in prison, after you get out, you will then be punished by removal of some of constitutional rights for the rest of your life. Wrong. Every single time I go to a sentencing in federal court (whether convicted as a result of a plea or trial verdict) the judge goes through a long list of things the defendent will face as a result of their conviction to include the loss of their right to possess firearms, and vote in federal elections. Congress sets punishments for crimes, and among them is loss of voting and gun rights for felonies. If you don't want to get punished, don't commit crimes.

Spiphel Rike
August 12, 2005, 10:46 PM
This shouldn't be an issue, since he should have been executed. The reason that he's out so soon with no record is because he was a minor when he committed his crimes. I believe he should either be dead or still in jail. He should not be allowed to own firearms.

P95Carry
August 12, 2005, 10:55 PM
If the felony is exponged then he will have the ability to excercize his right.

But why on this earth he is being freed is beyond me. OK I do know ''why'' - all the legal machinations but heck - I would see him fried, sorry!

captlid
August 12, 2005, 10:59 PM
I am just wondering the how 2A purists feel about this guy, who murdered four little girls and a teacher, enjoying the same legal RKBA as you and I now that he is out. Would you have any qualms about him visiting your local gun shop?

He has the right to visit the gun shop, the owner has the right to refuse to sell him a gun.

Since you're asking how we "feel", personally, he served his time, he's a free man, that means he can own firearms.
I am sure the victims of his transgressions will do what they feel is appropriate.

Combat-wombat
August 12, 2005, 11:07 PM
He never should have been released. You do an adult crime, you do adult time. If a 19 year old would get a dirtnap for it, then so should anyone under 18.
Wrong. People under 18 do not have the same rights, and are not treated as citizens or induviduals until after 18. I'm not supporting criminals- I think what this kid did was horrible. However, it's wrong to deny minors freedom and then expect them to pay full consequences of someone over 18. I don't CARE about how horrible the crime was, or how he should be punished as an adult because he acted like an adult. Charging minors as adults is a very new trend, and it's wrong.

If you don't want to get punished, don't commit crimes.
Of course, it's obvious that this kid committed the crimes in question. However, it's not as simple as "can't do the time, don't do the crime". Ever heard of false convictions? They happen. For another thing, though, SO MANY things are crimes to day, and a lot of them are felonies! I believe this was covered in the thread about those kids being arrested for abusing the schools computers. Even people seemingly for liberty completely turn away from freedom on issues of crime. The "tough on crime" attitude really screws things up... if you make everyone a criminal, that's a sure way to get a police state. More than 2 million US citizens are in some form of prison. The "tough on crime" attitude made this supposedly "free" country have the largest prison population in the world.

Fletchette
August 12, 2005, 11:25 PM
I am just wondering the how 2A purists feel about this guy, who murdered four little girls and a teacher, enjoying the same legal RKBA as you and I now that he is out. Would you have any qualms about him visiting your local gun shop?

I have qualms about him being alive and out of prison. This is not a Second Amendment issue. The Brady Campaign is using one wrong (letting him out) to institute a second wrong (gun control).

Cosmoline
August 12, 2005, 11:52 PM
No, its not. That's my point. Its only irrelevant when he has truly paid his debt. Society, and in particular, the surviving relatives, have to deal with the "relevance" of this issue on a daily basis.

Society doesn't make law, and society doesn't enforce law. I appreciate that relatives feel angry. That's fine. But as it stands now the guy got a JV conviction and that's the end of the story. He can't be retroactively punished now, at least by the law. If a relative wants to shoot him, fine. But that's got nothing to do with the legal question.

Hkmp5sd
August 12, 2005, 11:54 PM
Either you believe in the 2nd Amendment or you don't. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." There is no "felony" clause. There is no "domestic violence" clause. No clause about teenage murderers screwing the legal system.

If you think this person should not have the right to own firearms, you have sided with the Brady Bunch and VPC on the gun control issue. You support gun bans. The only difference is the degree of the ban.

Kind of like the old joke of a man offering a woman $1,000,000 for sex. She says yes. He counters with a $10 offer, at which point she asks the man what he thinks she is, a whore? He says that has already been established and they were now just haggling over the price.

gunsmith
August 13, 2005, 12:17 AM
:fire:
I don't believe I would be able to tolerate him breathing free air

dustind
August 13, 2005, 02:31 AM
And, if he is found with a gun, I want LE to have the ability to arrest his worthless backside and throw him in jail. I do not see why guns should be involved any more than houses or cars. Guns should not be a punishment, time and money should be.

Banning him from owning guns would not make anyone any safer given he has no respect for guns laws as it is.

I agree with everyone saying he should not have been let out.

stevelyn
August 13, 2005, 12:16 PM
Jonesboro murderer free. Should he be allowed to own guns?


Absolutely not. He committed a violent crime against innocent multiple persons unjustly taking their lives because someone laughed at him. The little POS is a sociopath who will kill again given the chance and right set of circumstances.

He has no conscience. He can only be rehabilitated by having dirt shoveled on him. He should not be allow to possess a firearm, handtools or a plastic spork.

As far as him becoming a minister, I've seen more than one con hide behind a holy book as cover for their activities. I doubt this one will be any different.

Mannlicher
August 13, 2005, 12:35 PM
a moot point. Someone with a dead relative will shoot him, or should.

TallPine
August 13, 2005, 12:54 PM
SO MANY things are crimes to day
Speaking of such things... anyone know if the Klinton EO about not having more that two weeks food supply stored in your home is still in effect...?

beerslurpy
August 13, 2005, 01:30 PM
I wasnt aware EOs could establish a crime. I am also pretty sure the Mormons have been ignoring him, if what you say is true. Their religions require them to keep 2 years of food and water handy. Or so I heard.

And again, this is not a "should citizens have guns issue, it is a "should cold blooded murderers get out of jail at age 21" issue.

If you enjoyed reading about "Jonesboro Murderer is free - should he be allowed to own a gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!