Angel Shamaya Jailed in Michigan on Gun Charge


PDA






Travis McGee
March 4, 2006, 12:56 AM
Angel Shamaya, founder of KeepAndBearArms.com is in jail in Michigan, having been arrested for possession of firearms not properly registered under Michigan law.

Angel's friends are working to help him with this problem, but we need your help, right now!

We need character references from you for Angel. There is a form letter for you to fill out and send back at: http://www.marbut.com/angel.

Be advised that Angel's problem is happening in the Detroit area, where a strong anti-gun sentiment exists in the criminal justice system. So, we are asking you to downplay gun-rights and gun-related comments. We will NOT deliver to the court any disparaging letters about Michigan or Michigan laws. Stay on the high ground.

Please, download a copy of the draft letter. Add one sentence of personal comment if you wish - no more.

This is for upstanding, legitimate citizens only. So, we want you to add your name, mail address, and phone number to the letter, so the judge seeing these will accept your letter and will not think you are some flake.

You may email your completed letter, either as an attached MSWord (.doc) file, or pasted into the body of your email, either to newslinks@keepandbeararms.com or to mssa@mtssa.org. So we can pick it out from our many other emails, PLEASE make the SUBJECT of your email: "Angel reference." We will see that these letters get to Angel's attorney ASAP.

Please pass this on to your friends for action. We need letters from everyone who knows or knows of, and appreciates Angel.

Thanks loads for your help.


Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

Personal note from David Codrea: I spoke with Angel at length last night, before this happened. He is a great patriot and friend. WarOnGuns visitors: I have never really asked you for anything. I am pleading with you to support our brother in his time of need. I will be monitoring things as they unfold--if and when we need to help Angel with more than words, I will let you know.

Please do this support letter now--and please spread this news far and wide.

More from Nicki Fellenzer:

Folks, most of you know how decent, passionate, intelligent and dynamic Angel Shamaya is. He has committed himself to freedom, and I know of few people who are as dedicated to the cause of freedom as Angel. He is also a personal friend to many of us, and now he needs our help.

Today he was arrested, and he is currently in jail. Please read the link below and take a few minutes to write the judge on his behalf. I have National Drill this weekend, and I'm sending this from my hotel room. I won't be around much until Sunday night, but I'm counting on you guys to spread the news and help Angel through this. Please!

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nicki/Angel.htm

The link includes an address where to send your letters of reference. Please do so as quickly as you can!

Then, I urge you to pass this email to everyone you know. Post it on your websites and blogs, pass it on to fellow bloggers and help us ensure that this gets the widest possible dissemination. Yes, this is about freedom -- but right now, we need to ensure he is, first and foremost, released and that charges are dismissed, so please toe the line on this one. For Angel.

Thanks!

Nicki Fellenzer

UPDATE:
I just got off the phone with the Oakland County Sheriff to see if I could help in any way with bail. Unfortunately, the attendant told me Angel has not been arraigned yet, so there is no public information they can share, and that the best thing to do would be to call back tomorrow night. I told the deputy he had a good man in custody and to please see to it that Angel was safe.

If you enjoyed reading about "Angel Shamaya Jailed in Michigan on Gun Charge" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Travis McGee
March 4, 2006, 01:03 AM
I just received an Email from David Codrea, writer for GUNS magazine, about Angel being arrested. The above is from his "The War On Guns" blog.

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/03/angel-in-jail.html

beerslurpy
March 4, 2006, 01:21 AM
Guys, wait and see what he is charged with first. IANAL, but....

The judge is going to be interested in two things during a trial:
-discussion of the legal issues before the court and why he should rule one way or another
-discussion of the facts of the case, which will be inadmissable as hearsay unless you show up as a witness

During sentencing he will probably be open to things such as:
-character
-place in the community
-criminal history
-what he had for breakfast
-whether he likes defendent's attitude
-whether he received 300000 angry and incoherent emails from out of state gun owners

Travis McGee
March 4, 2006, 01:39 AM
That's why we do NOT want to send any angry and incoherent emails to anybody about this affair.

Which is why I posted this on The High Road, and not on any other gun forums. High Roaders, well, they stay on the high road.

Jeff White
March 4, 2006, 04:27 AM
I'm not sure how a judge is going to react to a large quantity of form letters. How many people on THR actually know Angel? It's been my experience that charactor witnesses need to actually know the person.

I'd like to know the actual charges and circumstances behind the arrest.

Jeff

Barbara
March 4, 2006, 06:51 AM
Yeah, I wouldn't write at this point, especially if you don't know him.

It shouldn't be that big a deal. Most times people are just ticketed for it, and you have something like 10 days after you arrive here to get it "safety inspected" so I'd want to be sure there wasn't more to this story.

Oakland County is generally not considered too bad on gun rights and there's not the strong anti-gun sentiment in the same way there is in Wayne County.

Hopefully he's contacted Jim Simmons or Kevin Winters about representation. Jim's office is in Oakland County and he knows the ins and outs.

feedthehogs
March 4, 2006, 07:02 AM
How about a few more facts to the case as to why he was allegedly carrying a firearm not properly registered to the local laws?

Fact or fiction?

Molon Labe
March 4, 2006, 07:20 AM
How about a few more facts to the case as to why he was allegedly carrying a firearmWhy does that matter?

Any law forbidding a free man to carry firearms is unlawful and unconstitutional. Hence it doesn't matter why (or under what circumstances) he was carrying a firearm.

For those curious, here's (http://www.sierratimes.com/images/roadhouse/shamaya_st.jpg) a pic of Angel. Looks like a young guy.

Barbara
March 4, 2006, 07:40 AM
On the other hand, if the reaction of the locals seems to be more excessive than normal, it seems prudent to make sure there isn't more to the story than one email floating around asking you to write letters to people who will more than likely just be annoyed by getting an influx of letters from people who know neither the defendent nor the situation. Potentially, you're just going to make the situation worse for him.

TexasRifleman
March 4, 2006, 07:50 AM
Not a word on whether he is even guilty or innocent, just a request for help?

Did he intentionally violate the law to draw attention to the cause? Is he being railroaded? Is he in fact just plain old guilty? It does matter.

As an activist in the arena, blindly violating the law does none of us any good.

Do you think it would help the cause if Wayne LaPierre was arrested for carrying concealed without a permit?

Lots of missing pieces here that need to be filled in before asking for help IMHO.

So what happened exactly?

El Tejon
March 4, 2006, 08:53 AM
It seems to me that a defense fund would be a more appropriate avenue of action.

JMusic
March 4, 2006, 09:37 AM
Jeff that was my feeling too. I don't know the person and if asked what is your history with this person I would have to say none. If this is an injustice the lawyer has more bearing than notes to the judge. In my opinion if we feel Angel needs help we should locate and help support legal representation.
Jim

Barbara
March 4, 2006, 09:47 AM
Someone who knows Angel may want to suggest he call Jim:


Jim Simmons
Law Offices of James T. Simmons, P.C.
45700 Village Boulevard, Shelby Township, MI 48315
Phone #: (586) 566-1900
Fax: (586) 532-4110
Internet email address: jtsimmons@jtsimmons.com

Areas of practice: Small Business and Corporate Law; Civil and Commercial Litigation; Civil and Criminal Appeals; Concealed Pistol
Licensing and Appeals; other Firearms related matters.

Bar admissions: Michigan, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 1990. Western District of Michigan, 1994. Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals, 1991. United States Supreme Court, 1994.

RKBA Organizational Memberships: NRA: Member and Certified Instructor in all Pistol Disciplines (lapsed -- I now teach the legal section of NRA Pistol Classes). Shooters Alliance for Firearm Rights; Great Lakes Shooting Sports Association; Great Lakes Self Defense Association.

Preacherman
March 4, 2006, 10:25 AM
Any law forbidding a free man to carry firearms is unlawful and unconstitutional. Hence it doesn't matter why (or under what circumstances) he was carrying a firearm.

This is complete and utter nonsense, and anyone trying to use such an approach to defy our laws deserves all he/she gets. From the beginning of the Republic, our Courts (which are themselves part of our Constitutional system of government) have held that regulation of a right does not amount to infringement of that right, so long as the regulation is reasonable and not excessive. Michigan's gun laws have passed that Constitutional and legal test, and are therefore binding upon residents of Michigan. To say that such laws are "unlawful and unconstitutional" is absolutely wrong, and indicates a lack of knowledge and maturity which is, quite frankly, appalling.

I agree with previous posts that we don't know enough about this particular case to be able to make any meaningful comment at this stage.

Chris Rhines
March 4, 2006, 11:44 AM
Sigh.

From the beginning of the Republic, our Courts (which are themselves part of our Constitutional system of government) have held that regulation of a right does not amount to infringement of that right, so long as the regulation is reasonable and not excessive. This is tantamount to saying that the courts have found that the sky is blaze orange, so it must be true.

It really pains me to see so many pro-gun advocates falling all over themselves to justify gun control legislation, in an ill-fated and counterproductive attempt to look "reasonable" to the antis.

- Chris

ebd10
March 4, 2006, 11:58 AM
It really pains me to see so many pro-gun advocates falling all over themselves to justify gun control legislation, in an ill-fated and counterproductive attempt to look "reasonable" to the antis.

It pains me to see so many people rushing to aid someone without knowing the facts of the case. Many seemingly rational, decent people have done something improper and run afoul of the law. Until I know what the facts surrounding his arrest are, I can't in good conscience send a letter supporting (or condemning) him. I do know from having lived mosty of my life in SE Michigan, that in all likelihood, it's something minor that somehow got blown out of proportion.

LAR-15
March 4, 2006, 12:06 PM
More details are needed for sure.

Is he in trouble with the BATFE also?

beerslurpy
March 4, 2006, 12:12 PM
Any law forbidding a free man to carry firearms is unlawful and unconstitutional. Hence it doesn't matter why (or under what circumstances) he was carrying a firearm.

Even in the pre-civil war years this wasnt true. Concealed carry of knives and small firearms was frowned upon by honorable men. Aymette held that concealed bowie knives werent protected since they were only used for having barfights and not for keeping the peace or for the common defense. The basic assumption was that if you intended a lawful use for a weapon you wouldnt conceal it from the eyes of the public.

Travis McGee
March 4, 2006, 12:34 PM
I posted this thread as an early in the process "heads up" only. Shamaya founded Keep And Bear Arms dot com, he's been a stalwart leader in the 2nd Amd movement for many years. More will come out about this case, which looks increasingly like a set up.

AZRickD
March 4, 2006, 12:47 PM
How many people on THR actually know Angel?
I've known him personally for nearly a decade. Worked on a few RKBA projects with him.

See the bottom of this page http://www.gunlaws.com/books3.htm

http://www.gunlaws.com/images/PhotoSm/NewAge.jpg

Angel is a peace-loving soul. Good guy. I trust him implicitly.

I've sent my form letter (modified, of course) to the original sender.

I'm guessing the charge would be "unregistered handgun."

Rick

Nightfall
March 4, 2006, 01:12 PM
...regulation of a right does not amount to infringement of that right, so long as the regulation is reasonable and not excessive.Problem is, "reasonable and not excessive" is completely subjective. How do you maintain a consistent standard on something like this?

Thain
March 4, 2006, 01:17 PM
Michigan's gun laws are, for the most part, very pro-gun. The Brady Campaign gives the State a "D-" last time I checked. We don't require registration of long-guns, and have a de facto not de jure registration of handguns. CCW is "shall issue", shooting ranges are not hard to find, and a version of FL's "Stand Your Ground" law is workign its way through the State legislature...

Frankly, you need to have actually done something illegal to get charged with a gun crime in Michigan. Yes, we have an awful lot of ultra-liberals in Ann Arbor, Beverly Hills and Berkley, and yes the Detroit city government is corrupt beyond the dreams of Avarice, but we also have an awful lot of pro-gun rednecks both in the UAW and the farmers. (Not to mention a very healthy militia movement.)

What are the actual charges agianst Mr. Shamaya?

If he was carrying illegally, then I am afraid he does not have my sympathy. Michigan is "shall issue," has recpirical agreements with most other States, requires non-CCW holders to store there firearms unloaded and inaccessible when in a vehicle (like most States), and all-in-all our gun laws are pretty basic, pretty unintrusive, and pretty common.

Until we know more, I'm going to withhold judgement and support.

FeebMaster
March 4, 2006, 01:46 PM
It really pains me to see so many pro-gun advocates falling all over themselves to justify gun control legislation, in an ill-fated and counterproductive attempt to look "reasonable" to the antis.

Why would you classify someone trying to justify gun control as being pro-gun in the first place?

beerslurpy
March 4, 2006, 01:50 PM
Explain the de-facto registration in MI please? As a minor gun rights celebrity, he may have been targeted for violating some other law or accused of carrying while merely transporting.

Also, why would someone of his alleged stature in the RKBA movement not have a CCW permit?

Jeff White
March 4, 2006, 01:55 PM
AZRickD said;
I've known him personally for nearly a decade. Worked on a few RKBA projects with him.

Then you would make a good charactor witness. I have been a charctor witness a couple times when soldiers who served under me got into trouble with the civil authorities.

The court always wanted to know how long I had known the soldier, what my impressions were of him, and that information impacted how much weight my statement had on the case.

Most of us here on THR would not be good charactor witnesses for each other because we only know each other through our posts on the forum. And most of the RKBA community only knows Angel through his work. That's not the same as knowing him personally like Rick does.

A legal defense fund, financial and moral support for his family would probably be a more effective way for the rest of us to help.

I'm not sure that a judge wouldn't take a few thousand form letters the wrong way.

Jeff

ElTacoGrande
March 4, 2006, 02:11 PM
From the site that was linked to, it says this is a misdemeanor charge. Is this guy even in jail? It sounds pretty trivial, unless there's more to the story here. With most misdemeanors like this they will just make a settlement that will probably involve a fine or whatever.

Writing a bunch of letters would probably be a bad idea and a waste of time.

One of Many
March 4, 2006, 03:03 PM
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
750.232a
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who obtains a pistol in violation of section 2 of Act No. 372 of the Public Acts of 1927, as amended, being section 28.422 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
Act 372 of 1927

28.422 Sec. 2.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not purchase, carry, or transport a pistol in this state without first having obtained a license for the pistol as prescribed in this section.
(2) A person who brings a pistol into this state who is on leave from active duty with the armed forces of the United States or who has been discharged from active duty with the armed forces of the United States shall obtain a license for the pistol within 30 days after his or her arrival in this state.

28.429 Sec. 9.
(1) A person within the state who owns or comes into possession of a pistol shall, if he or she resides in a city, township, or village having an organized police department, present the pistol for safety inspection to the commissioner or chief of police of the city, township, or village police department or to a duly authorized deputy of the commissioner or chief of police. If that person resides in a part of the county not included within a city, township, or village having an organized police department, he or she shall present the pistol for safety inspection to the sheriff of the county or to a duly authorized deputy of the sheriff. If the person presenting the pistol is eligible to possess a pistol under section 2(1), a certificate of inspection shall be issued in triplicate on a form provided by the director of the department of state police, containing the name, age, address, description, and signature of the person presenting the pistol for inspection, together with a full description of the pistol. The original of the certificate shall be delivered to the registrant. The duplicate of the certificate shall be mailed within 48 hours to the director of the department of state police and filed and indexed by the department and kept as a permanent official record. The triplicate of the certificate shall be retained and filed in the office of the sheriff, commissioner, or chief of police. This section does not apply to a wholesale or retail dealer in firearms who regularly engages in the business of selling pistols at retail, or to a person who holds a collection of pistols kept for the purpose of display as relics or curios and that are not made for modern ammunition or are permanently deactivated.


In order to Legally possess a handgun in Michigan, you must have obtained a 'Permit to Purchase' (or used a CPL purchase form), and then have had the handgun 'Inspected' (registered) by your local Police. Failure to present the handgun with the 'Permit' within 10 days of purchase is a misdemeanor.

Anyone moving into the state is required to obtain a 'Permit to Purchase' their own firearm, listing themselves as both seller and buyer, in order to comply with Michigan law. Your 'Safety Inspection Card' can be used as proof of registration if a Police Officer demands proof of ownership during a stop. Without that card, your gun may be confiscated and held until you can prove legal ownership of the gun. The law does not require the police to do a computer check of the registration database for establishing legal ownership of the gun. Unless you have kept your copy of the 'Permit to Purchase' and/or the 'Safety Inspection' to show the police, you may be arrested and have to show proof in court.

If you buy a handgun from a Michigan resident, and it has not been previously registered in Michigan, the police may confiscate and destroy the gun. If you imported handguns when moving into Michigan, and did not follow the process of getting the 'Permit' and 'Inspection', your guns are illegally owned, and may be confiscated and destroyed - and you will have a misdemeanor on your record.

There is some gray area concerning the use of the CPL in place of the 'Permit to Purchase', and the timeframe for completing the 'safety Inspection'.

There is plenty of wiggle room for an anti-gun police/prosecutor to go after a gun owner that is sloppy about keeping records of purchase/inspection of their handguns.

crazed_ss
March 4, 2006, 04:26 PM
Ouch.

That's outrageous. Worse than CA.

Zedicus
March 4, 2006, 05:00 PM
It really pains me to see so many pro-gun advocates falling all over themselves to justify gun control legislation, in an ill-fated and counterproductive attempt to look "reasonable" to the antis.

- Chris

+1:fire:

bogie
March 4, 2006, 05:02 PM
I'd really like to know the facts of the matter - is this looking like a "test case" or did someone do a warrant/search?

beerslurpy
March 4, 2006, 05:07 PM
Whoa, that is messed up. That sounds very much like de jure registration to me. The difference between that and "de facto" is that here the possession of a weapon that hasnt been recorded by the police is punished heavily. That could even be seen as a ban on out of state residents entering the state with pistols unless they have permission from a state police official.

Still, it is only a misedemeanor and some decent lawyering can probably get him a few hundred bucks worth of fine as a worst case scenario.

I dont know michigan law at all, but does the MI constitution have anything about RKBA? Is the MI constitution subject to the same amendment process as the "busy constitution" states like florida that are regularly amended by the voters?

Why is this on the books in an otherwise pro-gun state?

LoadAmmo
March 4, 2006, 05:09 PM
If he was carrying illegally, then I am afraid he does not have my sympathy.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

My bets are he was being monitored by the Feds and they found a great chance to hit him.

Amazing that he's getting in trouble now after he survived being high profile during Klinton... Is this Bush Gov really this bad?

Zedicus
March 4, 2006, 05:16 PM
Quote:
If he was carrying illegally, then I am afraid he does not have my sympathy.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

My bets are he was being monitored by the Feds and they found a great chance to hit him.

Amazing that he's getting in trouble now after he survived being high profile during Klinton... Is this Bush Gov really this bad?.

+1 Again! (nice post)

Seriously though, what gives with all the Traitorous Turncoat Backstabbing Attitudes?:scrutiny: :fire:

Coronach
March 4, 2006, 05:18 PM
Problem is, "reasonable and not excessive" is completely subjective. How do you maintain a consistent standard on something like this?Court overview is how we have ended up doing it. We can debate until the cows come home about the propriety of that evolution of power for the Supreme Court, but two things are clear:

1. The Constitution provides that there shall be a Supreme Court. It is obviously intended to do something.

2. Subjective tests are to be found in the Bill of Rights. Witness the 4th Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Emphasis mine. "Unreasonable" is a subjective test. The framers of the Constitution did not find such things to be anathema. Likewise the entire 8th Amendment. "Cruel and unusual punishment"? Who decides what is cruel and unusual? Excessive bail? Who decides what is "excessive." That's completely subjective.

Subjectivity is written into the Constitution. I'll march lockstep with the libertarians and strict constructionists when they object to the Left writing in subjectivity that is not there, but let's not pretend that it isn't there in cases where it plainly is.

Mike

beerslurpy
March 4, 2006, 05:51 PM
Being a gun rights activist in Detroit is fairly risky. Still, I cant imagine that the police got permission to search his place or that he was found carrying an unregistered gun. Probably some sort of plant or sting at a traffic stop or something similar. I eagerly await hearing the facts of the case.

Steam dragon
March 4, 2006, 06:07 PM
2. Subjective tests are to be found in the Bill of Rights. Witness the 4th Amendment:
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Emphasis mine. "Unreasonable" is a subjective test. The framers of the Constitution did not find such things to be anathema. Likewise the entire 8th Amendment. "Cruel and unusual punishment"? Who decides what is cruel and unusual? Excessive bail? Who decides what is "excessive." That's completely subjective.

Subjectivity is written into the Constitution. I'll march lockstep with the libertarians and strict constructionists when they object to the Left writing in subjectivity that is not there, but let's not pretend that it isn't there in cases where it plainly is.



Yep "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is the most subjective phrase in there.

Means whatever anyone wants.

Uh, huh, Sure.

Angel came to a lot of folks rescue.
Regularly.
Held the lanterns in the north church tower as it were.

He put it all on the line FOR YEARS so that you tubars could sit on your fat duffs at home and bad mouth him.

I'd rather the likes of a summertime soldier, and sunshine patriot to the likes of some of the comments in this thread.
At least they stand to once and a while.
The fact that you don't know of Angel Samaya, just shows the depth of your ignorence when it comes to who fights the good fight for the2nd Amd.

The high road? judging by what a moderator here said. it doesn't seem likely.
Just another muddy trail full of cow dung IMO.

Enjoy your beer and pretzels, gents, WE'LL go do the fighting.

model 649
March 4, 2006, 06:31 PM
The Michigan constitution says that we have the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of ourselves and the state.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(kmlewr45hrr03emehq4ajgqs)/printDocument.aspx?objectName=mcl-chap1&version=txt

Josh

Sgt.Slappy
March 4, 2006, 06:34 PM
Enjoy your beer and pretzels, gents, WE'LL go do the fighting.

:evil: Maybe if they served beer & pretzels during the fighting...:evil:

Nightfall
March 4, 2006, 06:36 PM
Subjectivity is written into the Constitution. I'll march lockstep with the libertarians and strict constructionists when they object to the Left writing in subjectivity that is not there, but let's not pretend that it isn't there in cases where it plainly is.Subjectivity seems to be written into some of the amendments. What about the First:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Congress shall make no law" seems absolutely explicit to me. No wiggle room for "reasonable regulation" there. As for the Second:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". For the last word, the current definition (anybody got a dictionary from the 1700's?) of "infringed" (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/infringed) is "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another". If the BoR is the highest law of the land, does that mean that any arms control laws are a violation? If so, where is the wiggle room? I'm not sure I see subjectivity in the entire BoR.

Jeff White
March 4, 2006, 06:38 PM
Conspiracy Theory?
beerslurpy said;
Being a gun rights activist in Detroit is fairly risky. Still, I cant imagine that the police got permission to search his place or that he was found carrying an unregistered gun. Probably some sort of plant or sting at a traffic stop or something similar. I eagerly await hearing the facts of the case.

Why does someone have to scream evil conspiracy everytime someone is arrested? There is no information in this thread as to any of the circumstances of this arrest or even if Angel was being a gun rights advocate in Detroit. Just because he's known as a gun rights advocate in part of the shooting community doesn't mean that anyone else knows. I would bet that if you polled the police and prosecuting attorneys you'd find a significant number of them couldn't tell you who Wayne LaPierre or Alan Gottlieb are, and they get fairly regular TV time when the networks cover gun control.

Tilting at Windmills

Steam dragon said;

Yep "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is the most subjective phrase in there.

Means whatever anyone wants.

Uh, huh, Sure.

It means what the court says it means. It doesn't matter if you and I like it, that's the way our system works. What the court says it means has the force of law until another court overurles it or the legislature writes laws defining it.

Angel came to a lot of folks rescue.
Regularly.
Held the lanterns in the north church tower as it were.

He put it all on the line FOR YEARS so that you tubars could sit on your fat duffs at home and bad mouth him.

I don't think that you are qualified to make any statements regarding what members here may or may not have done for RKBA.

The fact that you don't know of Angel Samaya, just shows the depth of your ignorence when it comes to who fights the good fight for the2nd Amd.


How many of the 7,224 active members of THR do you think know Angel personally? Out of that number, how many of them do you think know him well enough to be a witness as to his charactor?

The high road? judging by what a moderator here said. it doesn't seem likely.
Just another muddy trail full of cow dung IMO.

Not the High Road because we don't think a canned letter campaign is going to influence a local court in a positive manner? Not the High Road because as much as we would like to be able to take a pure constructionist stand, we're smart enough to realize that in the current legal and political climate that's just a waste of time and money?

Enjoy your beer and pretzels, gents, WE'LL go do the fighting.

Go for it..tilt at some windmills, maybe they really are dragons....In the meantime, we'll fight an effective battle, and score some victories....

Jeff

Nightfall
March 4, 2006, 06:50 PM
It means what the court says it means. It doesn't matter if you and I like it, that's the way our system works. What the court says it means has the force of law until another court overurles it or the legislature writes laws defining it.What is the point of a Bill of Rights if a court can define it to mean anything? That effectively turns the BoR into 10 empty variables to be defined as found convienent by the people in power at the time.

Jeff White
March 4, 2006, 07:01 PM
Nightfall said;
What is the point of a Bill of Rights if a court can define it to mean anything? That effectively turns the BoR into 10 empty variables to be defined as found convienent by the people in power at the time.

That's why appointments to the federal bench are so important. It's federal judges who are the arbiters of what the Bill of Rights says. Activist courts have created rights from whole cloth where most people would say they don't exist, and they have found it convenient to ignore things that are very plain, like shall not be infringed.

That's why appointments to the US Supreme Court are so political now.

Jeff

Stand_Watie
March 4, 2006, 07:13 PM
Whoa, that is messed up. That sounds very much like de jure registration to me. The difference between that and "de facto" is that here the possession of a weapon that hasnt been recorded by the police is punished heavily. That could even be seen as a ban on out of state residents entering the state with pistols unless they have permission from a state police official.

Beerslurpy, I have a CJ degree from a Michigan University and graduated a state police Academy in 1993. Registration of handguns in Michigan is such a given that Michigan police officers have a hard time keeping a straight face when they say "safety inspection" and in fact most Michigan gun owners simply say "registration", at least those in the southwest corner of the state. Those in the hinterlands of the upper 2/3'rds of the state may be more reasonable on gun rights.

Sgt.Slappy
March 4, 2006, 07:24 PM
It means what the court says it means. It doesn't matter if you and I like it, that's the way our system works. What the court says it means has the force of law until another court overrules it or the legislature writes laws defining it.

Jeff, read what you wrote again. Are you absolutely sure you agree with that?

...That the rule of law and natural rights are dependant on the interpretation of the courts, or any other branch of the government?

...and We (the People) have no choice but to be slaves to the will of the courts?

Are you serious?

Are you insane? (No offense intended, but I had to pick my jaw up off the desk when I read what you wrote...)

Do you understand what an inalienable right is?

Here's a quote or two to mull over:

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

Big Gay Al
March 4, 2006, 07:33 PM
I'm going to tell you what I know of the situation. Hopefully I can do it in such a way as to not betray any confidences.

He was arrested in his home. Therefore, he is not charged with carrying without a permit. He's accused of having firearms NOT properly registered with the state of Michigan. I assume this means handguns. Frankly I highly doubt this charge.

Also, he was reported to the police as "a danger and a vast security threat." I also highly doubt this as well.

Without saying more, I'll just point out that it's possible for any of us to be in the same situation. Regardless how law-abiding we are.

I'm only typing this to stop all the speculation. I'm sure more details will be at the waronguns blog as it becomes available.

Trisha
March 4, 2006, 07:38 PM
I hope the arrest is resolved in court in Angel's favor. Though I an a little closer every year to being a shut-in (travel that was once rare is all but non-existant now {we could not repeat that dinner again, Preacherman}), he is amongst the very few I would consider friend (though I doubt circumstances would ever see him up here, this far off the beaten path, likewise others I have met here).

When KABA was his primary endeavor and the great purpose of his energies, he saw it fail from lack of support until he had to sell it, to see at least the URL and the basic functions of the site perpetuate. . . His efforts to reconstruct his family and redefine his life to perhaps a simpler but at least as meaningful a cause led him to be in Michigan, as he disclosed in our last conversation.

I will always wish him nothing but the best, for his shoulders have carried much water for the 2A community and his hands have cut allegorical wood to a bounty that only some modern embodiment of Diogenes could approach - the hearth fire he kept strong brought light and warmth as information and steadfast character to countless who otherwise may not have discovered an equal. I am counted amongst those, and my life is the better for it.

Even the strong can weary as plate steel can be dented and challenged, but as long as he stands in the company of worthy and meaningful friends and peers when tasked, what is steel endures, even to being renewed. He is not alone, though at most I can only end from some distance - it is up to others to present their flesh and blood and heart.

Conspiracy? Perhaps. As all who stand openly and define a purpose, defy what is wrong and empirically malicious there is likely at least an open wish for a convenience of misfortune present; but to ascribe more is to brush aside an equal reality: never demand malice dire to misfortune when blundering coincidence and ordinary stupidity may have held court.

My prayers tonight are courage, peace, strength.

Trisha

Stickjockey
March 4, 2006, 08:25 PM
(Hi, Trisha! Where ya been?)

Update from the WOG site:

Saturday, March 04, 2006
BREAKING NEWS: ANGEL OUT

I just got off the phone with Angel Shamaya.

He's out.

He's charged with 4 counts misdemeanor possession of unregistered firearms and 1 frivolous, unwarranted, vindictive count of misdemeanor menacing.

I know we all want more, especially with the last charge, but for now, we must defer to Angel's need to protect his legal rights. I know the background of the circumstances, but my advice to Angel is to not make a public statement about that without advice of counsel. Those who know me will trust me when I say that I am convinced Angel has been made a victim here.

Here is a statement from Angel that I can release at this time:


To all the people expressing support or concern, just knowing that you are aware of my situation made it easier to bear. I do have legal representation thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation, to whom I am grateful. Alan Gottlieb and his team moved swiftly and deftly to secure counsel for me, the result of which got me out much sooner than I would have been able to do on my own.

Steam dragon
March 4, 2006, 08:35 PM
"Your papers, please."

uh, huh.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

After all according to some, the BoR is (cough) subjective.

Wonder how you lawn order tyes would feel if'n it had been Oleg.

Nah, I don't wonder. You wouldn't be bothered enough to send a frickin e-mail.
Not even for Oleg.

Arm chair paitriots.:barf:

Bah!

Jeff White
March 4, 2006, 08:37 PM
Sgt. Slappy said;
Jeff, read what you wrote again. Are you absolutely sure you agree with that?

...That the rule of law and natural rights are dependant on the interpretation of the courts, or any other branch of the government?

...and We (the People) have no choice but to be slaves to the will of the courts?

Are you serious?

I'm as serious as a heart attack. I didn't say I agreed with it. But in all practicality, that is the way it is. That is the way our system works.

Are you insane? (No offense intended, but I had to pick my jaw up off the desk when I read what you wrote...)


Well, I don't think I've ever been diagnosed as insane. But then again, maybe the ones that we institutionalize are sane and the rest of us are crazy? ;)

Do you understand what an inalienable right is?

Yes, I understand what an inalienable right is. But the hard reality of the situation is that for all the talk about what the founders wrote, and all the talk of what is and isn't an inalienable right, What rights we have under the law are subject to the interpretation of the legislature and the courts. It's a fact that the legislature often doesn't even pay lip service to the constitution when they write and pass laws. The courts have made decisions that invented rights that the founders would never had imagined and that ignored things that were plainly written into the bill of rights.

When the legislature and the courts make laws that infringe on our inalienable rights, we are faced with two choices, we can obey those laws and work through the political and court system to change them, or we can disobey them and become outlaws, or we can suck it up and do nothing. I have chosen the first option. Others may choose the second option, and perhaps some day they will be known as the Rosa Parks of the RKBA movement. But I think given the current political situation they will forever be minimalized, if not demonized.

There is a fourth option. That of changing the government by force. I have seen war with my own eyes. It's not time to vote from the rooftops.

We can talk about inalienable rights all we want. But unless those who control coersive force recognize that they mean what we think they mean, those rights mean nothing. That's why we fight in the legislature and in the court rooms. That's why we become politically involved.

Jeff

Kim
March 4, 2006, 08:42 PM
Yeah he is out. I do not know him personally but feel like I do. He has done more for the RKBA than 100,000 run of the mill NRA members.

Dan from MI
March 4, 2006, 08:51 PM
Thanks, Al.

Where in Oakland County was he arrested?

Barbara
March 4, 2006, 09:38 PM
Explaining the way Michigan law works and thinking its not necessarily a good idea to annoy Bouchard with letters without having any idea what the charges are doesn't have a thing to do with agreeing with registration or with Mr. Shamaya's character at all.

I know for a fact that at least 3 people on this thread actively do things on a regular basis for gun rights in Michigan and none of them are encouraging anyone to write letters for someone who hadn't even been arraigned yet. If it gets to a point where a letter is helpful and the situation warrants it, I'll write a letter, not an email. In the meantime, I can't see the point in it.

As El Tejon said, your time would be more constructively spent putting together a defense fund for him. The lawyers I listed will help him. I can give him more names, if necessary, but I believe Jim is the best choice and is well aquainted with Sheriff Bouchard and knows Michigan firearms law inside and out. Regardless, there are going to be costs associated with this and money talks a lot louder than words on the internet.

As an FYI, he was not arrested in Detroit. Detroit is in Wayne County. He was arrested in Oakland County, which is an entirely different political animal.

Too bad..there's already precedent in WaCo for carrying an unregistered firearm. Maybe he could cut the same deal the Chief of Police did there when he got busted trying to take one on a flight in his carryon.

AZRickD
March 4, 2006, 10:14 PM
...at his home ... in Michigan

Oy. Synapses firing.

Angel told me once when my family paid him a visit in Flagstaff after his youngin' was born, that his wife was from Michigan and she wanted to return there. Angel was less than pleased to leave the high desert comfort of northern Arizona for the jungles of anything near Detroit, even a few counties away.

Rick

Dan from MI
March 4, 2006, 10:30 PM
I second Jim Simmons as a recommendation. If I had a gun related case, that would be my first call.

Travis McGee
March 4, 2006, 10:32 PM
Well, I'm glad to read that Angel is out, and the SAF is helping with his defense.

Trisha, I really appreciate your post.

F4GIB
March 4, 2006, 10:40 PM
If you are going to be a big shot pro-Second Amendment advocate and seek out controversy and fame, then you better be darn CAREFUL how you act around guns. Pushing the legal envelop isn't something you can do. Unless, of course, it's a carefully planned test case (which this wasn't).

Barbara
March 4, 2006, 10:46 PM
Since the vast majority of "big shot" 2A advocates don't get paid a dime, I don't see how we can really expect them to be more or less human than the rest of the population.

Sgt.Slappy
March 4, 2006, 11:28 PM
Jeff,

What are you smoking? It sure ain't plain tobacco!

We can talk about inalienable rights all we want. But unless those who control coercive force recognize that they mean what we think they mean, those rights mean nothing. That's why we fight in the legislature and in the court rooms. That's why we become politically involved.

(em. mine)

Those very words prove you do not understand what an inalienable right is.

To say that these rights stem from those who possess coercive force...

...that Inalienable Rights mean nothing unless legislation makes it so...

I...am...speechless...

I weep for your ignorance.

The Founders words have fallen on deaf ears.

If this is the conventional line of thought here at The High Road, the experiment is dead. The Founders have FAILED.

Please, please, someone tell me I'm wrong...

shooten
March 5, 2006, 12:04 AM
Thanks for the heads up about this Travis McGee. Let us know how we can help. No matter what the technicalities of his arrest, he will need financial help for attorney's fees. If there is a fund started, please post.

Scott

Jeff White
March 5, 2006, 12:25 AM
Sgt. Slappy,
Let me ask you this my friend, the 2d Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Do we agree on that? If we take that as an inalienable right, then there are no laws infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Yet a quick check of the lawbooks in every jurisdiction in the United States will reveal thousands of laws that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

People are arrested and inprisoned every day for violating these laws. So obviously your idea of what an inalienable right is and my idea of what an inalienable right is; is at complete odds with the government's idea of what an inalienable right is. The government (who controls the means of coersive force) says that you can't own an M16A4 rifle because it was manufactured after May 19th 1986. Even though the M16A4 is the standard Infantry weapon of both the Army and the USMC, which would seem to make it especially protected under the second amendment. However they will not hesitate to arrest you and lock you away in prison if you dare to possess one and let them find out about it.

So while you're rotting away in federal prison, I guess you can take comfort in the fact that you exercised your inalienable right to keep and bear arms by owning an M16A4 rifle.

Yet if you ask most people they would tell you that the government hasn't infringed on your inalienable right to keep and bear arms by telling you which arms you may keep and bear.

You are going to be waiting a very long time for lightning bolts to descend from the heavens and smite those who passed the laws infringing on your inalienable rights my friend.

The better solution is to become involved in the process and get judges appointed who will make court decisions that will make the right to keep and bear arms as the founders intended it to be.

Maybe in the next life, the government will respect inalienable rights, but I don't want to wait that long.

The hard reality of things is that your rights mean exactly what those who control the people with badges, guns and a prison system want them to mean. There are many constitutions in police states worldwide that guarantee the same inalienable rights as ours does, but they don't even bother to pay lip service to the rule of law in those places.

Here we have a court system that gives us redress and the ability to change what the legislature infringes on. That is the difference between having a inalienable rights that mean more then the paper and ink it takes to print them.

The experiment hasn't failed. It's working just as the founders intended it to. If it had failed, we wouldn't be fighting these issues in the legislature and in the courts.

Jeff

JerryM
March 5, 2006, 12:27 AM
Don't know if he wanted to make a statement or challenge the law or what.

However, he broke the law, and should suffer the consequences. If a court rules the law unconstitutional then he won, but if not then he has to pay the piper.

Whether we like it or not, the law is either constitutional or not at any particular time depending upon how the SCOTUS rules.

As has been said, that is a major reason to get people like Thomas and Scalia on the Court.

So it is a case of commit the crime, do the time.

Jerry

AZRickD
March 5, 2006, 01:26 AM
However, he broke the law, and should suffer the consequences.
Not if good people were on his jury. They would vote to acquit, and I, for one, would be quite pleased. But, since this is not a felony, he'll likely be in front of a rubber-stamping judge who has lost all concept of Rights.

Angel is a big fully informed/empowered jury advocate, btw.

Rick

Zedicus
March 5, 2006, 02:00 AM
JerryM: However, he broke the law, and should suffer the consequences.

To Borrow a line from R.Lee Ermly

YOU MAKE ME WANT TO VOMIT!:barf: :fire:


Edited to add: a poster on kba.com made a reply to a simalar post, allow me to quote it.

Uncle Bob: (http://keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/read_comments.asp?nl=4662622208271&tmpD=03%2F04%2F2006) ALL of the Framers were FELONS in the King's eyes! Almost ALL of the politicians, L.E., etc. are in VIOLATION of OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! Whether by directly usurping against our Rights, or by not doing anything to stop the usurpation's. Why isn't anybody screaming to have them locked up? They are, after all, unconvicted FELONS!

Sgt.Slappy
March 5, 2006, 02:03 AM
The better solution is to become involved in the process and get judges appointed who will make court decisions that will make the right to keep and bear arms as the founders intended it to be.

And you say I am the one waiting for "bolts to descend from the heavens and smite those who passed the laws infringing on your inalienable rights".

Not my rights Jeff, our rights.

You really believe that our rights hinge upon whether or not we can just get the right judges appointed?

That the words of the Founders are nothing more than patriotic and charming noise from a bygone era?

You acknowledge that the government is in direct violation of some of these rights, yet you advocate working within a broken system, playing by its broken rules, in order to "fix" the very problems it has created.

I suppose I am alone here in saying this is foolish optimism at best.

The hard reality of things is that your rights mean exactly what those who control the people with badges, guns and a prison system want them to mean. There are many constitutions in police states worldwide that guarantee the same inalienable rights as ours does, but they don't even bother to pay lip service to the rule of law in those places.

I want you to imagine what our country would be like today, if Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Henry, or any of the many, many other brave souls who founded this nation; had said those words, or harbored those thoughts and sentiments.

It wouldn't exist.

Those men, and so many others like them, risked their fortunes, their homes, their lives... to openly defy an oppressive and massively powerful government. They too might have rotted in prisons, with their only comfort being the fact that they dared believe in their rights, and dared to exercise them to defend the rights of others who were either unable or unwilling to defend them. If this is not a noble and righteous cause, then I fail to see what is.

Perhaps soon (very soon) it may be time to do this all over again... to begin anew. Does that disturb you?

Would you be willing to fight, and maybe die, for something you believe in (like the Founders)? Something that is larger than yourself? For what the United States of America is?
Would you have been willing to fight with those men, so long ago, if you knew how this nation would turn out? That people who call themselves patriots, when faced with injustice again, contemplate the easiest path, rather that the righteous one?

Jeff, I do not mean to belittle you. I do not mean to anger you unnecessarily, I will tell you this:
The things you have said tonight saddened me deeply. The words and actions of the Founders have had a staggering impact on the course of our country, and to dismiss these things, in deference to a broken system, is unimaginable. Those are holy books, holy words... they have given you everything you have today. Do not turn your back so readily.

(sigh...)

I realize I'm not going to change your mind Jeff. I only hope to God there are more people like me out there. Who aren't afraid to exercise their inalienable rights...

Preacherman
March 5, 2006, 02:48 AM
Sgt. Slappy, you are welcome to stand on your "inalienable rights", from your absolutist perspective, as long as you please. They will - repeat, WILL - get you into jail if you persist in defying the laws and jurisprudence of the Republic. No ifs, buts or maybes about it.

I agree that in a perfect world, the absolutist interpretation would prevail (and that we'd also have a much, much smaller Federal government as a result!). However, we are not living in a perfect world - we're living in the world we've got. Reality sometimes bites, and it will bite you if you disregard the laws and jurisprudence that currently govern you.

This may be distasteful, even unpalateable - but it's reality. It's not about to change. Live with it.

dzimmerm
March 5, 2006, 02:59 AM
I think it would be wise to start another thread to explore your interpretations of the 2nd ammendment as applied to living your life as an unjailed, (note I did not say free) citizen in the current USA.

I thought to make some statements on this discussion but realized it detracts from the original thread and would be a form of hijacking that might not be high road.

dzimmerm

mpw
March 5, 2006, 04:32 AM
Any word on legal defense fund?

Steam dragon
March 5, 2006, 06:09 AM
I have been wondering where I read comments with the same attitude as expressed by Mr White in post #60, JerryM in post #61, and Preacherman in post #65.

I remembered.

Newspaper editorials from the late 30s and early 40s that my grandparents kept.
From folks like Joe Kennedy.
People that thought the Germans were 'following their law.' They were, after all.
So were the Russians in the late 40s and 50s. Just following the law.

And we see how well that attitude worked for the Jewish people in Germany, and the dissidents in Russia.

four nineteen

EDIT to add: Those e-mails? If they do no other good, they gave Angel some mental support when he needed it. He knew he woulden't be 'dissapeared.' He knows that some of us remember what he has done for us in the past. And that we care. About him, and about the cause.

Thain
March 5, 2006, 09:19 AM
He had four illegal handguns on him, and was intimidating someone enough that a charge of "menacing" stuck. Until we get more details, I'm withholding judgement... but if this was some sort of "test case stunt" then Mr Shamaya just sent the cause of gun ownership back a decade in Michigan.

Michigan's gun laws were not perfect, but they were fairly liberal (lower case 'l'), with shall issue ccw, un registered longarms, relativly painless handgun registration, and a "stand your ground law" about to pass. Plus, some of the best hunting in the world.

If he got himself arrested in some punk protest over Michigan's handgun "safety inspection," then he's an idiot. It will past all current Constitutional tests, will never even rise to the level of SCotUS attention, and will be used to set back RKBA in Michigan and elsewhere.

If Mr. Shamaya moved to Michigan, failed to register his handguns properly, then he made a very dumb mistake (If anyone should know the importance of checking local laws, it's a prominante gun rights advocate), and he ought to just pay his fines, files his paperwork, and get on with life. He should also keep it on the "down low" (as we say in Detroit) just so the Brady Bunch doesn't use it agianst him/us.

If he was actually involved with contraband weapons, in a manner other than a paperwork crime, then he should be dealt with accordingly. However since the charges reported were misdemeanor possession, I assume its just a paperwork problem.

I am a Libertarian stalwart, however the laws on the books are the laws on the books. One must live with them before one can get them changed... I'll be running for office in 202x... How about you?

Molon Labe
March 5, 2006, 09:51 AM
Sgt. Slappy, you are welcome to stand on your "inalienable rights", from your absolutist perspective, as long as you please. They will - repeat, WILL - get you into jail if you persist in defying the laws and jurisprudence of the Republic.Your argument appears to go like this:

"Yes, these gun control laws are wrong. And unconstitutional. But you had better abide by them, or else!" :eek:

Is that your argument? If so, your argument only works if you assume everyone lives in fear. I live without fear, Preacherman. And I refuse to compromise my principles on account of a written "law." My inalienable rights trump any and all written laws.

IMO, a person who holds the argument you appear to espouse is completely void of courage. One wonders if they deserve these rights to begin with.

Live with it.Never! Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - PH

I realize I'm not going to change your mind Jeff. I only hope to God there are more people like me out there. Who aren't afraid to exercise their inalienable rights...You're not alone, Sgt.Slappy. Men of real courage still exist.

Big Gay Al
March 5, 2006, 10:17 AM
He had four illegal handguns on him, and was intimidating someone enough that a charge of "menacing" stuck. Until we get more details, I'm withholding judgement... but if this was some sort of "test case stunt" then Mr Shamaya just sent the cause of gun ownership back a decade in Michigan.

Actually, he is ACCUSED of having four unregistered firearms, in his home, not ON him. And, he's been ACCUSED of intimidating someone. Other than his arrest, nothing else has been proven one way or the other.

Not a test case, a case of someone else's idea of revenge, or something along those lines.

Thain
March 5, 2006, 11:31 AM
Actually, he is ACCUSED of having four unregistered firearms, in his home, not ON him. And, he's been ACCUSED of intimidating someone. Other than his arrest, nothing else has been proven one way or the other.

Not a test case, a case of someone else's idea of revenge, or something along those lines.

Forgive me for my lapse, and not refering to Mr. Shamaya as "accused," "suspected," or as "alleged." But frankly, if this man wasn't somethign of a celebrity, most of us on this board wouldn't bother with such niceties, and like most Americans I tend to assume that if an arrest is made, and the D.A. files charges, then there probably is sufficent cause.

Mr. Shamaya is known to us in the gun culture, however he is a virtual "Nobody" outside of it. He isn't being crucified as some sort of martyr to the cause. He allegedly had four firearms that the police have a reason to suspect might be unregistered, and have accussed him of it.

Now, if he had them properly registered, he could have shown his card to the police, and there would have been no arrest, no charges, and no story.

Say what you will about the Founding Fathers, but handgun registration is legal, and has passed all current Constitutional tests. Michigan's safety inspection policy is less a burden then other State's Constitutional registration laws... you aren't goign to change this by startign a one man revolution.

Steam dragon
March 5, 2006, 11:36 AM
Here's the latest:

Gary Marbut/MSSA/TOS/BIT
11:18 am (3 minutes ago)
Dear Friends of Angel,

So many of you have asked for updates about Angel's situation, and I
am sooo swamped dealing with this situation, that the only way I
could hope to keep you informed is to add you all to a general email
list - my "Friends of Angel" list. That's why you are getting this email.

The information I broadcast here will be somewhat generic, because I
must consider it to be in the public domain.

Angel moved to Michigan to be close to his son, a very high priority
in his life.

Because of a malicious complaint (my opinion) that Angel was
dangerous and had unregistered guns, a SWAT team raided his domicile
yesterday. I was tagged to be something of a nexus in the recovery
effort partly because I was on the phone with Angel when the SWAT
team showed up at his door, partly because I'm also a friend of
Angel's, and partly because of the curse or blessing of my
get-it-handled-now personality.

As soon as I knew that Angel was in jail, I called Alan Gottlieb of
SAF to get a referral for a local attorney. I found one from the SAF
list who had his cell number on his office answering machine, and who
answered his cell phone promptly, a bit after 5 PM CST. This
attorney got after Angel's situation immediately, and I phoned Nicki
of KeepAndBearArms.com next to hatch a plan to get the word out and
start the reference letters coming. These letters will be delivered
to Angel's attorney electronically, Monday morning.

Today, an associate of the attorney I contacted yesterday appeared to
represent Angel at the arraignment, and got him sprung from jail on a
bond (the bond was not steep). I was out of the loop in the middle
part of the day today because it was the scheduled Annual Meeting for
MSSA in our State Capitol, Helena, Montana (yes, thank you, I am
still president).

I talked to Angel on the phone within 20 minutes of his release (and
several times since). Of course, he's angry, frustrated, bummed, and
distraught - who wouldn't be under these circumstances? But, he's coping.

Angel has an immediate need of protection from the consequences of
any more malicious police reports. We're working with some Michigan
folks to provide Angel with company to document his whereabouts and
activity until this is resolved. If you know anyone in Michigan
(Detroit/Pontiac area) who might help with this, let me know.

We are also sketching out a fundraising plan for legal expenses that
should come together within about 48 hours. Stay tuned for more about this.

In the mean time, Angel is facing four misdemeanor charges, three of
which are for guns that were not yet registered properly under
Michigan law, but which Angel was in the process of trying to get
registered. Bad timing and a malicious complaint - what can I say.

But, I believe, your many and kind letters will help establish with
the court that Angel is an upstanding guy.

Thanks loads for your concerns, your help, and your many offers to
help more. I'm sure Angel would want me to go heavy on thanks to you too.

I am scheduled to teach the second day of a two-day precision riflery
class tomorrow, and will be out of the loop all afternoon. Other
than that period, I will keep you updated as new and significant
information becomes available.

Best wishes.

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com


Yep, trying to follow those reasonable resrictions will get you every time.

Harve Curry
March 5, 2006, 11:47 AM
I met Angel when he was first starting the Arizona web site. I came away believing he's passionate and dedicated to defending for OUR Bill of Rights, even at personal cost to himself.

Which leads me to ask:
What part of the below text does anyone on THR not understand ?

beerslurpy
March 5, 2006, 11:50 AM
Did I say it smelled of malice? Police dont just kick down your door to look for contraband unless someone has it in for you.

Big Gay Al
March 5, 2006, 12:05 PM
Test case? Who said ANYTHING about a test case??? What happened to Angel could happen to ANYONE on this forum. All you need is a girlfriend, ex-girlfriend, wife, ex-wife, friend, or ex-friend who thinks you've done them wrong, who knows you own firearms, and has a desire to see you in deep do-do.

And it doesn't matter if you're the kindest, gentlest person on this planet. If you get a complaint against you in that manner, don't be surprised if SWAT comes knocking on your door!

countertop
March 5, 2006, 12:12 PM
However, he broke the law, and should suffer the consequences. If a court rules the law unconstitutional then he won, but if not then he has to pay the piper.


but if this was some sort of "test case stunt" then Mr Shamaya just sent the cause of gun ownership back a decade in Michigan.


It was neither.

Did I say it smelled of malice? Police dont just kick down your door to look for contraband unless someone has it in for you.

Yes, you are 100% correct - and this grand conspiracy has nothing (from what I have learned) to do with his RKBA activism (so please shut the conspiracy talk down).

Not a test case, a case of someone else's idea of revenge, or something along those lines.

That is 100% consistent with what I have been told as well. (I've worked with him in the past, though I don't know if I know him well enough to really send a letter in)

Because of the nature of the case, its not really something anyone should be discussing online, but a previous posters synopses hit on one of the underlying relationship problems that led to the current situation.

This is a situation that could befall anyone - no matter how carefully you obeyed the law - because in certain circumstances the police will ALWAYS default to a set of assumptions.

Remember, simple arrests and allegations DO NOT EQUAL guilt. Sometimes there is more to it than meets the eye

Herself
March 5, 2006, 12:16 PM
So, keep us posted on his legal defense fund and how to contribute, willya? Nice letters of support are fine but last time I looked, lawyers had to eat the same as mere mortals -- and so did their clients.

--Herself

AZRickD
March 5, 2006, 01:07 PM
if this man wasn't somethign of a celebrity, most of us on this board wouldn't bother with such niceties,
Most members of this board don't post. So what?

There have been many instances of people on this board activating on behalf of perfect strangers who were in violation of SOCIALIST-ANTI-GUN-LAWS. Some we won. Some we lost.

Let me say that I am glad that many at THR understand the concept of Individuals Rights and Liberty. As for the others (so-called Libertarians -- I say L.I.N.O -- and gunnies -- I say "golfers with guns"), if you ever get a chance to serve on a jury hearing a gun-rights-infringement case, do us all (me, Angel, et al) a favor and call in sick that day.

I am surprised at the zeal and/or energy some work to eat their own young.

Rick

Zedicus
March 5, 2006, 06:16 PM
Update: from Angel himsellf on KBA.com (http://keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/read_comments.asp?nl=4662622208271&tmpD=03%2F04%2F2006)

Comment by: Angel Shamaya (3/4/2006)
"not even a hint about what this is all about."

Need rest first. "What you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Patience, please? Just spent too much time in mini hell. OK?

"...but now I know that he is a convicted felon..."

Who said I am a convicted felon? Where? (Not!)

More later. Need sleep. Much is happening. If justice exists in Michigan, I shall prevail. This legal battle was brought to my doorstep, literally. I didn't go looking for this. But I will have my say in court before it's done. Vindictive, dishonest, disturbed people risked having me killed by local machinegunners in Kevlar who looked like part of the ground assault team at Waco. If that makes you happy, don't help me.

--AS


Comment by: Angel Shamaya (3/5/2006)
"The only way this makes sense is that Mr. Shamaya has some people who know what he has in his house and do not like him so they ratted him out, and the police issued a warrant based on the rat."

Correct. The mother of my son and her family decided to sic their hometown police on me because she was mad at me and because she can't handle her emotions (and because she is a convincing liar and actress/drama queen). She has threatened for years to "take your guns away" and decided to attack.

I came here to be near my son, whom I love with all my heart, even though she still will not allow my name on his birth certificate. It's a sad, ugly situation.

BTW, at my arraignment, I entered not guilty pleas to all 5 charges.

--AS


Mind explaining Again how anyone Deserves this hell?

Thain
March 5, 2006, 06:37 PM
Hey, I was just workign on the facts I had at my dispossal. If this was a malicous call - which I have no reason to doubt at this point - the Mr. Shamaya has my full support.

I am an Oakland County resident, and will be happy to sit in the gallery and lend support if it coems to trial.

However, I am a skeptic by nature, and before I had the exact charges I did what I normally do... stayed skeptical.

Sorry if my support for the laws of Michigan offended anyone; But I stand by what I said: Michigan's laws aren't perfect, but they are Constitutional under present case law. Dura lex, sed lex.

Jeff White
March 5, 2006, 06:54 PM
Sounds like people should be venting their anger at the mother of Angel's child. It looks like she's used the system to to fight a domestic dispute for her.

Let me tell you, that kind of thing is very common. Women aren't the only parties guilty of it. The accusations fly from both sides in custody/visitation disputes. I had a guy who called my department three Saturday nights in a row requesting a welfare check on his kids who were in the custody of his ex-wife. There was always an alleged wild party with a lot of drugs going on at the house when he called. All the complaints were unfounded. Yet everyone of them had to be checked out. I stopped it when I promised to arrest the father for filing a false police report the next time he sent us down there on an unfounded complaint.

The police and the court system are often dragged into custody disputes, sometimes with the collusion of the lawyers involved.

We don't know what Angel's ex told the police, so it's entirely possible that she led them to believe that a massive show of force was necessary to safely resolve the situation. Looking at the thinly masked calls for violent revolution made by some of Angel's supporters in this thread, I would imagine that she had all the ammunition she needed to make the police believe there would be a violent confrontation over his guns.

Custody and visitation disputes can get to be nasty business. It's not just gun ownership that they make an issue out of. Drug abuse, neglect, child abuse and child molestation are all things that are alleged in an attempt to win.

Last Friday night at work, the first complaint I handled was from a woman who wanted her ex's car stopped when he picked the kids up for weekend visitation, because she had word that he took them out of their child restraint seats as soon as he drove out of sight. That's exactly how petty these disputes can become.

I know men who don't have long term relationships because of the chances of getting falsely accused of terrible things if the relationship goes sour and ending up in the same type of trouble Angel is in.

Jeff

Gray Peterson
March 5, 2006, 07:27 PM
Ok, this brings up some interesting questions.

WHY did Angel Shamaya get arrested for not registering his firearms? The better question is: Why didn't he register them? It's a simple freaking process, and it's not as if they wanted his name on a list of gun ownership, he'd have to buy private all of the time.

Steam dragon
March 5, 2006, 08:57 PM
He moved to Mi.
He started the paperwork.
Takes time.
Till the paperwork is done, you are in illegal posession.
Nice trap they set, yes?

Kinda like a lot of Il. ex-FOID holders.

Jeff White
March 5, 2006, 09:17 PM
Steam dragon,
Who set the trap? It seems like Angel's ex set him up. If anyone set a trap, she did.

As for Illinois, let's not confuse a bureaucratic screwup (removing the contract employees from the ISP) with deliberate plans to entrap someone. In fact I challenge you to show me one case where someone has been arrested and covnicted for having an expired FOID while this backlog has existed.

Jeff

beerslurpy
March 5, 2006, 09:37 PM
The police and the court system are often dragged into custody disputes, sometimes with the collusion of the lawyers involved.

Yeah, this is a huge problem down here as well, but it stretches far beyond custody disputes. Everyone seems to want the police to watch their kids, wipe their asses and keep their neighbor's lawn pretty. And every time someone calls the cops on some BS thing, they have to come and check it out instead of doing something useful.

I think we have given the cops way too much responsibility as babysitters of society and we also have encouraged (through our wounderful public school system) people to call the government to settle their problems rather than having some sort of rational discourse with whoever is annoying them. Of course it doesnt help that we are so litigous that settling any dispute without the shield of qualified immunity is a surefire path to bankruptcy.

If you asked me a year ago, I would have told you that the problem was that cops had qualified immunity. If you asked me tonight, I would tell you that the problem is that only the cops have it. Honestly, acting in good faith should not expose you to bankruptcy inducing levels of litigation.

AZRickD
March 5, 2006, 09:52 PM
Some here should be ashamed of the assumptions they made and the conclusions they jumped to.

Fight it, Angel. Fight it.

Rick

Zedicus
March 5, 2006, 09:56 PM
Some here should be ashamed of the assumptions they made and the conclusions they jumped to.
+1

Fight it, Angel. Fight it.
x200

Jeff White
March 5, 2006, 09:57 PM
beerslurpy,
We didn't ask to be babysitters. It's a cultural problem. I think it starts in about the third grade. Many people believe that the constitution guarntees happiness, not just the right to pursue it. We even have popular television shows were people who can't get their petty little disagreements heard in real court can take them to a mock court.

Divorce (division of property)/child custody/visitation are the most likely to get you falsely accused of something in order to get revenge. And based on the little information we have, it seems that that is exactly what is involved in this case.

Jeff

Kim
March 5, 2006, 10:26 PM
I see this often as a physician and it makes me want to pull my hair out. Always a woman will have to have her child seen on MONDAY. Why you ask. Well the evil father had them for the week=end and she hates him so she just wants her child checked to make sure no abuse occurred. Or the child now has a runny nose and it is that mans fault. Sometimes I have seen the same woman do this monthy for months. I know she is lying I know she hates her ex and I know she would do the one thing to hurt him the most ----------------hope she could get the court to punish him and never let him see his children again. It is awful for the children. They know even at a very young age something is terribly wrong. No wonder men just give up send the money and say good bye to their children. After awhile it is their best option.

beerslurpy
March 5, 2006, 11:24 PM
We didn't ask to be babysitters. It's a cultural problem.

Oh I know it. I didnt mean to suggest that cops desired things being the way they have become.

The problem is that we have a huge portion of society that builds its livelihood around people being a bunch of immature crybabies, not the least of which is the government and teaching apparatus that perpetuates this mode of thinking. Where will the nanny-state go if there are no babies to watch?

Homeschooling is a huge step in the right direction. Another step is to start discouraging people from using the police for petty crap like this- partly by abolishing petty laws and partly (as you pointed out) by threatening punishment against people who waste police time with their family problems.

fistful
March 6, 2006, 12:49 AM
Sgt. Slappy and Steam Dragon, you appear to be new around here, so I suppose you have some reason for misunderstanding people like Preacherman and Jeff White. The rest of you have no excuse, and you all need to read a little closer. You think this thread is an opportunity for dogmatically stating the extent of Second Amendment protection? It's not; it's about one gun-rights activist, and how his arrest can affect the movement. At the beginning of the thread, no one knew what had happened, and they worried he had been reckless. Rest assured the people you're arguing with and complaining about, value the RKBA as much as you do, if not more. They just have better things to do than preach to the choir about this or that law being unconstitutional.

You think these "traitors" don't understand or don't care about constitutional rights. My guess is if they had the opportunity to repeal or re-write every gun law on the books, none of you would find much to complain about.

As for my comments on some people's reading comprehension, this is a good example: We can talk about inalienable rights all we want. But unless those who control coercive force recognize that they mean what we think they mean, those rights mean nothing. That's why we fight in the legislature and in the court rooms. That's why we become politically involved. For the functionally illiterate, I will translate:Words on a page are nice, but only if people will respect them. Before starting an armed revolution, we will try to reform the system. That's all the man was trying to say. You may not be aware of it, but the American revolutionaries tried to work within the British system for many years before Lexington and Concord, and even then it was more than a year before independence was declared. By the way, much of the local government was anti-British. Can't say we're in that same situation now. If you, Sgt. Slappy (and your name suits you) believe it is time for violent action, just say so and give us your plan.

AZRickD
March 6, 2006, 12:55 AM
I've just gotten off the phone with Angel.

The words that come to minde are, "That G-D B**ch."

There is now a legal defense fund. I'm in for $100.


From Gary of Montana Shooting Sports Association

Dear Friends of Angel,

As you would suspect, Angel is exhausted with anxiety - didn't sleep
well last night, and didn't get much rest the night before on the
concrete bed of the Oakland County jail. We're all hoping he will
get some rest tonight. All of your thoughtful letters are now in
Angel's email in-box, for printing and delivery to his attorney
tomorrow.

Many of you have asked where you can send a contribution to help with
Angel's legal expenses. Thank you!

I have suggested a first-step fundraising process to help defray
Angel's legal expenses. Angel and David agree that this is workable
as a beginning, although we reserve the prerogative to revise the
method in a week or so (maybe to a tax-exempt entity).

Here's what you can do: Send a check for whatever amount you wish,
made payable to MSSA, and put "Angel" in the memo blank. I will
deposit this in our account for the Montana Shooting Sports
Association. I will write MSSA checks against the amount received
for this purpose to Angel's attorney(s) for verified legal expenses.
None (zero%) of the funds donated will be used for any MSSA
administrative or handling fees. For oversight of this, I will be
glad to provide documentation of receipts and disbursements on
Angel's behalf to Angel, David and Nicki. Send any check to my
personal address at:

Gary Marbut
P.O. Box 16106
Missoula, Montana 59808

If you prefer to use credit card and PayPal, there is a PayPal
donation button on the MSSA Website. Mark "Angel" under special
instructions if you use this option.

PLEASE NOTE: MSSA is NOT a tax exempt organization, so your donation
will NOT be tax-deductible. MSSA is deliberately not tax exempt
because that would limit our ability to operate as the pro-gun
junkyard dog of politics (what some call us here in Montana).

BTW, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation is in Germany
for an international gun rights conference. Until such time as we
can find a more permanent process to handle funds for Angel, MSSA
will fill that void.

Feel free to forward and cross-post this message.

Best wishes,

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

Thain
March 6, 2006, 12:57 AM
He moved to Mi.
He started the paperwork.
Takes time.
Till the paperwork is done, you are in illegal posession.
Nice trap they set, yes?


Bullcrap... I just purchased a handgun in a private transfer last month, in Oakland County... it took thirty minutes, and that included the initial picking up of the paperwork and driving to get the signature of the previous owner.

Mr. Shamaya could have registed all four guns in the same amoutn of time, as under the statute he would be both seller and buyer. It's a short form (name, address, serial number) and the Oakland County Sheriff's Office is very easy to find.

Not to mention, you have plenty of time before moving to the state, a grace period after moving here, and the law is not a secret. Mr. Shamaya is a professional writer about gun laws, he should know how to read a law book. (Or even plain old packing.org!)

AZRickD
March 6, 2006, 01:01 AM
Thain, you in for $100?

Rick

Jeff White
March 6, 2006, 01:07 AM
Rick said,
The words that come to minde are, "That G-D B**ch."

Should I assume that my guess as to what happened was correct?

$50.00 sent....

Jeff

beerslurpy
March 6, 2006, 01:18 AM
By the way, you clowns who advocate armed insurrection in defense of these rights need to realize that if you cannot succeed in a purely political struggle are not going to succeed at guerilla warfare. The political adeptness required to succeed at guerilla warfare is even greater than that required to succeed at pure political activism. This is because such warfare is inherently political in nature but with the added problems of violence possibly interfering with your message and with people in the movement being in physical danger from the fighting.

Additionally, your effectiveness as a guerilla movement will be determined by your support in the population at large. Do you imagine that a frail political movement will succeed at violence where it failed at politics? This is foolishness.

The time for violence is when a triumphant political movement is suppressed by dirty dealing or force and the institutional safeguards fail to correct things. To win at fighting you need the numbers and political legitimacy that come from already having a political victory in hand. But this doesnt tend to happen in America because most politicians already bend like reeds in the wind and care more about pulling the levers of power than getting deposed because of some irrelevant (to them) issue. Observe the change in congress during the 90s after the AWB. Number of shots fired: zero.

AZRickD
March 6, 2006, 01:33 AM
Jeff asked:Should I assume that my guess as to what happened was correct?

Welp, correct. Although your mind is not sick enough to truly appreciate the magnitude. Most fathers would have walked away to preserve his sanity, and in this case, his freedom. Angel stuck around. I don't want to get into the details, but I'm not sure I would have been able to put up with the years of oddness and hate that was foisted upon him.

Pray for his son.

Rick

beerslurpy
March 6, 2006, 01:37 AM
Oh yeah, one clarification, it is easy to succeed at blowing things up and hurting people, but it is difficult to use those tools to effectively gain political victories.

Putting all options on the table, how will violence affect the gun rights movement?

Will gun owners blowing up buildings and shooting politicians that disagree with them be good for the movement? Will the public look upon such acts with favor? I dont think anyone would look upon such acts with favor, regardless of the cause.

By the same token, how does the gun rights movement look when the government is persecuting gun owners and playing dirty tricks on law abiding citizens? Or murdering their family members in bloody and unnecessary seiges? How will public opinion turn because of this violence?

The way to win is to slowly build up support in the populace for shooting sports and armed self defense while constantly tripping the antis up with their own malice and incompetence. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the AWB and Katrina were all great victories for the gun rights movement. They provided rallying cries and recruiting material for the political fight over RKBA and although we were harmed by those events, we benefited far more in the long run.

And yes, gun control is GOOD when it tries to grab too much too quickly. The end result is a painful backlash, a stronger gun rights movement and less gun control. Can you imagine if the 34 NFA had gone ahead with its original plan of a handgun ban and people had started resisting or congress had just killed the bill? We might not have any regulation of SBSs or machine guns today.

AZRickD
March 6, 2006, 01:49 AM
Beerslurpy,

Good points, all. But you're a little thread-drifty tonite.

Are you in for $100? :)

Rick

Trebor
March 6, 2006, 01:55 AM
He moved to Mi.
He started the paperwork.
Takes time.
Till the paperwork is done, you are in illegal posession.
Nice trap they set, yes?

That's not exactly how it works. The "safety inspection" process doesn't take much time at all, especailly if you are moving into the state and the pistols are already in your possesion.

If you move into the state, you take your pistols to the local P.D. (or Sheriff if there is no local P.D.) You explain that you moved into the state and need to have the pistols you purchased out-of-state before you became a Michigan resident "Safety Inspected."

The police have you fill out a "Permit to purchase" for the pistol. My understanding is you would list yourself as both the seller and the buyer (the form is normally used when you buy a pistol in the state).

The police will then "Safety Inspect" the pistol. They'll record the serial number, run a LIEN check (usually, if not always) and fill out your "Michigan Pistol Safety Inspection" card. The "Safety Inspection" card is three parts. One is retained by the local P.D., the second is sent to the Michigan State Police and the third is given to the owner of the firearm as proof that the "Safety Inspection" was completed. Even though it is called a "Safety Inspection," it is a registration and many police departments do call it that.

There is nothing inherent in the process that would make it take more than one day when you are brining in pistols from out-of-state as a new Michigan resident. You could get your "purchase permit" and have the "Safety inspection" done on the same visit.

Normally, if you were buying a gun as a Michigan resident, you'd have to get the "Purchase permit" before you pick the gun up from the gun shop and then you'd have to return to the P.D. for the "safety inspection. This means you have to make multiple trips to the P.D. The "Purchase Permit" is valid for 10 days after issue to allow for this. Obviously, this isn't the case when you already have the gun in your possession because you brought it with you from out of state.

The only things I can think of that might add time to the process is if the local P.D. restricts the hours that they will issue purchase permits or perform safety inspections. The P.D.'s are supposed to offer this service during normal business hours, but some P.D.'s do set limited days or hours for this. The "purchase permit" is also required to be notarized and, if the P.D. does not have a notary, I can see where this would add some time because you'd have to pick up the permits, find a notary to get it notarized, and then return. Most P.D.s will notarize the permits though.

I also believe that state law says you have 30 days to have pistols "safety inspected" when you move into the state. I could be wrong on this though, as I don't have the law in front of me.

HiTech78
March 6, 2006, 02:08 AM
I have been reading this thread for quite sometime now........Hard not to reply. A few years ago I moved to Michigan on business, taking my firearms along with me, to say Michigan is pro-gun is baffling. I had to register every handgun I owned and 3 were held for processing because they were not registered in the past 10 years. After attending a gunshow in Detroit metro area I requested a transfer back to a state of liberty, Ohio. Any state requiring registration on a FTF transaction, IMHO, is not pro-gun. Hey, maybe I'm just lucky I live in Ohio. My $.02.

AZRickD
March 6, 2006, 02:56 AM
I see your $.02 and raise you $99.98.

Anybody else going to send in some money to Angel's legal defense fund?

Rick

Big Gay Al
March 6, 2006, 04:24 AM
He moved to Mi.
He started the paperwork.
Takes time.
Till the paperwork is done, you are in illegal posession.
Nice trap they set, yes?

The paperwork takes about 5 minutes, depending on the office.

And anyone who moves to Michigan from another state, and has handguns, has 30 days to get their weapons properly registered.

The way it works is this, you go to the local PD or Sheriff's office and get a permit to purchase for each handgun you have. You fill out the form as though you're selling the weapon to yourself. IF you happen to remember where you bought each gun from, fine, fill that in. If not, it's no big deal.

Once you've filled that out, take the completed form, and the weapon (unloaded and in a case) back to the place you got your permit to purchase. They record the info, fill out a card and give you one for each weapon.

For the most part, it's pretty painless. Some counties though are a bit harder than others. I've heard horror stories about Wayne county (Detroit is in Wayne county). And city police departments are sometimes a pain in the butt.

It's called a "safety inspection." But it's not really much of an inspection. When I first moved here, one of the guns I had registered was a black powder .36 New Army replica revolver. The mainspring was broken and it wouldn't work. They didn't even notice.

Big Gay Al
March 6, 2006, 04:42 AM
I have been reading this thread for quite sometime now........Hard not to reply. A few years ago I moved to Michigan on business, taking my firearms along with me, to say Michigan is pro-gun is baffling. I had to register every handgun I owned and 3 were held for processing because they were not registered in the past 10 years. After attending a gunshow in Detroit metro area I requested a transfer back to a state of liberty, Ohio. Any state requiring registration on a FTF transaction, IMHO, is not pro-gun. Hey, maybe I'm just lucky I live in Ohio. My $.02.You're lucky you don't live in New York!

Prior to my moving to Michigan from Illinios, NONE of my handguns were registered, so I don't understand why they'd hold any of yours for not being registered.

Ohio may not register handguns, but they surely need to fine tune their CCW laws.

And hey, the Brady Campaign gave us a D+ for 2004, we must be doing something right.

Zedicus
March 6, 2006, 07:51 PM
Latest Update:

http://www.marbut.com/Angel/update%20030506.html

Dear Friends of Angel,
So many of you have asked for updates about Angel's situation, and I am sooo swamped dealing with this situation, that the only way I could hope to keep you informed is to add you all to a general email list - my "Friends of Angel" list. That's why you are getting this email.

The information I broadcast here will be somewhat generic, because I must consider it to be in the public domain.

Angel moved to Michigan to be close to his son, a very high priority in his life.

Because of a malicious complaint (my opinion) that Angel was dangerous and had unregistered guns, a SWAT team raided his domicile yesterday. I was tagged to be something of a nexus in the recovery effort partly because I was on the phone with Angel when the SWAT team showed up at his door, partly because I'm also a friend of Angel's, and partly because of the curse or blessing of my get-it-handled-now personality.

As soon as I knew that Angel was in jail, I called Alan Gottlieb of SAF to get a referral for a local attorney. I found one from the SAF list who had his cell number on his office answering machine, and who answered his cell phone promptly, a bit after 5 PM CST. This attorney got after Angel's situation immediately, and I phoned Nicki of KeepAndBearArms.com next to hatch a plan to get the word out and start the reference letters coming. These letters will be delivered to Angel's attorney electronically, Monday morning.

Today, an associate of the attorney I contacted yesterday appeared to represent Angel at the arraignment, and got him sprung from jail on a bond (the bond was not steep). I was out of the loop in the middle part of the day today because it was the scheduled Annual Meeting for MSSA in our State Capitol, Helena, Montana (yes, thank you, I am still president).

I talked to Angel on the phone within 20 minutes of his release (and several times since). Of course, he's angry, frustrated, bummed, and distraught - who wouldn't be under these circumstances? But, he's coping.

Angel has an immediate need of protection from the consequences of any more malicious police reports. We're working with some Michigan folks to provide Angel with company to document his whereabouts and activity until this is resolved. If you know anyone in Michigan (Detroit/Pontiac area) who might help with this, let me know.

We are also sketching out a fundraising plan for legal expenses that should come together within about 48 hours. Stay tuned for more about this.

In the mean time, Angel is facing four misdemeanor charges, three of which are for guns that were not yet registered properly under Michigan law, but which Angel was in the process of trying to get registered. Bad timing and a malicious complaint - what can I say.

But, I believe, your many and kind letters will help establish with the court that Angel is an upstanding guy.

Thanks loads for your concerns, your help, and your many offers to help more. I'm sure Angel would want me to go heavy on thanks to you too.

I am scheduled to teach the second day of a two-day precision riflery class tomorrow, and will be out of the loop all afternoon. Other than that period, I will keep you updated as new and significant information becomes available.

Best wishes.
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

AZRickD
March 6, 2006, 08:47 PM
More info on donating, etc.


http://www.marbut.com/Angel/

Gray Peterson
March 6, 2006, 10:05 PM
So let me get this straight.

He moved to Michigan in September? You'd think that someone of Mr. Shamaya's caliber of knowledge about firearms laws, rules, and regulation that he "forgot" to register his firearms?

AZRickD
March 6, 2006, 11:03 PM
Lonnie, didn't you ask a similar rhetorical question pack on post #83?

Is it your goal to derail this activism?

Two questions for you...

1) If you were judge or juror, would you convict or acquit?
2) Have you donated to Angel's legal defense fund?

Rick

Kim
March 6, 2006, 11:24 PM
Money donated to the cause.

Gray Peterson
March 6, 2006, 11:54 PM
Lonnie, didn't you ask a similar rhetorical question pack on post #83?

Is it your goal to derail this activism?

Two questions for you...

1) If you were judge or juror, would you convict or acquit?
2) Have you donated to Angel's legal defense fund?

1) I would vote to acquit definitely on the firearms charges, because I believe the Michigan constitution's RKBA clause is supreme. The menacing charge I have no further information on, I am not sure. Angel's and his friend's statements that his wife is making up everything does not fly with me at this point. As a victim of stalking by a sociopath who later claimed something along the same lines, that all I do is lie, and so on, I cannot so easily dismiss her claims about him. Sorry.
2) No I have not, and I will not until I get an explaination as to why Shamaya did not register his firearms. If he refused to register due to his own personal objections, or whatever, the answer is no. You'd think someone like Angel Shamaya would know the nooks and crannies of all of the state's laws on possession and carrying of his new state of residence.

AZRickD
March 7, 2006, 12:32 AM
If he refused to register due to his own personal objections, or whatever, the answer is no.
I'm not sure why it matters, and I thought it was stated above.

He was in the process of completing the "safety inspections" having contacted the authorities to inquire as to the method earlier that week. When the SWAT team entered the house and told him why they were there, Angel showed them the open browser window on his computer on the government web site for the purpose, and he asked them to print it out (which I recall that they did).

Does that cover it? :confused:

Rick

Gray Peterson
March 7, 2006, 01:24 AM
He was in the process of completing the "safety inspections" having contacted the authorities to inquire as to the method earlier that week. When the SWAT team entered the house and told him why they were there, Angel showed them the open browser window on his computer on the government web site for the purpose, and he asked them to print it out (which I recall that they did).

There's just this one itty bitty little problem: He moved to Michigan in September. It is now March. 6 months. Michigan is not a situation like New York where you cannot even possess a handgun unless you register it and then transfer it in, a 6 month to a year issue. The law gives him 30 days to register, at least according to what someone posted in this thread.

Why won't anyone answer my question? Why would one of the supposedly premier firearms enthusiasts basically let it slide for 6 months. That would be like Sandy Froman and Wayne LaPierre all of the sudden moving into New York State with handguns, even though they should know better than anyone that bringing it into New York State would be verbotten without the process.

If he was a regular joe gun owner, I could cut him some slack and I'd help contribute. However, Angel Shamaya is on the same level of knowledge on firearms laws as people in the ILA's local lobbyists. This isn't a CAL-DOJ situation where they change the rules and then banning things that they said were legal before.

Stand_Watie
March 7, 2006, 01:47 AM
Why won't anyone answer my question? Why would one of the supposedly premier firearms enthusiasts basically let it slide for 6 months.

Do we know for a fact that he brought those guns with him from Arizona six months ago or whether he just picked them up from his brother-in-law's house back in Arizona when he visited last week?

Big Gay Al
March 7, 2006, 01:59 AM
ANYTHING is possible, including that MAYBE the guns are registered. Remember, the local LEOs were going on information provided by someone else. So who the heck knows???

Warren
March 7, 2006, 02:08 AM
Um, how could they prove just how long the guns were in MI? Some super-duper CSI magic-tech?

Trebor
March 7, 2006, 02:24 AM
Um, how could they prove just how long the guns were in MI? Some super-duper CSI magic-tech?

My understanding is that the police don't have to prove how long the guns were in Michigan. The possession of unregistered handguns is a crime. The fact that you had just moved into the state within (I believe) 30 days would be an affirmative defense against that crime. In that case you could show evidence that you have been in the state less than 30 days and the clock has not run out on the timeline.

Now, if someone wants to make a claim that while they have been a Michigan resident longer than 30 days, but they just brought the guns into the state within the last 30 days, the burden of proof would be on the defendant to show that the guns just came into the state. The possession of the unregistered guns is the "proof" and you'd have to show that they actually have been in the state less than 30 days.

I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, etc, just my understanding of the situation in Michigan.

Warren
March 7, 2006, 02:34 AM
Guilty until proven innocent?


Hmmm, I'll just avoid MI then.

Steam dragon
March 7, 2006, 06:17 AM
Ok, let's slow down...

Angels biggest legal problem might not be the posession charges.

Linky... (http://www.gunlawnews.org/Analysis/ajlaut-3.html)

Keeping in mind this is pure speculation, and all...

AZRickD
March 7, 2006, 09:37 AM
Why won't anyone answer my question?
Because you are asking us to speculate on facts not in evidence and that have no bearing on me sending in $100 for his legal defense.

If you're really concerned about this, why not start a new thread rather than attempting to derail this one?

Rick

Big Gay Al
March 7, 2006, 09:42 AM
Guilty until proven innocent?


Hmmm, I'll just avoid MI then.
That's an interesting comment, considering it comes from someone living in California. ;)

In case you hadn't noticed, "guilty until proven innocent" is pretty much the rule in this country. Yeah, I know. It's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty." But let's face it, it's RARELY that way in real life.

Big Gay Al
March 7, 2006, 09:44 AM
Why won't anyone answer my question?
Ok, I got an answer for you...I DON'T KNOW!!!

:)

RS2
March 7, 2006, 10:37 AM
My understanding is that the police don't have to prove how long the guns were in Michigan. The possession of unregistered handguns is a crime. The fact that you had just moved into the state within (I believe) 30 days would be an affirmative defense against that crime. In that case you could show evidence that you have been in the state less than 30 days and the clock has not run out on the timeline.

Now, if someone wants to make a claim that while they have been a Michigan resident longer than 30 days, but they just brought the guns into the state within the last 30 days, the burden of proof would be on the defendant to show that the guns just came into the state. The possession of the unregistered guns is the "proof" and you'd have to show that they actually have been in the state less than 30 days.

I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, etc, just my understanding of the situation in Michigan.

Rob,

You're right. Possession of a handgun that has not been "safety inspected" is a misdemeanor. A potential defense might be that you had only recently acquired the pistol and had not yet brought it to the police station for inspection. The burden would indeed be upon the defendant to prove such a defense.

A person who moves to Michigan and establishes residency has an affirmative duty to have his pistols inspected. The statute does not specify that you have thirty days, however I believe the State Police website has a reference to a thirty day period. I do not know what the authority is for that. In the absence of a specified time, the law presumes a reasonable period of time.

With respect to the proposition contained in your second paragraph, I do not believe that there is any lawful way for that situation to occur. I think that anyone who does not possess a Class 1 FFL, must have a pistol tranfered to a licensed dealer in Michigan and than effect transfer through the FFL.

I could be mistaken, I only play a lawyer in real life. ;)

Ron

Jim March
March 7, 2006, 10:42 AM
Looks to me like he has bad taste in ex-girlfriends.

Seriously, the guy is NOT a hothead, she's saying he threatened her (which is how the whole thing started) and I flat don't believe her. I say that having come to a parting of the ways with Angel once over "differences in political tactics" but he never so much as raised his voice over the phone (neither did I).

She's lying and I think at this point she's just cackling with glee at the latest bad press:

-----------------

http://www.wxyz.com/wxyz/nw_local_news/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15924_4519504,00.html

Gun Cache Found in Condo
By Cheryl Chodun
Web produced by Sarah Morgan
March 6, 2006

A local man was charged with keeping a stockpile of weapons inside his condo and police said he threatened a woman, but Monday he was back on the street.

Oakland County Sheriffs found 15 illegal handguns, 10 long guns and 17,000 rounds of ammunition in 38-year-old Angel Shamaya’s condo.

Police went to the condo, confiscated the weapons and arrested Shamaya.

"Obviously the ammo is a concern. The biggest reason it’s a concern is because of the threats he’s made against her," said Undersheriff McCabe.

Shamaya, whose named used to be Scott McReynolds, was arraigned on a weapons charged and let out on bond.

-----------------

Jim again. Problem is, that crazy ex has probably seen at least some of the guns more than a month ago. Sigh.

So he's going to have to fight the "threat claim" against her on one front and the constitutionality of the registration on the other. Dayum.

Trebor
March 7, 2006, 02:31 PM
Guilty until proven innocent?


Hmmm, I'll just avoid MI then.

Obviously, your not familiar with the concept of "affirmative defense." It's not just a Michigan thing. For instance, in California the possesion of an "assault weapon" is against the law. If a LEO saw you with an "assault weapon" in public, say at the range, he could arrest you and it would be up to you to provide proof that the "assault weapon," which appears to be illegal on the face of the matter, is actually legal because you registered it before the registration deadline expired.

In that case:

The crime is posession of an "assault weapon."

Your "affirmative defense" would be that the weapon is, in fact, legal because you registered it before the deadline. You would have to provide proof, such as the registration paperwork, to support the claim.

The idea that it's "Guily into proven innocent" sounds wrong and backwards until you realize that these are actions that, on their face, seem illegal and the burden is on the person commiting the apparently illegal action to show how they could indeed be legal.

Btw, the same thing holds true in most cases involving the use of deadly force in self-defense. The willful killing of another human being is a, "Homicide." On the face of it, any "Homicide" has the great likelyhood of being an illegal act. The person who used deadly force now has to show how this apparent illegal act was justified by the circumstances. The fact that they needed to defend themselves and that self-defense is a legimate reason to kill another human being is their "affirmative defense."

Once again, not a lawyer and not legal advice, etc.

Big Gay Al
March 7, 2006, 04:04 PM
Oakland County Sheriffs found 15 illegal handguns, 10 long guns and 17,000 rounds of ammunition in 38-year-old Angel Shamaya’s condo.Which begs the question, if they found 15 illegal handguns, how come he's only charged with 4 counts???

Zedicus
March 7, 2006, 06:47 PM
Media blowing things out of Proportion as usual?

Boats
March 7, 2006, 07:38 PM
Maybe it is inappropriate, but now I just gotta know about what is behind the name change.

Going legally from Scott McReynolds to Angel Shamaya would be called "pretty drastic" in the annals of most people.

Anyone know the tale? It is certainly going to come up in Court, even if as an aside.

Big Gay Al
March 7, 2006, 07:45 PM
Oh I don't know, I thought about changing my name to Abdul Abulbul Emir. ;)

Art Eatman
March 7, 2006, 07:49 PM
Ah, BGA, ya gotta be Mighty and Bold!

:), Art

AZRickD
March 7, 2006, 09:33 PM
Going legally from Scott McReynolds to Angel Shamaya would be called "pretty drastic" in the annals of most people.

Really? My grandfather changed his name upon hitting the shores of American over 100 years ago. He wanted to Americanize it. My father altered it further, as did my uncle, in a different direction. Hmmmm. Sicilian. Ahhh. I see.

I find it interesting what some people will dwell on, especially when the information was released to the press by the police for the very purpose of making Angel seem, gosh, just a little mysterious.

How does it feel to have gone for the bait and have the hook buried so deep in your jaw?

I know the story behind his name change, which happened 15 or twenty years ago, in a Court of Law and is a matter of public record.

It's actually a pretty cool story, but since it is personal, I'll keep that portion private, as it should be.

Now, back to Angel's legal defense fund. Reports are that money is flowing in. Good. If you can't afford the $100 I mailed off, perhaps $10 or $20? Angel has gotten a top litigator and a gun law expert on his legal team. They don't come cheap. Please consider as large a donation as you can muster without being able to make rent. :)

Rick

AZRickD
March 7, 2006, 09:39 PM
Here is the contact info for the Sheriff...

http://www.oakgov.com/sheriff/contact/

Jim March
March 7, 2006, 10:22 PM
The name change is meaningless. He'll probably tell the tale himself eventually.

I've personally seen three cases where a woman falsely charged a guy with violence. Mind you, these are cases where I *know* she was lying. Kind of a long story behind each we need not deal with here. It does indeed happen.

Boats
March 8, 2006, 12:00 AM
No need to become self-righteous prigs about what amounts to some natural curiousity.:rolleyes:

Fact of the matter is that most males in America don't change their names, so it is unusual, no matter why the press vultures put it out there.

AZRickD
March 8, 2006, 12:08 AM
Indeed.

I'm a little punchy over this (but in a good way).

I'll forgive you if you donate to Angel's legal defense fund. :o

Rick

fistful
March 8, 2006, 12:19 AM
How much did AZRickD donate again?

Because you are asking us to speculate on facts not in evidence and that have no bearing on me sending in $100 for his legal defense.

If you're really concerned about this, why not start a new thread rather than attempting to derail this one?

Rick

Donations are clearly off-topic, as this thread is about sending letters, not sending money or finding out about the cause one is sending one's money to. :scrutiny:

AZRickD
March 8, 2006, 09:38 AM
Mmmm. No.

The letter-writing was based on an early request by MSSA.

MSSA then altered tactics to include a Legal Defense Fund.

Got it?

How much $$ are you in for, now? :)

Rick

fistful
March 8, 2006, 01:21 PM
Hey, Hunnerd-dollar Rick, are you gonna write a letter, or will you continue to drag this thread off topic in a discussion of MSSA's early blunders in asking first for letters, then insisting that donations were the appropriate response?

And just so you know, I immediately sent half my paycheck, in cash, as soon as I heard someone had been charged with breaking a gun law. No questions asked.
:neener:

AZRickD
March 8, 2006, 06:42 PM
Fistful,

I'm sorry (not really) that you are so irritated that some would ask for, and others would offer, contributions to Angel's legal defense fund. It says a lot about you.

As well, your description of the letter-writing compaign as a "blunder" because they are now asking for both letters and donations, is really indefensible. But, please, try to defend it. It appears that every time you or some other random apologist-for-gun-registration speaks up, you generate more donations.

Keep it up, please.

Rick

AZRickD
March 8, 2006, 06:45 PM
This just in...

From Fistful's profile:
Occupation: Working apartment maintenance until I can go back to school. Send money!

Ironic, eh?

What I do for the RKBA and other civil liberties:
I am obtaining degrees in order to work full-time in politics, academia or journalism.

More irony from you. Wow.

Rick

fistful
March 8, 2006, 08:12 PM
Not to sink to your level, but:What I do for the RKBA and other civil liberties:
Pestering on a personal level
True enough. Better add that part about the $100 you donated.

Do you want me to keep toying with you, or should I just ask you to check your sense of humor? But perhaps you take yourself too seriously for that.

Gotta go, I'm writing some good arguments for gun registration. I'll e-mail them to you, buddy.

fistful

P.S. Just so you understand, most of my last three posts were sarcasm.

Don Gwinn
March 8, 2006, 08:53 PM
Some of us are embarassing ourselves and THR. Kindly knock it off.

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. That includes squabbling about who's the biggest and bestest defender of Angel Shamaya and about who's the worst enemy of freedom and liberty.

AZRickD
March 8, 2006, 09:28 PM
What I do for the RKBA and other civil liberties:
Pestering on a personal level

I'm quite proud of making activism personal...

Like this, from our Arizona Dept of Rev protest:

http://members.tripod.com/free_arizona/activism.htm

Or this:

http://members.tripod.com/free_arizona/montini.htm

Do you want me to keep toying with you,

Yes, please continue. You're inspiring more donations.

...sense of humor...But perhaps you take yourself too seriously for that.

Hey, Joe Piscopo. My friend needs help. Your stupid jokes are neither funny, nor appreciated.

Rick

fistful
March 8, 2006, 11:09 PM
Faced with the shock and awe of those links, and because competing with one who has so much to prove is like keeping up with an energetic fourth-grader, I surrender.

You are SO the man!

[Sarcasm still in effect]

fistful out.

Kaylee
March 9, 2006, 12:17 AM
heat > light

If you enjoyed reading about "Angel Shamaya Jailed in Michigan on Gun Charge" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!