Anti gun crusader arrested for owning gun


PDA






PinnedAndRecessed
March 10, 2006, 11:48 AM
The founder of an anti-gang center called "No Guns" was arrested after police said they found a gun in his home and his son, a reputed gang member nicknamed "Little Weasel," was taken into custody in connection with a home-invasion robbery.

Hector Marroquin Sr., 49, a former gang leader, was arrested Thursday for investigation of being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, said Hawthorne police Lt. Tom Jester. Police found the gun when they raided his home looking for his son, 31-year-old Hector Marroquin Jr., Jester said.

The son was arrested for investigation of home-invasion robbery stemming from a December crime in Hawthorne, Jester said.

Marroquin Sr., a heavily tattooed and once-feared gang leader, opened his No Guns Center in 1998 after a 2-year-old boy was killed by a stray bullet. He said at the time that his goal was to create a place that would promote gang intervention and violence prevention.

The center started a youth soccer club, other recreation programs and job training.

Marroquin Sr., however, was unable to keep his son from joining a gang. In 1996, the elder Marroquin was shot while trying to protect his son from a beating.

Both men had bailed out of jail by Friday morning, Lt. Keith Kauffman said.

Neither has a listed telephone number.


http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/11914048p-12682304c.html

Note: this is Hawthorne, California.

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti gun crusader arrested for owning gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nathanael_Greene
March 10, 2006, 11:57 AM
Well, there's Ironic Story of the Day!

armedandsafe
March 10, 2006, 12:18 PM
Two questions:

1: Since the police obviously expected to find the son at the address, why are they so sure the gun was the elder's, rather than the son's?

2: Why would you be surprised that an anti would expect you to give up yours while retaining his?

Pops

Master Blaster
March 10, 2006, 12:23 PM
This guy is a former gang banger who has lots of armed gang memebers who would like to see him dead.

While I dont feel sorry for him at all, I can understand that he has a need to have a gun to protect himself.

100% sure he will get another gun the second he hits the street if he doesnt have one stashed already.

SomeKid
March 10, 2006, 12:26 PM
They are anti-YOU owning a gun.

sturmruger
March 10, 2006, 12:28 PM
What a great story!!

BigFatKen
March 10, 2006, 12:28 PM
Since when can a person be an "ex-felon" without a pardon?

Zen21Tao
March 10, 2006, 12:51 PM
I bet being an ex-felon who no longer can legally own a gun helped him be anti-gun. He is such a hypocrite. The "owning a gun illegally while preacing anti gun mantras" aside, he knows damn well, from having been a criminal himself, that criminals by the very fact that they aren't concerned with obeying laws are not going to follow any new gun laws. In fact, I would also bet that the kid killed by the stay bullet that set him on his anti-gun crusade was killed in a gang related shootout where the firearms were not legally owned. He also has to know from his gang leader days that an unarmed citizen who won't violate the law is easy prey for an illegal gun toting criminal. :banghead:

IllHunter
March 10, 2006, 12:57 PM
Is that like being "slightly" pregnant?:rolleyes:

Robert J McElwain
March 10, 2006, 01:10 PM
Since the police obviously expected to find the son at the address, why are they so sure the gun was the elder's, rather than the son's?


I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect it has to do with who owns the house. The owner is probably presumed to be in possession of all its contents.

Bob

Zen21Tao
March 10, 2006, 01:36 PM
I bet it has to do with WHERE in the house the gun was found. A Gun found in kids room would be looked at as the son's gun but anywhere else in the house, especially in the dad's bedroom, would look like the gun belongs to the father. They also may have fingerprinted the gun to whose prints were last found on the gun.

El Tejon
March 10, 2006, 02:15 PM
Right, it's called "constructive" possession. I get it a lot in dope cases.

BFK, several ways to be an ex-felon: sentence modification, court of appeals or Supreme Court vacation of the conviction, PCR, pardon, inter alia.

This story warms my heart.:)

The spirit of Carl Rowan always lives inside the anti-civil rights movement.

ABTOMAT
March 10, 2006, 02:24 PM
Anyone remember a case like this a couple years back? One of the Million Mom organizers was arrested for taking shots at one of her son's gang buddies with a TEC-9.

V4Vendetta
March 10, 2006, 02:28 PM
Anyone remember these incidents?

Barbara Graham, speaker at the “Million Mom March” in 2000, was convicted of shooting and paralyzing for life a man she mistook as one who had killed her
son.

•In Fort Collins, a woman who opposes the right of self-defense struck a member
of the Tyranny Response Team with a clipboard.

•At a rally in Boulder early in 2000, Robert Howell, vice president of the anti-gun Boulder Bell Campaign, attacked Shariar Ghalam, bloodying his nose. (Ghalam was carrying a concealed handgun but never drew it, not believing his life was in danger.)

•In the summer of 2000, supporters of the anti-gun Million Mom March stole
supplies from the Second Amendment Sisters and vandalized SAS property.

•Ari Armstrong, a pro-civil rights activist in Colorado, received threatening
telephone calls allegedly from members of S.A.F.E (an anti-gun group) after Ari appeared on television promoting firearm freedoms.

jtward01
March 10, 2006, 02:33 PM
The name of the center is "No Guns." It's a place where kids can gather, have a good time and feel relatively safe since no guns are allowed on the property. It is NOT a political movement to deprive anyone of their Second Amendment rights.

So the guy screwed up when he was younger. So did David "Carbine" Williams, Alvin York and a lot of other people who turned their lives around. Who knows, maybe this guy is really doing something positive for his community. As for his having a gun, if I lived in that neighborhood I'd damned sure have one, felon or not. As the saying goes, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by six."

El Tejon
March 10, 2006, 02:33 PM
The thugs are always anti-gun. They have their guns and are willing to use them; they want you to not have that option.:)

unspellable
March 10, 2006, 02:51 PM
The fastest way to find a gun is to turn an anti-gunner upside down and shake.

Local anti-gun crusader got the boot from his last real job for striking a fellow employee. being out of a real job might be why he's running the anti-gun crusade. Wouldn't be the first, I've long been convinced Sarah Brady does her thing for the pay check.

Waitone
March 10, 2006, 03:03 PM
Whatcha wanna bet this dood's "center" was the recipient of federal // state // local // charitable funds?

Scam uncovered!

Standing Wolf
March 10, 2006, 09:39 PM
The thugs are always anti-gun. They have their guns and are willing to use them; they want you to not have that option.

Is is merely a coincidence that over 90% of convicted felons vote for representatives of the Democratic (sic) party?

DBR
March 11, 2006, 12:39 AM
"Dog" the world famous bounty hunter (undercover sleeze bag) came out with a strong anti-gun statement at the "Bounty Hunter convention" in Las Vagas about a week ago. Basically saying guns were not necessary in his profession - RIGHT!

Interesting that his wife carries a gun on camera but as a felon he can only carry his fire extinguisher sized OC can. Gun envy??? I think so.

ABTOMAT
March 11, 2006, 12:48 AM
The "Dog" thing always makes me laugh. "Rough tough bounty hunter, doesn't need a gun." Yeah right. You think he'd still be going unarmed if he hasn't been busted?

4v50 Gary
March 11, 2006, 12:48 AM
As Attorney for the Defendant (miscreant), I plea Not Guilty. Furthermore, I will prove that the Police planted the evidence on my client. :p Uh, may I have my gun back please?

asiparks
March 11, 2006, 12:53 AM
"is is merely a coincidence that over 90% of convicted felons vote for representatives of the Democratic (sic) party?"

interesting. Felons can vote then, Standing wolf ? And where did you dig up this so very plausible statistic ?

k_semler
March 11, 2006, 06:47 AM
ID restores full rights upon completion of a sentence for a felony conviction, according to thier statutes. Armed robbery & rape? No problem. Go ahead and vote, as long as your sentence was fully completed.

Carl N. Brown
March 13, 2006, 07:13 PM
Being anti-gun violence does not always mean being anti-gun.
But they would be more credible if they billed themselves
as anti-(criminal)violence and left guns out of their agenda,
especially ownership by the lawabiding for non-criminal uses.

chuckt1974
March 13, 2006, 10:43 PM
I dont remember where I heard it, but this quote has stuck with me.
"There is no such thing as someone who doesnt believe in guns. As soon as things go wrong they pick up the phone and call the people with guns."

Sheldon J
March 14, 2006, 09:07 PM
They are anti-YOU owning a gun.
Of course that is how they make it safe for fellow gang bangers.

tanksoldier
April 9, 2006, 03:48 AM
Extremely interesting, since convicted felons can't vote.


<<Is is merely a coincidence that over 90% of convicted felons vote for representatives of the Democratic (sic) party?>>

only1asterisk
April 9, 2006, 03:58 AM
Felons can't vote like they can't own guns, nothing stops them from doing either.

David

c_yeager
April 9, 2006, 02:48 PM
I dont actually see an anti-gun agenda with this organization. Yeah, its names "no guns" but that doesnt necessarily make it anti RKBA. It seems to be anti-violence oriented, and the name of the organization reflects that. If someone can show an actual gun-control agenda here then thats different, but being against gang members with guns is not analogous to being anti-everybody with guns.

alpineRKBA
February 17, 2007, 08:37 PM
What about Feinstein issuing herself a San Francisco permit for a .38 Special?
Guns for them but not for us!

Standing Wolf
February 17, 2007, 09:14 PM
Felons are legally able to vote in many states, and vote illegally in many others.

Zoogster
February 18, 2007, 01:12 AM
If I was a felon I would be anti other people legaly owning firearms too, doesn't mean I wouldn't keep a means to defend myself, legal or not, especialy if prior choices in life had left me with as many violent enemies as this guy.

Every person arrested for a felony or a domestic violence charge in this country, both of which are lifetime gun ownership bans, is an instant Anti. Some states expand that to include any and all drug offense, even an elderly woman with a misdemeanor marijuana charge from however far back, cant let that hippy smoking pot and protesting vietnam in the 60's have a gun for safety now. Others for any misdemeanor assault or battery charge, like CA, which means if for any reason you punch a guy in CA outside self defense (battery), even if they are talking dirty to your wife/daughter in front of you, and challenging you, or threaten or imply you will do so (assault). Instant 10 year ban. As more and more things are felonies under the law, and more and more non felonies also ban ownership, support for RKBA will diminish, even if privately those prohibited arm themselves regardless.

If you could not legaly own a gun, and by doing so you knew you were risking charges, would you want others to be able to be armed without the same risk hanging over thier head? Probably not. So you would be an anti.

Every new person prohibited from legal arms is anti other people having arms. Before 1968 even felons could own firearms at the federal level after serving all thier time. I imagine a big reason for the change was all the civil disobedience and protesting during the time. Perhaps even connected with the Black Panthers like many other gun laws. Once someone was considered a danger to the state they had to be legaly disarmed. While I do not condone any of the actions of criminals, that is quite contrary to the belief of the founding fathers that it was the duty of the citizens to rise against tyranny and overthrow it, when anyone judged an enemy of the tyrant would be charged accordingly and labeled ineligable to own firearms. The founding fathers would have never agreed that a citizen once legaly a free man could not have the means to resist oppression, or defend themselves or thier family.

Any one of us at any time could be deemed a felon for something mundane, perhaps a firearm oversight in a strict state, like having 11 rounds in a magazine in CA, and the majority would turn against them and denounce them as subhuman and support lifelong bans on rights simply for self preservation of our own RKBA. So that we can reply when an anti speaks against them that " well those firearms used in crimes were obtained or possessed illegaly, don't take away our rights! We are honest law abiding citizens". They don't care, and the rest of us will have lost one more supporter, and gained one more anti.

General Geoff
February 18, 2007, 01:27 AM
I dunno, I'm not so sure about that.

If (heaven forbid) I was at some point convicted of a felony, and served my time, I don't see how my own predicament of being barred from owning firearms would change my philisophical view that gun ownership should be an inalienable right. In fact, once I did my time, I'd be busy talking to a lawyer, trying to get my conviction expunged or pardoned, so I can hop back in the saddle.

Zoogster
February 18, 2007, 02:02 AM
Perhaps many here will become felons when our new president Obama/Hilary combined with our curent anti RKBA congress outlaws many firearms, and is sure to include an expanded version of the "Assault Weapons" ban, likely not making the same mistakes as last time which they are so frequently reminded about, like outlawing some weapons and not others when they are functionaly the same. Perhaps they won't be so nice with thier pen strokes this time and create a grandfather clause.

For the children, turn it in at a buyback within the next year or become a felon.
Luckily I shouldn't have to worry, because I am in CA and we can't have "assault weapons".
Then again that may only be a few years away from other bans...or perhaps the definition of Assault Weapon will be open ended and slowly expand like it does in CA.

10 Ring Tao
February 18, 2007, 05:19 AM
http://www.concealcarry.org/naacp.htm

230RN
February 18, 2007, 06:09 AM
zoogster said, in part:

(snip)

Every person arrested for a felony or a domestic violence charge in this country, both of which are lifetime gun ownership bans, is an instant Anti. Some states expand that to include any and all drug offense, even an elderly woman with a misdemeanor marijuana charge from however far back, cant let that hippy smoking pot and protesting vietnam in the 60's have a gun for safety now. Others for any misdemeanor assault or battery charge, like CA, which means if for any reason you punch a guy in CA outside self defense (battery), even if they are talking dirty to your wife/daughter in front of you, and challenging you, or threaten or imply you will do so (assault). Instant 10 year ban. As more and more things are felonies under the law, and more and more non felonies also ban ownership, support for RKBA will diminish, even if privately those prohibited arm themselves regardless.

(snip)

Any one of us at any time could be deemed a felon for something mundane, perhaps a firearm oversight in a strict state, like having 11 rounds in a magazine in CA, and the majority would turn against them and denounce them as subhuman and support lifelong bans on rights simply for self preservation of our own RKBA. So that we can reply when an anti speaks against them that " well those firearms used in crimes were obtained or possessed illegaly, don't take away our rights! We are honest law abiding citizens". They don't care, and the rest of us will have lost one more supporter, and gained one more anti.

I was going to post something (again) on the incremental approach to reducing the number of eligible gun owners by the "nibbling" technique of maiking evrything a felony.

But zoogster said it so well.

Don't spit on the sidewalk. It may be a felony someday.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that people barred from posession authomatically become "anti," although I'm sure it occurs.

Were I barred from posession, I might think the other way --that the more eligible people running around armed there are, the safer society in general, as well as myself, would be.

I was highly amused, when the Colorado CCW bill was being considered, to hear Tom Mauser (a strong anti here in CO) remark that he would feel "uncomfortable" if he found he was sitting next to a person who was carrying under the provisions of the CCW law.

Idiot!

Even if I were not eligible to possess a firearm, I would in fact feel safer in that situation.

One of the armed guards I know at one of the 24-hr supermarkets remarked to me when I got my CCW, "It's nice to know there's another good guy with a gun in the store." (I know him from wayback when.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti gun crusader arrested for owning gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!