The Nanny State Strikes Again


PDA






Desk Jockey
April 5, 2006, 05:10 PM
The kid showed poor judgement, but a conviction for photos taken in his home, with parental permission to handle the firearms???

We live in scary times, my friends.

Minor convicted for posing with weapons (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4596866,00.html)

If you enjoyed reading about "The Nanny State Strikes Again" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
crazed_ss
April 5, 2006, 05:14 PM
He assured the judge that no weapons will be in the house again. "The hobby is gone. The guns are gone and won't be back," Weisz said.


Well.. that certaintly is regrettable.

exar
April 5, 2006, 05:20 PM
Regardless of the legality of your actions, you shouldn't go around doing stupid stuff for the entire world to see.

crazed_ss
April 5, 2006, 05:24 PM
Yea.. sounds like the kid was just showing off on the internet. Not very smart. The whole "Angel of Death" thing would concern me though.

SaintofKillers
April 5, 2006, 05:30 PM
I think the state getting involved is excessive and unnecessary.

The last thing this kid or any other kid for that matter needs is the state telling them how to live their lives.

Dad should have given him a good slap upside the head for doing something foolish.

But then the nanny state would come in and prosecute the father for child abuse.

exar
April 5, 2006, 05:33 PM
This is not the first arrest that has come from My Space. Over the last few months many teens have been arrested for sex, drugs, and guns. I will never understand the need to commit felonies and brag about to as many people as possible. One kid made the claim that he made over 100k a year by selling drugs and took pictures of himself with the drugs and guns. He is now in jail. Stupid, so stupid.

Desertdog
April 5, 2006, 05:39 PM
What ever happened to the Right To Keep And Bear Arms? I think the NRA, GOA and all the rest of the pro-gun groups should have their lawyers lining up to file appeals.

Sindawe
April 5, 2006, 05:50 PM
From the linked article in Prav- I mean the Rocky Mountain News...The conviction came despite his parents' testimony that they gave him permission to handle guns in their home without their supervision.

Colorado law prohibits possession of a handgun by a juvenile but permits parents to give them permission to possess guns in their homes - even without supervision. :confused: I don't have access to Colorado's statutes at the moment, but if the law does indeed state the point I have emphasized, just what law did the kid violate and why the frell was he prosecuted and convicted? :confused:

As a Colorado resident, I offer my deepest apologies for the apparent idiocy of the prosecutor and any jury in this case. :banghead:

Desk Jockey
April 5, 2006, 06:01 PM
Regardless of the legality of your actions, you shouldn't go around doing stupid stuff for the entire world to see.

True. But if the photos depict no illegal activities, then how can you be convicted of a crime? The kid was stupid, but he didn't break the law. He had parental permission and was in his home.

Erebus
April 5, 2006, 06:42 PM
Looks like a complete over reaction to me. Should be easy to get overturned on appeal. That is assuming that the quoted statute is correct.

Clean97GTI
April 5, 2006, 07:02 PM
"That doesn't mean juveniles could run around the house and do whatever he wanted with the gun," Boatright said,

correct me if I'm wrong your honor, but thats not really what happened...is it? The boy, who had permission to handle the guns, took a few pictures and posted them on the internet.

Bad ruling and I hope it gets thrown out.

The judge set a $5,000 bond, but ordered that the boy must be evaluated and a safety plan drawn up before he can be released.

a safety plan? Does Colorado law allow for something like that...a ruling that dictates how a person must keep their guns? :scrutiny:

bigun15
April 5, 2006, 07:09 PM
So basically the situation is: Teenager has pictures of himself with guns on his Myspace. They are recognized as being his parents guns, but he gets arrested.

Umm...I'll be back in a couple minutes...:uhoh:

roscoe
April 5, 2006, 07:19 PM
Where is the crime, exactly?

Kodiaz
April 5, 2006, 07:22 PM
Hmm this sounds like tyranny to me.

KriegHund
April 5, 2006, 07:28 PM
Hmm, whatever happened to 'until proven guilty'?

They had the pictures... and thats it. For all they know the parent was standing beside the kid.

This was a stupid arrest and a pitiful attempt to 'make the schools safer'. Instead it has resulted in one mistake ruining someones life.

Desk Jockey
April 5, 2006, 07:32 PM
TFA says:

The judge was more concerned with a third photo in which the boy appeared to have his finger on the trigger.

"That exceeds the scope of his training, experience and trust (his father) placed in the juvenile," Boatright said.

Apparently, it's illegal to put your finger on the trigger of an unloaded handgun.

gc70
April 5, 2006, 07:35 PM
Based on the information in the article, it appears that prosecutors and judges in Colorado act not on the law, but what they think the law should be.

Sindawe
April 5, 2006, 07:48 PM
Based on the information in the article, it appears that prosecutors and judges in Colorado act not on the law, but what they think the law should be.That does indeed seem to be the case, as the prosecution of one Laura Kriho (http://www.methadonetoday.org/kriho.htm) shows.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 5, 2006, 07:59 PM
This wasn'ta violation of the law. CO law means a minor can wield guns if permitted by their parents

GruntII
April 5, 2006, 08:09 PM
But the system ain't broke.:confused:

Darth Ruger
April 5, 2006, 08:24 PM
Colorado law...permits parents to give them permission to possess guns in their homes - even without supervision.But Jefferson County District Judge Brian Boatright said that that permission had limits.Does Colorado law spell out exactly what 'permission' entails?
Does the law state that 'permission' doesn't include taking pictures of yourself?


One of the charges stemmed from a photo...The judge was more concerned with a third photo...So this kid was arrested and has been in jail for two months and now has a criminal record for... taking pictures of himself doing something perfectly legal? :confused:

They just want to hang him in the public square and make an example out of him.
It appears the smoke from Columbine still lingers in the air.

DRZinn
April 5, 2006, 08:32 PM
The conviction came despite his parents' testimony that they gave him permission to handle guns in their home without their supervision.

Colorado law prohibits possession of a handgun by a juvenile but permits parents to give them permission to possess guns in their homes - even without supervision. So the law allows it, but he was convicted anyway? On what grounds?

"That exceeds the scope of his training, experience and trust (his father) placed in the juvenile," Boatright said.:barf:

"The hobby is gone. The guns are gone and won't be back," Weisz said.Worst part of the whole thing.

Zundfolge
April 5, 2006, 09:06 PM
But Jefferson County District Judge Brian Boatright said that that permission had limits.


JeffCo is not required to abide by the laws of the state of Colorado or the Constitution of the United States any more than Boulder, or the City of Denver.

AndyC
April 5, 2006, 09:48 PM
That does indeed seem to be the case, as the prosecution of one Laura Kriho shows.
Wow - that is just so outrageous! Are we meant to be mindreaders when serving on juries now?

deanf
April 6, 2006, 12:17 AM
That father needs to grow some balls, appeal the conviction, and get the guns back in the house.

mr_dove
April 6, 2006, 02:52 AM
Possession is generally defined in the law by the amount of control that one wields over an object. As your amount of control that you wield over an object increases, the likelihood that it is in your "possession" increases.

The boy was charged with 3 counts of possession of a handgun (not the rifles) because there were 3 handguns in the pictures. He was acquitted on two of them, likely because they only appeared in the pictures but they were not under his direct control (not really possession). He was convicted on one count because the 3rd picture showed him with his finger on the trigger, an action clearly showing an increased amount of control over the handgun.

I have not looked up the statute. It is possible that parents can only give permission to possess rifles since the boy was not charged with any crime relating to the many rifles in the pictures. It is also possible that the judge decided this based on his own feelings rather than the law.

gunsmith
April 6, 2006, 02:57 AM
man this really stinks! the kid had permission from his dadand took some creative photo's, a conviction for a darn photo taken in ones own house?

http://cbs4denver.com/crime/local_story_095181805.html
Teen Convicted Of Gun Possession In Online Photos

http://img.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_052233908/lg

AP) GOLDEN, Colo. A teenager who posted Internet photos of himself posing with guns, including one photo captioned "Angel o' death on wings o' lead," has been convicted of possession of a handgun by a juvenile.

Defense attorney Barrett Weisz said he would appeal.

The Evergreen High School student was acquitted on two other charges of handgun possession Tuesday.

The 16-year-old boy's photos were posted on the popular social networking site MySpace.com. He posed with a number of rifles and a .45-caliber pistol, a .22-caliber revolver and a .357-caliber revolver.

Juveniles in Colorado are not allowed to possess handguns, but the law allows parents to give their children permission to possess guns in their homes.

The boy's parents testified that their son had permission to handle the weapons.

The father, a gun collector who is an airline pilot and retired Air Force pilot, said he gave the boy and his brother extensive training in the safe handling of weapons.

"That doesn't mean juveniles could run around the house and do whatever he wanted with the gun," Jefferson County District Judge Brian Boatright said, noting that the father testified that his sons were not allowed to load or fire the weapons unless he was present.

The teen, who has been held in detention since his arrest in February, was to be sentenced June 1. Boatright set bond at $5,000 and ordered that the boy be evaluated and that a safety plan drawn up before he could be freed.

Evergreen High School is in the same district as Columbine High School, where two teenage gunmen killed 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves in 1999.

Autolycus
April 6, 2006, 03:24 AM
Another thread...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=193362

the Juggernaut
April 6, 2006, 03:32 AM
You know I just watched "Waco: the Rules of Engagement" again and with this crap I feel the government is way out of hand. The kid did not take these guns out of his house and did have his fathers permission (although he didn't like the photo's and captions).

El Tejon
April 6, 2006, 07:48 AM
Any law that can be abused will be abused. This is an abuse of that moronic soccermommie law passed in Colorado to mitigate the guilt of Columbine.

Repeal that law!

Working Man
April 6, 2006, 07:56 AM
Juveniles in Colorado are not allowed to possess handguns, but the law allows parents to give their children permission to possess guns in their homes.

The boy's parents testified that their son had permission to handle the weapons.

:scrutiny:

Am I missing somthing? What law was broken?

El Tejon
April 6, 2006, 07:58 AM
The law of Political Hysteria and Guilt over Columbine.

Working Man
April 6, 2006, 08:02 AM
Oh yah, I missed that vote.... wait a minute...:what:

So this dumb kid is screwed, detained, and vilified with out breaking a single "real" law.

Jack boots anyone?

Desk Jockey
April 6, 2006, 08:42 AM
Mr. Dove, you're way off base on the possession issue. Minors (under 18) are allowed to possess rifles in Colorado. They are not allowed to possess handguns, with a few exceptions.

Although the kid was stupid, and the father should be concerned about the behavior, the judge's actions are the real problem. See below.


From the Colorado Revised Statutes:

18-12-108.5. Possession of handguns by juveniles - prohibited - exceptions - penalty.
Statute text

(1) (a) Except as provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person who has not attained the age of eighteen years knowingly to have any handgun in such person's possession.

(b) Any person possessing any handgun in violation of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) commits the offense of illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile.

(c) (I) Illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile is a class 2 misdemeanor.

(II) For any second or subsequent offense, illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile is a class 5 felony.

(d) Any person under the age of eighteen years who is taken into custody by a law enforcement officer for an offense pursuant to this section shall be taken into temporary custody in the manner described in section 19-2-508, C.R.S.

(2) This section shall not apply to:

(a) Any person under the age of eighteen years who is:

(I) In attendance at a hunter's safety course or a firearms safety course; or

(II) Engaging in practice in the use of a firearm or target shooting at an established range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located or any other area where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited; or

(III) Engaging in an organized competition involving the use of a firearm or participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group under 501 (c) (3) as determined by the federal internal revenue service which uses firearms as a part of such performance; or

(IV) Hunting or trapping pursuant to a valid license issued to such person pursuant to article 4 of title 33, C.R.S.; or

(V) Traveling with any handgun in such person's possession being unloaded to or from any activity described in subparagraph (I), (II), (III), or (IV) of this paragraph (a);

(b) Any person under the age of eighteen years who is on real property under the control of such person's parent, legal guardian, or grandparent and who has the permission of such person's parent or legal guardian to possess a handgun;

(c) Any person under the age of eighteen years who is at such person's residence and who, with the permission of such person's parent or legal guardian, possesses a handgun for the purpose of exercising the rights contained in section 18-1-704 or section 18-1-704.5.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section, a handgun is "loaded" if:

(a) There is a cartridge in the chamber of the handgun; or

(b) There is a cartridge in the cylinder of the handgun, if the handgun is a revolver; or

(c) The handgun, and the ammunition for such handgun, is carried on the person of a person under the age of eighteen years or is in such close proximity to such person that such person could readily gain access to the handgun and the ammunition and load the handgun.

(4) Repealed.
History

Source: L. 93, 1st Ex. Sess.: Entire section added, p. 2, 2, effective September 13. L. 96: (1)(d) amended, p. 1693, 28, effective January 1, 1997. L. 98: (4) repealed, p. 729, 15, effective May 18.
Annotations

ANNOTATION
Annotations

Possession of a handgun by a juvenile is a "status" offense, an offense consisting of conduct that would not constitute an offense if engaged in by an adult. People v. Juvenile Court, 893 P.2d 81 (Colo. 1995).

This section and the presumption statute ( 19-2-204) were adopted to secure the safety of juveniles and the communities in which they reside. The Children's Code has consistently evidenced a legislative intent to accomplish both such purposes. People v. Juvenile Court, 893 P.2d 81 (Colo. 1995).

The parental permission language in subsection (2)(b) is an affirmative defense to the offense of unlawful possession of a handgun by a juvenile. People ex rel. L.M., 17 P.3d 829 (Colo. App. 2000).

source: http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0

HankB
April 6, 2006, 09:24 AM
Not clear - jury trial or bench trial? Defense attorney Barrett Weisz said he would appeal. It SOUNDS like no law was actually broken - and yet, while being represented by this guy, a conviction STILL resulted?

Sounds like a REAL lawyer is needed next time around. (If I lived in that jurisdiction, I'd make a note of this attorney as a person NOT to call if I ever were to need a lawyer.)

SaintofKillers
April 6, 2006, 09:27 AM
Well at least all the local lowlifes will know what house to rob.

The father might as well put a gun-free zone sign in the front yard.:scrutiny:

merk
April 6, 2006, 09:30 AM
He assured the judge that no weapons will be in the house again. "The hobby is gone. The guns are gone and won't be back," Weisz said.


Thats terrible.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 6, 2006, 09:43 AM
Duplicate threads merged.

RealGun
April 6, 2006, 10:08 AM
Like some bad dream.

mbt2001
April 6, 2006, 10:14 AM
Well, when are they going to start prosecuting Hollywood for owning, picturing and showing acts of violence with automatic and illegal weapons?

Why can someone get in trouble for it in LA or San Francisco, but Hollywood is immune to the same thing.... I would also like to know if they keep a careful inventory of the guns that they own for there movies? I bet more than a lot have "walked" off sets and illegally into the hands of criminals...

That was my best Brady impression... But I think that you get the point.

LAR-15
April 6, 2006, 11:55 AM
Bust Hollyweird actors for illegal machinegun posession

The verdict is BS if I am reading the CO statute posted right

DontBurnMyFlag
April 7, 2006, 01:01 AM
im 21 and own legal guns. i have pictures of myself posing with them on the internet for the world to see.

the day the PD comes to my door and asks to see the NJ Firearms ID card is the day Ive had enough.

The govt, the state and legal officials need to know when to butt out and keep parenting to the parents.

Don't Tread On Me
April 7, 2006, 01:26 AM
I can't believe that men shed blood to build this nation so we could come to this...

I just can't believe it. I am ashamed of myself that I've let all these great and brave men down.

It's our fault. We should have done something about it. We are letting our greatest patriots deaths go in vain because we are too cowardice to change our nation. To take it back from the totalitarians.

The kid was let free, but only after sitting in detention since Feb! For NO CRIME whatsoever. The JUDGE INVENTED the crime by saying a picture with a finger on the trigger was bad, while the other ones without weren't?? Wow. Why do we complain about Guantanamo Bay, when this happens in every American city?

This is our Amerika. We made our bed, now we have to sleep in it.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Nanny State Strikes Again" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!