[Erik]

This morning I was listening to the FoxNews' morning show when they hosts and guest Judge Napoliteano (sp?) broke into a pro gun dialogue for several minutes. Basically, they were analyzing the three day sentence of the man who was recently sentenced to Rikers for defending his home and family with an "illegally registered" firearm when all of the sudden everyone involved began to sound less like mainstream media types and more like mainstreamers. Good for them.

Anyone else happen to catch it?

[Norton]

I was just getting ready to post this.....that was one of the most amazing 3-4 minutes of television that I've seen in a long time. Wow, common sense discussion of the appropriate use firearms in defending one's home.

E.D. was right there in defending the accused man's right to defend his family. I think I'm in love....too bad she's married, she'd make some shooter a great wife:D

[bogie]

The sentence makes _some_ sense.

1. The guy lived there, where the law was that it had to be registered.

2. He got caught with it. Guilty of possession of unregistered boomstick.

3. The judge probably then had to impose SOME sentence... I suspect that the fellow may have already spent a weekend in Rikers, so it was essentially "time served, now go away."

This strikes me like "The court finds that Joe wins his lawsuit, and awards him $1 in damages."

[goalie]

OR

The DA could have used discretion and NOT charged him in the first place. Let me think, hmmmm, the FBI sniper at Ruby Ridge was not tried but this guy was??? :rolleyes:

[LightPlanePilot]

the judge seems like a pretty stand-up guy. too bad he's no longer a sitting judge.

[Drizzt]

Norton: E.D.'s from Texas... what do you expect? Of course she's going to be both smart and good looking. :p

[Leatherneck]

The judge probably then had to impose SOME sentence. Why? Is there no judicial discretion? :rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

[ACP230]

His lawyer should have used something called "the doctrine of competing harms" to get him off completely.
The possible harm to his family if he didn't use the illegal gun (which he had tried to register) should have been taken into account. The fact the NYC does as much as it can to keep people from complying with the gun laws, high fees, bureaucratic run arounds, etc, etc, etc, should have been mentioned loudly and often too.

Of course he did live in the Peoples Republic Of New York City.

[Nightcrawler]

I once heard Fox News' Judge N. go on a talk about how silly the Assault Weapons Ban is, and how it's based on purely cosmetic features.

I was VERY impressed. I like that guy.

[twoblink]

I think to say every law is 100% all the time without taking into account the situation; is stupid.

When I was young (1st grade??) I remember the crossing guard. He was the crossing guard for I don't know how many years (I know at least 20+) and he did it for free. He was a retired man who loved kids, and he said he was bored all day anyways, and so became a crossing guard.

When he died, they gave him a policeman's burial. Mind you, he wasn't a policeman. But they said "A man who protects and serves for more than 20+ years is a policeman in every definition". NOBODY but nobody complained about that. The policemen wore a patch that week, and the flags were flown at half mass in the city that month. I'm sure the laws somewhere spoke about who can receive that type of burial, but come on... That was back then, when people had common sense about 20 years ago..

[BryanP]

The judge probably then had to impose SOME sentence.

Why? Is there no judicial discretion?

Three words: Mandatory Sentencing Laws.

Enacted by well-meaning people who said "Those ^&*( liberal judges are letting people off with too light sentences." So some they pass laws which tell the judge he has to sentence criminals to a certain minimum, no leeway, no discretion. In some cases this has been a good thing. In others not so much. Personally I dislike them. If you're going to take away the Judge's ability to make a judgement call, why not just replace him with a clerk who can look up the sentence in a book?

[Standing Wolf]

The judge probably then had to impose SOME sentence...

If I'd been the judge, I'd simply have dismissed the case, and if anyone had demanded a reason, I'd have said, "because I said so."

[Spot77]

I suppose the judge in that case was afraid of setting some sort of ridiculous precedent that could be used to the benefit of some real no-goodniks in the future.

[Jim March]

Y'all are assuming the NYPD gun permit system is in some way "fair".

:barf:

What follows is a guest editorial I had hoped the NY Post would publish. They've not said anything yet, so enjoy :). It was written for the Alcosta case but the basics are the same for this.

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

Justice And Guns In The Big Apple:
The Jose Alcosta Case

By Jim March – jmarch@prodigy.net

Most of the people ready to declare Jose Alcosta “guilty” of a crime ask “why didn’t he apply for a firearms premise permit”?

First, according to NYPD procedure, it costs one over $350 to "find out" if you'll get a permit. The difficult part of the process is figuring out if the department is going to approve your "good cause for issuance" of the premise permit and/or carry permit. It's completely discretionary, and with the total costs of the permit "front loaded" right from the get-go, it's a very expensive gamble for anyone of modest means.

That appears to be the goal: put in an "economic class barrier" right up front, to weed out the "riffraff". Except that Mr. Alcosta clearly is NOT "riffraff".

In California, the discretionary carry permit program costs about as much to get through, however the law mandates that only $20 be up-front non-refundable at filing. Police or sheriffs then evaluate the "good cause" on a discretionary basis, and only once the applicant finishes that step is the full fingerprint background check run at greater cost to the applicant. The applicant is only penalized those sums if they've mis-stated their criminal background during the initial step.

Second: perceived police discrimination against minorities is so entrenched, and minority distrust of the NYPD is so high, that most folks in Alcosta's position automatically assume that their $350 application fee is simply money down a toilet.

Are they correct? Hard to say. Somebody will have to get the list of gun premise permit holders, the list of business license holders, and do a racial examination of each. In California, we've seen a carry permit issuance rate to Latinos in one county (Fresno) of 3%, which is shocking given that Fresno County is 44% Hispanic per census data. Discrepancies that extreme are common across the state. If somebody were to do such an analysis of NYC gun permits (both premise and carry), odds are the rate of discrepancy would be similar.

To really nail it, you'd need the list of people denied a premise permit, and see if the Latino denial rates are higher. In California, we've had huge problems getting denial data as the local agencies regularly destroy it contrary to state law. I would suspect the NYPD would squeal like...ehh, well "pigs", if the denial lists were requested.

I'm assuming that the department isn't specifically tracking race in the gun permits. Most discretionary systems don't, because if they did the inherent racial bias would be too obvious, so you have to do last-name analysis for Latinos. California is an example of a discretionary system that doesn't track race. But if the data DOES include the race of denied and approved applicants, so much the better because discrimination against blacks will probably be even more extreme.

Third: there appears to be corruption within the NYPD in how gun permits are issued. At least one member of the brass who handles gun licensing is under investigation; he gave the rare carry permits to two members of the rock band Aerosmith and got backstage passes, concert tickets, limo rides and similar in exchange (story dated 11/24/02, NY Post, “NYPD BIG UNDER FIRE IN AEROSMITH 'GOT A GUN' SCANDAL”). Corruption in gun carry permit handling has been seen in California too, and appears to be a common result of "discretionary" licensing schemes.

In short, NYC's gun permit program appears to have been set up as a deliberate equal protection violation and in the Alcosta case, is clearly contradictory to basic ideals of justice and both racial and economic class equality.

Jim March is a California police misconduct and self-defense rights activist investigating the discretionary permit program in that state. On the web: www.equalccw.com

[SkunkApe]

Nice story about the crossing gaurd, Twoblink. Thanks.

And good work as usual, Jim March.

[WingZero]

I saw that. I am an advid watcher of Fox&Friends. Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity have also made pro gun comments on their shows at FoxNews.

[TonyB]

The thing that sets Fox and Friends apart is the fact that they actually make sence.I saw it that morning w/ the Judge and E.D. saying exactly what I would....if a bit more understated.
We should all email Fox news and express our views of encouragment.:cool:

[sw442642]

This is clearly a case that should be able to be taken to the Supreme Court if the 2nd Amend. really means something. We clealry have an aggreived party of quality and not some sleaze bag like that TX doctor.