Woman charged with providing guns connected to New York Firefighter murders


PDA






Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 11:22 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-woman-charged-connection-slaying-18088350
Dumb is Dumb

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman charged with providing guns connected to New York Firefighter murders" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M-Cameron
December 29, 2012, 11:27 AM
well if she really did buy the guns for him, she should be charged....


although this made me laugh....
The .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, which had a combat-style flash suppressor, is similar to the one used by the gunman who massacred 20 children and six women in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school earlier this month.
oh no, not those dangerous flash hiders.......god forbid those evil flash hiders fall into the wrong hands.....

Tommygunn
December 29, 2012, 11:29 AM
Charge her with conspiracy to commit murder, terrorist act, strawman sale, etc.
I have NO sympathy for her. None. Nada. ZIP. ZILTCH.

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 11:29 AM
No mention made of any "Dangerous high capacity clip" either.
Not sure but think New York has a magazine restriction of 10 shots?
The guns were purchased in 2010...

nathan
December 29, 2012, 11:32 AM
This would only fuel more lunatics to do their last hurrahs for self fulfillments of grandeur. God help us defend our 2A . THe time is even sadder as this happened weeks after Sandy Hook . Just pure bad luck.

Quiet
December 29, 2012, 11:40 AM
No mention made of any "Dangerous high capacity clip" either.
Not sure but think Ney York has a magazine restriction of 10 shots?
The guns were purchased in 2010...

NY has a 10 round magazine capacity limit that affects magazines made after 09-13-1994.


NY Penal Code 265.00
As used in this article and in article four hundred, the following terms shall mean and include:
23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, manufactured after September thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition; provided, however, that such term does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

NY Penal Code 265.02
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when:
(8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D felony.

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 11:44 AM
Ahhhh, I am probably safe in believing the numbskull only had 10 round magazines for the rifle so the reporters had to go after the permanently attached muzzle brake as the 'evil device'...
More proof that magazine restrictions on law abiding citizens does absolutely nothing to prevent murderers from murdering

22250Rem
December 29, 2012, 11:56 AM
I'm sure he only had 10 round mags for that thing. I live about 10 miles from there and in all the news coverage, including all the local TV and radio, NOT ONE WORD has been said about high capacity magazines. If he had a high capacity magazine you KNOW that we'd all have been made aware of it many times over by now.

velobard
December 29, 2012, 11:59 AM
Bushmaster is in for a rough time of it.

SuperNaut
December 29, 2012, 12:02 PM
Numerous firearms laws were violated in this transaction. Ie, we already had laws in place to prevent this.

But what will be the gungrabber's solution? More laws. Give me more laws, I tell you!
I use this sad fact in 2A discussions constantly. What is the magic number of laws that will suddenly make criminals obey the law? 10? 20? 1 million?

The answer is that anti-Constitutionalists don't know and they have no theories, but they have faith that the magic number exists! At some point in the far distant utopian future, the unknown, but surely real, number of laws will have been passed and criminals will suddenly, magically, begin to obey the law.

MachIVshooter
December 29, 2012, 12:05 PM
Charge her with conspiracy to commit murder, terrorist act, strawman sale, etc.
I have NO sympathy for her. None. Nada. ZIP. ZILTCH.

Conspiracy? Terrorist Act??

That's the type of ridiculous emotional response we've come to expect from the other side. Clearly not exclusive to the anti gun crowd.........

She broke a federal firearms law and she will be charged for it, as she should. At this time, however, there is no evidence that she had prior knowledge of the actor's intentions, let alone that she voluntarily took part in the diabolical plan (which occurred more than 2 years after her unlawful purchase).

Fryerpower
December 29, 2012, 12:05 PM
About two weeks ago they did the sentencing for a teacher in Huntsville, AL who has been convicted of straw purchases. She got two years of probation and six months of electronic monitoring.

I guess the moral of the story is it is ok to illegally purchase guns for someone to traffic them to Mexico as long as they don't use them to kill firemen.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/12/huntsville_elementary_school_t.html

-Jim

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 12:09 PM
She broke Federal Law
Yepper.
Dumb is dumb.
She knew he was a felon and did what she did anyway.
Likely she profited as well since people do not tend to do things such as this "Out of the goodness of their hearts".
Prosecute her to the fullest extent of the Law IMHO

nathan
December 29, 2012, 12:12 PM
Always have a bill of sale in case you sell your guns nowadays.

snake_plisskin
December 29, 2012, 12:14 PM
Bushmaster is in for a rough time of it.

I wonder if the rifles used in the connecticut shooting and this one were actually Bushmaster brand. I've heard several people in the media refer to these types of rifles as "the bushmaster". It seems odd with so many ar-15 manufacturers that these crazies are all choosing bushmaster.....

Tommygunn
December 29, 2012, 12:14 PM
Charge her with conspiracy to commit murder, terrorist act, strawman sale, etc.
I have NO sympathy for her. None. Nada. ZIP. ZILTCH.

Conspiracy? Terrorist Act??

That's the type of ridiculous emotional response we've come to expect from the other side. Clearly not exclusive to the anti gun crowd.........

She broke a federal firearms law and she will be charged for it, as she should. At this time, however, there is no evidence that she had prior knowledge of the actor's intentions, let alone that she voluntarily took part in the diabolical plan (which occurred more than 2 years after her unlawful purchase).

OK, then charge her with the strawman purchase. It really doesn't matter if she had any prior knowledge of the ex-con's plans (even HE might not have known) but it remains illegal to buy guns for ex cons and what she did was clearly a STRAWMAN purchase.
I still have NO sympathy for her. Fry her butt in court!
I have no sympathy for the shooter but he offed himself so that's pointless.
__________________

MachIVshooter
December 29, 2012, 12:46 PM
OK, then charge her with the strawman purchase.

That's what I said. Did you actually read my reply?

I still have NO sympathy for her.

Neither do I, but in this country, we still don't (knowingly) charge people with crimes they did not commit.

Trust me, if they can pin anything else on this woman, they will. But we have to stop short of making her a scapegoat for this man's actions just because we have no one else to lash out at over the heinous act. If it can be proved that she knew of his intentions prior and bought the weapons for him knowing what he was going to do, a conspiracy charge or felony murder charges are likely. I seriously doubt she had any such knowledge.

Arguing that she should have known he was likely to do such a thing because of his violent history makes the justice system equally culpable for releasing him back into society. Good luck making that argument.

It's unethical and generally unlawful to punish people for crimes that weren't theirs.

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 12:49 PM
My thread.
I want informed reasonable responses.
Let's not get it locked because a couple guys want to have a pissing match please.

ApacheCoTodd
December 29, 2012, 01:04 PM
I think one thing should be focused on and that is that the gal is (apparently) guilty of a straw purchase and to allow one's self to be led by the nose by the writer - as certainly intended - and view her as complicit in any degree of accomplice/conspiracy status when the transaction took place two years earlier is very short sighted.

Thanks to the OP for the posting - very interesting to dissect the many editorial tricks to turn one's mind in this one.

ID-shooting
December 29, 2012, 01:08 PM
If she is found guilty, having her day in court and jury decides it, she should get max penalty. Period.

They want us to be tougher on gun crimes, these are the ones we need to be tougher on.

If she is found guilty she part of the problem that give us legitimate gun owners black marks. The antis will lump the bad guys and good guys together.

We should be the first to call for a severe response within the limits of the Constitution.

Double Naught Spy
December 29, 2012, 01:11 PM
Conspiracy? Terrorist Act??
+1

But what will be the gungrabber's solution? More laws. Give me more laws, I tell you!

Not unique to gungrabbers. During the church burnings and bombings in the 90s, Congress acted to put an end to such crimes by making it a federal crime to burn down or bomb churches. Never mind that arson and bombing were already illegal. BTW - Republicans voted for Title 18, U.S.C., Section 247 - Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 as well as Democrats.

GEM
December 29, 2012, 01:13 PM
If Gander Mountain let an obvious straw man sale go through - expect the lawsuits on that one. That probably is in the mind of several lawyers contacting the survivors and the deceased ones' families.

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 01:16 PM
Thanks.
My point in this thread is that the media can't make headlines with the claim of high capacity so they begin to go after other evil features like a muzzle brake.
The shooter was noted as also being in possession of a shotgun and a .38 caliber revolver yet no mention is made that either of those weapons were used during the shooting.
Both of these weapons would likely contain no more than six shots each and were likely not used because he ended the event by terminating his own life once Police SWAT Officers began appearing on the scene.

The shooter followed common sense practices of utilizing cover and concealment and focusing on long range fire.
When he realized he wasn't going to win this battle, he checked out.

These are not the actions of a mentally ill individual but a skilled predator and murderer who decided that day was the day he was going to leave planet earth and he wasn't going to go alone.

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 01:19 PM
if Gander Mountain let an obvious straw man sale go through, expect lawsuits on that one

GEM, that is indeed what the article is implying.

Justin
December 29, 2012, 01:20 PM
The .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, which had a combat-style flash suppressor, is similar to the one used by the gunman who massacred 20 children and six women in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school earlier this month.

Clearly they didn't get the memo that flash suppressors aren't part of what makes a gun an "assault weapon" this season.

Trent
December 29, 2012, 01:24 PM
Why did a man who beat a 92 year old woman to death with a hammer by striking her in the head 13 times so he could inherit her assets spend 17+ years in prison (at taxpayer expense), only to be unleashed back out on society? We spent several MILLION dollars in this guys "rehabilitation" only to have our first responders blown to hell by him a few years after he was put back out in circulation.

Solution: Execute murderers, don't pamper them at taxpayer expense and expect them to get better.

Blame the guns, sure. Go ahead. But the fact of the matter is THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WAS THE STANDARD RESPONSE TO MURDER.

The nanny-state that believes "everyone is redeemable" is to blame here.

Not guns.

Tommygunn
December 29, 2012, 01:25 PM
OK, then charge her with the strawman purchase.

That's what I said. Did you actually read my reply?



I still have NO sympathy for her.
Neither do I, but in this country, we still don't (knowingly) charge people with crimes they did not commit.

Trust me, if they can pin anything else on this woman, they will. But we have to stop short of making her a scapegoat for this man's actions just because we have no one else to lash out at over the heinous act. If it can be proved that she knew of his intentions prior and bought the weapons for him knowing what he was going to do, a conspiracy charge or felony murder charges are likely. I seriously doubt she had any such knowledge.

Arguing that she should have known he was likely to do such a thing because of his violent history makes the justice system equally culpable for releasing him back into society. Good luck making that argument.

It's unethical and generally unlawful to punish people for crimes that weren't theirs.


Gee whiz, spin down the turbos, I was AGREEING with you about chrging her with the strawman purchase.

I don't know what she knew but it should have set off major alarm bells in her mind if he asked her to buy guns for him.
I don't think it's totally beyond the pale to make her a "scapegoat" because TWO MEN DIED as a result of what the shooter did -- and she was a major player in the incident even though it wasn't contemporary to the incident. If the law did not make strawman purchasesd illegal then it would not be possible to use her as a scapegoat .... so I remain without sympathy for her.
But I do agree we shouldn't charge her with crimes she did not commit and perhaps the cosnpiracy to an act of terrorism was too far over the hill.

joeschmoe
December 29, 2012, 01:27 PM
The people who bought guns for the Columbine shooters got a slap on the wrist and ignored by the media. Micheal Moore made a big deal that the kids got their ammo at Kmart, but didn't care that a woman violated federal law to buy the kids guns.

"In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. Their friend Robyn Anderson bought a rifle and the two shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December 1998.[17] Through Robert Duran, another friend, Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from Mark Manes for $500."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Secret_Service_report_on_school_shootings

somerandomguy
December 29, 2012, 03:18 PM
Yepper.
Dumb is dumb.
She knew he was a felon and did what she did anyway.
Likely she profited as well since people do not tend to do things such as this "Out of the goodness of their hearts".
Prosecute her to the fullest extent of the Law IMHO
I actually disagree, I don't think she should be charged because I think that even ex-criminals should be allowed to own firearms (they've served their time and paid their debt to society). Especially given the fact that something as dumb as smoking and possessing pot can earn you a felony charge. Idk, just my viewpoint. I read somewhere that like 49%? of the people in prison were in there for non-violent drug offenses. I think just doing blanket gun bans has set a terrible precident in this country...

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 03:47 PM
Hello...
The shooter in New York hit his own grandmother in the head with a hammer,,,thirteen times... Left a note telling everyone he intended to get on with what he enjoyed most,,,killing people.

I don't have a problem with a drug charge non repeat non violent offender being given back their rights after a period of time to prove their worthiness.
This particular guy should have never had the opportunity for release based on the heinousness of his crime.

Illinois offers this to felons who do not reoffend with the exception of murderers and sex offenders

somerandomguy
December 29, 2012, 03:52 PM
Hello...
The shooter in New York hit his own grandmother in the head with a hammer,,,thirteen times... Left a note telling everyone he intended to get on with what he enjoyed most,,,killing people.

I don't have a problem with a drug charge non repeat non violent offender being given back their rights after a period of time to prove their worthiness.
This particular guy should have never had the opportunity for release based on the heinousness of his crime.

Illinois offers this to felons who do not reoffend with the exception of murderers and sex offenders
I agree and I don't think that just because you're crazy you should get a free pass for murder and stuff, likewise I think the crime for things like rape should be much harsher. I mean you and me can sit here and debate how long each and every punishment should be until we're both blue in the face. The fact of the matter is that the criminal justice system as a whole is just one big circus and the way I look at it is that once you've been released from prison, you've served your time and paid your debt to society and you should get ALL of your citizen rights back.

Also, I don't personally even have a problem with giving crazies guns. I think that even nutjobs should have the right to defend themselves. Besides, there's a BIG difference between fantasizing about killing people, and them actually going out and killing people. Idk, just the way I see it from a constitutionalist standpoint.

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 04:26 PM
I don't agree with the once you get out you paid your debt to society view.
The prison system is flawed and overcrowded and most felons don't serve anywhere near the time they were scheduled for.
Once out, i think a period of time equal to the actual sentence without again offending is a fair amount before one can apply for reinstatement of all citizen rights and even then, the application must be reviewed and approved, it should not happen retroactively.

Again I must stress, this opportunity never be made available to anyone who commits acts of violence, murderers, and sex offenders.
My personal opinion is for extremely long sentences for violent crime and sex offenses and Death is not too extreme for unjustfiable homicides.

Double Naught Spy
December 29, 2012, 04:31 PM
The shooter was noted as also being in possession of a shotgun and a .38 caliber revolver yet no mention is made that either of those weapons were used during the shooting.

Well, the shotgun was in the trunk of his vehicle, so not really relevant to the shooting itself. Don't recall the revolver.

I don't agree with the once you get out you paid your debt to society view.

Right, the debt isn't "paid" unless the law says so and there are very definite consequences of being a felon and that includes a loss of rights beyond the time of the prison term. In short, time in prison is only paying part of the debt, but not all of it.

MachIVshooter
December 29, 2012, 05:35 PM
The people who bought guns for the Columbine shooters got a slap on the wrist and ignored by the media. Micheal Moore made a big deal that the kids got their ammo at Kmart, but didn't care that a woman violated federal law to buy the kids guns.

Robin Anderson did not violate any laws. The sales were private (no 4473 to lie on), and Harris and Klebold were legal to possess long guns (no prohibiting criminal history, no minimum age to possess long guns). They actually could have legally bought those guns themselves, but knew that most sellers don't know that minors can buy long guns privately and check ID to verify 18 years of age, so they convinced her to tag along.

However, thanks to her, we now have to have background checks on all gunshow purchases, private or FFL.

Mark Manes was charged, convicted and sentenced for the unlawful handgun sale.

I don't have sympathy for these people because ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it, and their actions make us all look bad. However, I do understand how easily young women of 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, etc. can often be convinced to do just about anything that isn't immediately dangerous or obviously illegal, especially when they are emotionally involved with the person compelling them to do the act. Again, it doesn't excuse what they did, but we also have to consider the nature of the act and decide to what extent we want to ruin a young woman's life. If the judge slaps her with the full penalty, hey, she broke the law, and that's always a possible outcome. On the same note, what if this was the only unlawful act this girl ever has and ever will commit beyond perhaps speeding or double parking? Should we make an example of her and take 10 years of her life during which she might otherwise be a productive member of society? These are the questions that the judge must ask himself.

If Gander Mountain let an obvious straw man sale go through - expect the lawsuits on that one.

That's gonna be a pretty tough sell, especially considering the timeline. They'd basically need a verifiable and infallible eyewitness with a memory that good.

Old Dog
December 29, 2012, 05:39 PM
I read somewhere that like 49%? of the people in prison were in there for non-violent drug offenses. You would be wrong.

Of those incarcerated for drug offenses, most are there for Class A and B felony drug selling convictions.

Frankly, if one wants to believe that selling drugs is a non-violent occupation, have at it. Or that the sale of drugs in itself is benign. Whatever.

Check your state's statistics on percentages of inmates serving time for simple drug possession. You'll be surprised.

lobo9er
December 29, 2012, 05:41 PM
Gander would have sold it with a 10 rounder.

somerandomguy
December 29, 2012, 05:53 PM
How do I check Old Dog? I live in Iowa, I don't even think there's a website for the prisons. Also keep in mind that private prisons are the main reason for this dumb war on drugs. Whether you just possess or use or sell narcotics is completely irrelevant imo, you shouldn't be given a felony for anything drug related.

nathan
December 29, 2012, 05:53 PM
If we could only have the death bus like the one CHicoms used for executing criminals, then we could have lessen these kinds of incidents. A single Tokarev FMJ to the medulla oblongata is enough to put fear on would be killers and criminals. Our society would be more fearful in committing acts beyond reproach.

.....


Quoted from Trent above
Why did a man who beat a 92 year old woman to death with a hammer by striking her in the head 13 times so he could inherit her assets spend 17+ years in prison (at taxpayer expense), only to be unleashed back out on society? We spent several MILLION dollars in this guys "rehabilitation" only to have our first responders blown to hell by him a few years after he was put back out in circulation.

Solution: Execute murderers, don't pamper them at taxpayer expense and expect them to get better.

horsemen61
December 29, 2012, 05:55 PM
She was wrong and should have to pay for her mistakes.

somerandomguy
December 29, 2012, 06:01 PM
If we could only have the death bus like the one CHicoms used for executing criminals, then we could have lessen these kinds of incidents. A single Tokarev FMJ to the medulla oblongata is enough to put fear on would be killers and criminals. Our society would be more fearful in committing acts beyond reproach.

.....


Quoted from Trent above
Why did a man who beat a 92 year old woman to death with a hammer by striking her in the head 13 times so he could inherit her assets spend 17+ years in prison (at taxpayer expense), only to be unleashed back out on society? We spent several MILLION dollars in this guys "rehabilitation" only to have our first responders blown to hell by him a few years after he was put back out in circulation.

Solution: Execute murderers, don't pamper them at taxpayer expense and expect them to get better.
Execute them quickly also. It's usually really costly to execute someone because they get free attorneys for the rest of their life and stuff. I think a 1 year maximum time limit should be put on executions. Also, no more last meals, treat them like dirt and give them a few pieces of celery and glasses of water every day. Then they will be begging to get executed instead of wasting taxpayer dollars fighting it.

Bobk538447
December 29, 2012, 06:13 PM
We shouldn't be jumping to conclusions. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The media is only providing one side of the story and most likely the person has not gone to trail. We shouldn't let our emotions be manipulated by the media especially in the days ahead.

larryh1108
December 29, 2012, 06:13 PM
I feel that any criminal act that is committed with a firearm (presented or present) should have the mandatory maximum sentence imposed with no chance of parole. Make those who use firearms to commit crimes pay dearly for even having them on them. Like so many have said, enforce the laws we already have, not create more laws.

Old Dog
December 29, 2012, 06:16 PM
somerandomguy:

http://www.doc.state.ia.us/

somerandomguy
December 29, 2012, 06:28 PM
Just checked Old Dog, and there were even more people in there for non-violent crimes than I thought. http://www.doc.state.ia.us/Publications/QuickFacts2012April.pdf

Violent crime: 23.0%
Property Crimes: 22.3%
Drug Crimes: 26.6%
Other: 3.2%
Public Order: 24.8%
Unknown: 0.1%

That means that 77% of all Iowa offenders are in there for non-violent crimes. That is just ridiculous, and proof that the criminal justice system needs a serious overhaul. I can't believe taxpayers are just wasting all this money on non-violent offenders. But hey, private prisons have to make a profit, ain't it wonderful? :cuss::fire::banghead:

DougW
December 29, 2012, 06:35 PM
I'm just glad I don't own a Bushmaster! From what I read, that is the most evil of the evil brands.:evil::D:D:D

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 07:51 PM
I own a pre-ban Bushmaster.
It has never killed anyone that I know of. very well mannered firearm...

22-rimfire
December 29, 2012, 08:03 PM
The guy should have still been in jail. Senseless. Better yet, they should have executed him... speedy trial and speedy execution. Straw purchase... stupid for an idiot like that.

VA27
December 29, 2012, 08:09 PM
LAWS, in and of themselves, do not PREVENT crime. Laws provide a vehicle whereby soceity may define an act deemed unacceptable in 'civilized' soceity and provide for a TAX on those not smart enough to commit such an act without getting caught. A law without a penalty is merely advice, with no consequence for those who ignore it.

The 77% are there because soceity has found their acts to be unacceptable and their tax is time.

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 08:12 PM
There are but 10 basic laws and all are based on common sense for civilized peoples.
All the rest of the laws are fluff designed to enrich the state coffers...

hso
December 29, 2012, 10:05 PM
She thought she was just making a strawman purchase, but she'll end up with multiple accessory to murder charges.

After his sentence was up in 1996, he stayed out of trouble until 2010, police said Friday. That's when Spengler went to a sporting goods store with a neighbor's daughter, picked out a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun and had her buy the guns that the convicted felon couldn't legally possess. On Monday, he used the weapons to ambush firefighters lured to a blaze he set at his house in upstate Webster, killing two people and wounding three others before killing himself.

Trent
December 29, 2012, 10:10 PM
There are but 10 basic laws and all are based on common sense for civilized peoples.
All the rest of the laws are fluff designed to enrich the state coffers...

Even as a Buddhist I can appreciate this.

I recently engaged in a debate with someone where I argued that human kind had solved gun violence over 2,000 years ago. I started quoting the ten commandments, saying "the only gun control law we need: Thou Shalt Not Kill."

We went back and forth for a while, they said "but what if someone uses a firearm to steal?"

“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

But what if...

And it went on, and on, with me quoting ancient scripture rebutting each and every argument.

My theory was simple; what religion provides civilization is a moral code that goes above and beyond laws (which lack morality of either color). An individual who lacks a moral code is a leaf in the breeze, no direction.

As a Buddhist I have a very strict personal moral and ethical code that I operate under; it is self-enforced. Although not of those particular faiths, I *do* appreciate that Christianity, Islam, and other faiths provide the same guidance. Catholicism is especially rich and strict with regards to it's morality, with massive volumes and enormous amounts of doctrine dedicated to that very topic.

The problem with TODAY's world is that we've moved from a God fearing society to a God-less society, but there has been no suitable standardized replacement of a value system or code of morality.

The Constitution was drafted when the vast majority of EVERYONE in society was a Sunday-Go-To-Meeting mindset. They neglected to encode a standard of morality or ethics in to the Constitution of the United States. This is the sole, and most serious, shortcoming of our honored Constitution; a failure which we are paying for two centuries later.

Our founding fathers did NOT foresee that our melting pot of a state would eventually erode those moral or ethical standards which were present when the country was founded. They didn't understand that eventually our moral convictions would slip to the point that graphic violence on a flat screen television would be our prime source of entertainment.

As a Buddhist, I personally do not believe in a higher power, other than a state of existence which allows us to be at peace in the world, and to find our place in the universe for the time we're present. But I *can* appreciate the detrimental value a lack of God, of righteousness, of morality, and of any substantial ethical code has had on our society.

We've paid a terrible price, as a society, for our culture to have dismissed God as obsolete, without a value system as strong as religion to guide our actions and mindset. Very few people have the mental strength or self-discipline to maintain a rigid set of honor, ethics, and morality without the reinforcement of codified religious doctrine.

Sorry for the lengthy response, and for touching on the topic of religion on THR, a topic verboten.

However, everyone is looking for an underlying CAUSE to this type of behavior, and it's sitting right in front of our noses - so obvious as to be invisible.

bushmaster1313
December 29, 2012, 10:17 PM
From the article in the OP:

After his sentence was up in 1996

Why does a person who killed his grandmother with a hammer get a sentence that allows him to get out of prison?

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 11:58 PM
Uh, I'm agnostic and am not trying to drag religion into the mix but one cannot deny that religious practice and belief has been one glue that has molded people of different backgrounds into a state of community if not necessarily civility.
Having respect and compassion for others is a pivotal key in a persons ability to function as a member of any kind of civilized society regardless of their religious conviction.

stickhauler
December 30, 2012, 12:52 AM
The report I heard stated he had gone with her to buy it. I'm guessing to make sure she bought the right ones. You know, those Bushmasters are the REAL deadly ones!

Bushmaster's getting some bad press, but I'm betting that brand was the first to sell out at gun shops in the wake of this. I was in a shop the day after Sandy Hook, and a guy asked to look at a Colt AR, but asked the salesman to let him look at that "Bushmaster." When told it was a Colt, he looked real disappointed and actually said he really wanted a Bushmaster.

Go figure!

I'm betting they're gonna nail this woman hard! We had a sheriff killed around here a couple of years ago by a mentally ill guy who wasn't allowed to have guns. His girlfriend and her father had bought this lunatic's guns. The guy ended up either killing himself or was shot by the cops who, after getting about 20 cops out there, flat opened up on this house trailer. I hadn't heard that many shots fired that quick since the Army and "Mad Minutes."

His girlfriend is in jail for like 15 years, without chance of parole. Her father likely will die before they sentence him, but the courts are still on him like white on rice!

solman
December 30, 2012, 09:51 AM
oops

Steve H
December 30, 2012, 09:59 AM
Why did a man who beat a 92 year old woman to death with a hammer by striking her in the head 13 times so he could inherit her assets spend 17+ years in prison (at taxpayer expense), only to be unleashed back out on society? We spent several MILLION dollars in this guys "rehabilitation" only to have our first responders blown to hell by him a few years after he was put back out in circulation.

Solution: Execute murderers, don't pamper them at taxpayer expense and expect them to get better.

Blame the guns, sure. Go ahead. But the fact of the matter is THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WAS THE STANDARD RESPONSE TO MURDER.

The nanny-state that believes "everyone is redeemable" is to blame here.

Not guns.

True VERY true

Double Naught Spy
December 30, 2012, 11:05 AM
Why does a person who killed his grandmother with a hammer get a sentence that allows him to get out of prison?

For the same reasons other convicted murderers get released. There are a surprising number released every year. For example, NC released 300 violent offenders last year, 27 of whom had been convicted of first degree murder.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/6286921/

In CA, 80% of those eligible for parole under Brown have been, but note that a Stnaford study found that by and large, released murderers are seemingly good citizens based on a lack of followup arrests.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=8538491

If they are not sentenced to die or life without parole, they can get paroled before their full sentence is up or released after their sentence is up. That is how the legal system works.

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 02:15 PM
a Stnaford study found that by and large, released murderers are seemingly good citizens based on a lack of followup arrests.

I'm sure careful examination of each case that was part of that statistic would show most of the offenders who stayed out of trouble after release were not the kind to kill in cold blood. In other words, "not the murderin' type".

This is why painting with a borad brush is always a bad idea. Aside from wrongful convictions, there are many cases where the conviction is not accurately representative of the crime. Some very depraved acts get labeled with less-than-frightening verbiage, while at the same time a person might end up with a murder rap even though it was really self defense, but not a clear-cut enough case to avoid conviction by a jury of their peers.

Likewise, while this girl should definitely not be let off scott free, the prosecutor and sentencing judge will need to consider many things before deciding if/how long to lock her up. Maybe she didn't even know he was a convicted murderer. Maybe he had a very convoluted and convincing argument to compell her to buy the weapons for him. It is highly doubtful that this woman would have proceeded with the transaction knowing that he intended to kill firemen. By all accounts, the man was intelligent, so it's reasonable to assume that he could be very manipulative and convincing. Young people often have poor judgement and a definitive lack of understanding in how the world works.

Again, ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law, but state of mind and intentions do play a part in charges filed and sentencing. That's why we have varying degrees of crimes and varying sentences that are left up to the prosecutor, judge and jury to decide if the individual in question is deserving of a certain level of punishment for their crime.

larryh1108
December 30, 2012, 03:39 PM
Again, ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law, but state of mind and intentions do play a part in charges filed and sentencing. That's why we have varying degrees of crimes and varying sentences that are left up to the prosecutor, judge and jury to decide if the individual in question is deserving of a certain level of punishment for their crime.

All very true. However, by breaking the law, 4 people were shot and 2 of them were killed by her reckless disregard for the law. Right now, the govt is using all murders involving guns as the poster to restrict gun owners. The truth is we have laws in place that aren't being enforced enough to address this issue.

This woman needs to be the poster child for what happens if you buy guns for anybody else, period. Not thinking they will kill someone is a lame excuse. What if he sold the guns to another recently paroled felon who used them to shoot up (whatever). Once she bought the guns for him, the flood gates opened for a lot of catastrophes. That is why this law is in effect. To prevent crimes like this. The public blames the guns. The truth is, the people who break the laws should be punished to the fullest and be on the nightly news like the tragedies were. This woman should be tried and if found guilty, spend the maximum in a federal prison with no hope of early release. This should be the headlines on the news showing that it will not be tolerated any more and you will serve hard time if you do. A slap on the wrist for a first violation and a tearful apology with a plea of ignorance does not cut it for me. She needs to pay for being stupid and made an example of. Blame the person, not the guns.

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 03:54 PM
However, by breaking the law, 4 people were shot and 2 of them were killed by her reckless disregard for the law.

He had a handgun that she didn't buy. Suggesting that if she hadn't bought the rifle the tragedy would have been averted is as foolish as the posturing of the anti-gun crowd.

Not suggesting she shouldn't be punished, but if the climate were a little different, I don't think so many on this board would be eager to see an example made out of her. It's not like she was buying quantities of guns and fencing them to violent felons. If that were the case, I'd be right there with everyone saying "string her up!". As it were, I'm considering the likliehood that a young and impressionable woman was convinced by an intelligent and manipulative criminal that what she was doing wasn't really a big deal. Or maybe he leveraged her into it somehow, extorted her.

We have no idea who or what she is right now, how she came to know the perpetrator, and how he convinced her to buy these guns. What she did was wrong and illegal, but it seems that everyone here is operating under the pretense that she is as guilty as he is. Imagine if you sold a gun to someone, not knowing they were prohibited, and then found yourself facing charges and public ridicule because that firearm was used to commit murders; I very seriously doubt you'd be saying "yep, I screwed up. Throw the book at me, I deserve it. I sold him the gun, so it's my fault those people are dead."

Let's not be guilty of the same emotional knee-jerk reactions as the anti-gun crowd we despise so.

zorro45
December 30, 2012, 03:56 PM
Loosely quoting the shooter, after being denied parole on his fourth attempt, having killed his 92 y.o. granny with a hammer, "I can't see what it is in my record that has made them decline to parole me" As we know they finally did let him out. Good work N.Y. State Parole Board. Of course the straw-purchaser needs to spend a good long time in prison.

Slipknot_Slim
December 30, 2012, 04:06 PM
I'm just glad I don't own a Bushmaster! From what I read, that is the most evil of the evil brands.
They are like pit bulls. It all depends on how they are raised. My Bushmaster has never hurt anyone.

larryh1108
December 30, 2012, 04:19 PM
He had a handgun that she didn't buy. Suggesting that if she hadn't bought the rifle the tragedy would have been averted is as foolish as the posturing of the anti-gun crowd.

Seriously? This guy set fires to lure firefighters. He then took a snipers position to gun them down when they arrived. She did not sell him anything, she lied on the 4473 form and purchased him guns which is a serious offense in itself. Of course, the antis want to ban guns instead of enforcing the laws we already have. In my mind, by committing a crime of straw purchasing guns for this guy who later used them to shoot down firefighters responding to fires he started, she is just as guilty of them being shot as he is. If someone dies during the course of a felony, everyone involved is also guilty of murder whether they pulled the trigger or not. Crying ignorance does not stop all the illegal straw purchases. Enforcing the straw purchase laws to the maximum the law allows in every case is the only way to send the message it won't be tolerated. You do the crime, you do the time. Or, the antis can just blame the guns and take away our rights because we are bleeding hearts to the ignorant.

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 04:52 PM
Larry, I'm not saying she shouldn't be punished. She comitted a crime, she now has to face the consequences. What those consequences are will be up to the prosecutor, judge and jury who are actually privvy to the details. We are not.

What I AM saying is that many pro gun folks, in an effort to appeal to the other side during these difficult times, are screaming to crucify this woman without really knowing much about the case.

We always cite how "the criminals will get the guns anyway", yet so many are quick to jump on the bandwagon that she is complicit in these crimes because it is politically and socially expedient to do so. Right now we have 4 high profile shootings within a month and 4 dead perpetrators, so this woman is bearing the brunt of the national anger for all of it because she's the only one we can punish. Wouldn't surprise me if internal guilt and external ridicule drive her to suicide.

Carry on as you wish, but I'll tell you right now that even publicly executing her for her crimes would not stop or even slow down the wave of legislative action we're up against.

thump_rrr
December 30, 2012, 05:40 PM
Larry, I'm not saying she shouldn't be punished. She comitted a crime, she now has to face the consequences. What those consequences are will be up to the prosecutor, judge and jury who are actually privvy to the details. We are not.

What I AM saying is that many pro gun folks, in an effort to appeal to the other side during these difficult times, are screaming to crucify this woman without really knowing much about the case.

We always cite how "the criminals will get the guns anyway", yet so many are quick to jump on the bandwagon that she is complicit in these crimes because it is politically and socially expedient to do so. Right now we have 4 high profile shootings within a month and 4 dead perpetrators, so this woman is bearing the brunt of the national anger for all of it because she's the only one we can punish. Wouldn't surprise me if internal guilt and external ridicule drive her to suicide.

Carry on as you wish, but I'll tell you right now that even publicly executing her for her crimes would not stop or even slow down the wave of legislative action we're up against.
In my opinion she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
This has nothing to do with what gun owners are now facing but as a simple rule of law.
Nobody put a gun to her head to buy him those guns.

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 05:51 PM
In my opinion she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

She may (very likely will) be. That's up to the judge.

This has nothing to do with what gun owners are now facing but as a simple rule of law.

That's just naive. Straw purchases happen all the time, and those weapons are used nefariously all the time. The cases just don't make the news because they aren't a component of high profile tragedies, and people don't really care when it's just a bunch of gang bangers offing each other.

Like I said, she's up against an enraged nation who is heaping the blame of 35 homicides spread over 4 incidents on the only living party that had any remote amount of criminal culpability.

Nobody put a gun to her head to buy him those guns.

How do you know? Maybe he did threaten her life, or threaten someone she cares about. We don't know if threats/blackmail/extortion/coercion were factors. Once again, we're not privvy to the information that would allow us to reasonably judge her character.

larryh1108
December 30, 2012, 07:24 PM
MachIV, This does have nothing to do with the current state of what is going on but it also has everything to do with it as well. I've read (in these forums) that 80% of the guns gotten by people who should not have them were received in F2F sales, straw purchases and black market. However, the antis want to go after legal gun owners because people do get these guns illegally. As has been said many times since this all came about, we have plenty of laws in place. Enforce them to the fullest extent of the law instead of passing new legislation that the criminals will ignore.

This woman is innocent until proven guilty. No doubt. A court will decide her culpability. However, that being said, if she is found guilty of a straw purchase then she should also be connected to the deaths her illegal actions resulted in. That is my opinion and that is up for debate. If you sell F2F and truly believe it is a legal sale then that is different than taking the person to the gun store and buying him weapons as a straw purchase. Totally, 100% illegal and her actions led to the deaths of 2 firefighters in an ambush. She has to have some culpability there. Perhaps reckless endangerment? Point is, use this very public case to show anyone who does a straw purchase that they will be next. Give her the maximum. No chance of early out. Federal prison. Yes, make her the poster person for straw purchases. Let them know it will be more than a $1000 fine and 6 months of community service. Make a straw purchase a mandatory 10 years with no chance of parole. Mean business. If it is proven she did it under duress (2 years ago?) then, of course, those need to be considered in her case. All the evidence needs to be presented and let the courts decide but if she is guilty, make it count.

I feel this way, not because of Sandy Hook but because he ambushed first responders. Men and women who protect us were killed doing their jobs. Whoever had a hand in it should be severely punished. She had her arm in it. She is the poison in the gun culture.

I do feel that new legislation should be passed that makes any crime committed with a firearm present, whether used or not, should have a minimum 10 years added to any time ordered by the courts. This cannot run concurrent and cannot be reduced in a plea bargain. Make every criminal know that if you bring a firearm to the circus then the stakes go up big time with no chance of getting off. If we enforce the laws we have we won't need to listen to people who wish to punish us for the deeds of the criminally few.

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 08:02 PM
Yes, make her the poster person for straw purchases.

Look, I'm not suggesting we "let it slide". As I've been saying all along, she did the crime, she'll have to do the time. I'm just not ready to burn her at the stake without knowing a whole lot more about the case.

I do feel that new legislation should be passed that makes any crime committed with a firearm present, whether used or not, should have a minimum 10 years added to any time ordered by the courts. This cannot run concurrent and cannot be reduced in a plea bargain. Make every criminal know that if you bring a firearm to the circus then the stakes go up big time with no chance of getting off.

Be careful. Zero tolerance policies have ensnared a lot of people who shouldn't have been. Suppose you're lawfully carrying your CCW, you are about to cross an icy street, but as you step off the curb, you slip. While flailing about trying to stay upright, you hit the lady who was crossing next to you in the face. She goes down and starts screaming, pretty soon an officer who was walking out of a coffee shop a little ways up the street hears the commotion and comes over to check it out. He sees you, standing over this lady with a bloody nose, and starts to make his own assumptions. She wasn't paying attention to what was going on; she just knows you hit her. No witnesses to say you fell, only her accusing you of assault. You had your gun, so now you're facing 10 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit.

Think it's not possible? Think again.

goldie
December 30, 2012, 08:53 PM
Its amazing to me how any woman can even be associated with that dirtbag in any way! :barf:

larryh1108
December 30, 2012, 09:00 PM
Your analogy is correct. However, it falls under the same thing we (gun owners) are facing... paying the price for a 1 in 10million occurance.

In your scenario, a court of law would have to prove motive and intent. If they somehow can make up something that sticks, then that guy is in deep doo doo. It is highly unlikely that they could find motive and intent from what the officer found.

We do have to get the guns out of the hands of the criminal element as well as the mentally infirm. The criminal element has been addressed with laws that are not working but the system failed, not the laws. Looking at an additional 10 years for any crime committed while having a firearm present adds teeth to the laws in place. It would cross over to anybody involved (3 men hold up a gas station, 1 has a gun, all 3 get the penalty whether they knew the guy was armed or not). This adds peer pressure to the situation as well. Knowing the penalty is not negotiable and it is substantial makes them think twice about carrying a firearm, legally or not. Is it perfect? No, but I'd bet the number of armed crimes would plummet. It will never stop them but they will make the offenders think twice about bringing a gun. We have laws in place. Let's make them effective instead of passing more useless legislation.

sawdeanz
December 30, 2012, 10:22 PM
I agree with machiv, plus isn't there like the 10-20-life thing already?

Double Naught Spy
December 30, 2012, 10:29 PM
We do have to get the guns out of the hands of the criminal element as well as the mentally infirm. The criminal element has been addressed with laws that are not working but the system failed, not the laws.

Well, the laws are part of the system.

Looking at an additional 10 years for any crime committed while having a firearm present adds teeth to the laws in place.

Funny, we thought jail/prison time for crimes already added teeth. Now you want more teeth. Somewhere along the way, we are going to need a dentist.


It would cross over to anybody involved (3 men hold up a gas station, 1 has a gun, all 3 get the penalty whether they knew the guy was armed or not). This adds peer pressure to the situation as well. Knowing the penalty is not negotiable and it is substantial makes them think twice about carrying a firearm, legally or not.

Yep, they think twice and then do it anyway.

Funny, you are saying that the laws haven't failed, but the system has, and your answer is to add more laws. If the laws haven't failed, why are you wanting to add more laws?

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 10:35 PM
In your scenario, a court of law would have to prove motive and intent.

But they shouldn't have to with this girl? You said:

She has to have some culpability there. Perhaps reckless endangerment?

She made a straw purchase, and will face the penalty for that. But to go beyond this, you have to establish that she either intended for him to hurt people with the weapons, or that she knew he would and purchased them for him anyway. Maybe she did know, and if that's the case, she should most definitely face additional charges of depraved indifference or even accessory. But I really, REALLY doubt the man told her "Hey, I'm a convicted murderer, so I can't legally have a gun, but I got some killin' to do, so would you mind buying this shotgun and rifle for me?"

larryh1108
December 30, 2012, 10:38 PM
Adding more laws or enforcing the ones we already have?

Ok, have it your way.
Let them have their AWB and hi cap mag ban to solve the issue. That's what they want anyway. Why try to fix what is actually wrong? If you have a better solution I'd like to hear it.

How do we get as many guns as possible out of the hands of the criminal element? Yes, I'd like some teeth in the laws we already have. Use a firearm, spend time in prison instead of community service and an ankle bracelet. What we have in place now sure doesn't do it so instead of snarky comments how about some suggestions we can actually use to solve this issue? Oh, I know. It's not your problem. So many feel that way anyways. If we aren't part of the solution then we are part of the problem.

larryh1108
December 30, 2012, 10:52 PM
She made a straw purchase, and will face the penalty for that. But to go beyond this, you have to establish that she either intended for him to hurt people with the weapons, or that she knew he would and purchased them for him anyway. Maybe she did know, and if that's the case, she should most definitely face additional charges of depraved indifference or even accessory.

I'll still contend that she committed a felony when she purchased the guns for him so anything that he does with them after she buys them for him are still a continuance of the wrongful act in the first place. If it's not set up that way then set it up that way. I still say to punish the offenders not the lawful owners. Make them pay and make it hurt. You want to straw purchase for somebody? Then you are responsible for whatever happens down the road. It was your illegal act that put those guns in their hands so it's your responsibility if something happens down the road. I'd bet a good DA could push this thru the courts and win. Punish the offenders, not the legal and lawful gun owners.

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 11:01 PM
Thing is, Larry, the notion of zero tolerance and extremely stiff penatlies for breaking the law may seem like a good idea to the law abiding, because we don't commit crimes, right?

Your whole attitude will change if you or someone you care about gets ensnared.

My wife ended up facing felony charges because a coworker (supervisor) accessed a pyxis machine under her name and stole some contents, then let the company pin the blame on her when they discovered the shortage. She was fired, arrested, charged and spent two years getting drug through court. Trust me when I say that the "evidence" submitted by the prosecution was absolutely laughable to anyone with a room-temperature IQ, but the ADA wouldn't let it go. What you see on Law & Order is bravo sierra. In the real world, the prosecutor will railroad the defendant and keep trying to get him or her to accept a deal. The weaker their case looks, the better the deal, but they make the process so protracted, expensive and exhaustive that people eventually just take a plea. I wanted her to go to trial because I knew we could beat it, but after nearly 2 years and $20k+ in lawyer fees, she was just done when they offered her a deferred judgement after 24 months probation.

EVERYBODY breaks laws. You may think of yourself as an upstanding citizen, but how many times have you exceeded the speed limit in your life, or failed to signal, or done a rolling stop? Ever walked out of a store, realized something didn't get wrung up, and NOT gone back in to pay for it? Jaywalked? Had an open container of alcohol in your car? Smoked closer than the minimum distance from a public entrance?

These things are not a big deal, but when you take an approach like "any crime committed with a gun in the possession of the actor gets 10 years minimum", you create a situation where virtually anyone who is armed has/will be at risk of going to prison for a decade on a gun charge for a non-violent, non-firearm offense, or even a non-existant one.

thump_rrr
December 30, 2012, 11:04 PM
That's just naive. Straw purchases happen all the time, and those weapons are used nefariously all the time. The cases just don't make the news because they aren't a component of high profile tragedies, and people don't really care when it's just a bunch of gang bangers offing each other.
.
Why is it naive?
Question 11A on NICS form 4473 states
"a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b."

You are also attesting to the following with an explanation of what the charges are for a false statement.
"I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to question 11.l. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers “Yes” to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law (See Instructions for Question 16)."

In my eyes she is as guilty of the murders as he is.
The same way that if two people go in to rob a store and one of them gets killed by the store owner during the comission of the crime the other gets charged with murder.

Some of us believe that we are responsible for our actions while others want to put responsibility on the shoulders of others.

larryh1108
December 30, 2012, 11:19 PM
MachIV, listening to your tragedy does sober you up. Of course it makes a difference if it's a loved one or someone you know. If you are setup for a crime or a mistaken identity then you have a lot to lose. How do we fix that? We trust the judicial system. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of money to fight. That's a flaw in the system. The more money you have, the better the lawyers you have. It's like the death penalty. How many have been put to death who were innocent? It's a two-headed sword. There is no right answer but to do nothing changes nothing.

Onmilo
December 31, 2012, 09:56 AM
If you are following this case at all, the girl so charged is beginning a defense.
She claims the shooter was with her at the Gander Mountain to help her pick out a couple firearms for home defense.
She claims the firearms were then stolen from the trunk of her car less than a week after taking possession but she never reported them as stolen to Law Enforcement.
She claims it was obviously Spangler who stole the weapons and he is setting her up "from beyond the grave."
She claims he had a crush on her and her mother of which neither woman returned the favors which angered Spangler and he did what he did out of revenge.

Weak at best.
Good luck with all that.

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman charged with providing guns connected to New York Firefighter murders" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!