Angel Shamaya Jailed in Michigan on Gun Charge

[ElTacoGrande]

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

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

 

[One of Many]

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

FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
Act 372 of 1927

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[crazed_ss]

Ouch.

That's outrageous. Worse than CA.

 

[Zedicus]

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

- Chris

+1

 

[bogie]

I'd really like to know the facts of the matter - is this looking like a "test case" or did someone do a warrant/search?

 

[beerslurpy]

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

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

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

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

 

[LoadAmmo]

If he was carrying illegally, then I am afraid he does not have my sympathy.

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

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

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

 

[Zedicus]

Quote:
If he was carrying illegally, then I am afraid he does not have my sympathy.

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

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

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

+1 Again! (nice post)

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

 

[Coronach]

Problem is, "reasonable and not excessive" is completely subjective. How do you maintain a consistent standard on something like this?

Court overview is how we have ended up doing it. We can debate until the cows come home about the propriety of that evolution of power for the Supreme Court, but two things are clear:

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

2. Subjective tests are to be found in the Bill of Rights. Witness the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Emphasis mine. "Unreasonable" is a subjective test. The framers of the Constitution did not find such things to be anathema. Likewise the entire 8th Amendment. "Cruel and unusual punishment"? Who decides what is cruel and unusual? Excessive bail? Who decides what is "excessive." That's completely subjective.

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

Mike

 

[beerslurpy]

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

 

[Steam dragon]

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

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

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

Means whatever anyone wants.

Uh, huh, Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[model 649]

The Michigan constitution says that we have the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of ourselves and the state.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(kmle...ocument.aspx?objectName=mcl-chap1&version=txt

Josh

 

[Sgt.Slappy]

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

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

 

[Nightfall]

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

Subjectivity seems to be written into some of the amendments. What about the First:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law" seems absolutely explicit to me. No wiggle room for "reasonable regulation" there. As for the Second:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". For the last word, the current definition (anybody got a dictionary from the 1700's?) of "infringed" is "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another". If the BoR is the highest law of the land, does that mean that any arms control laws are a violation? If so, where is the wiggle room? I'm not sure I see subjectivity in the entire BoR.

 

[Jeff White]

Conspiracy Theory?
beerslurpy said;

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

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

Tilting at Windmills

Steam dragon said;

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

Means whatever anyone wants.

Uh, huh, Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff

 

[Nightfall]

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

What is the point of a Bill of Rights if a court can define it to mean anything? That effectively turns the BoR into 10 empty variables to be defined as found convienent by the people in power at the time.

 

[Jeff White]

Nightfall said;

What is the point of a Bill of Rights if a court can define it to mean anything? That effectively turns the BoR into 10 empty variables to be defined as found convienent by the people in power at the time.

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

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

Jeff

 

[Stand_Watie]

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

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

 

[Sgt.Slappy]

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

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

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

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

Are you serious?

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

Do you understand what an inalienable right is?

Here's a quote or two to mull over:

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

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

 

[Big Gay Al]

I'm going to tell you what I know of the situation. Hopefully I can do it in such a way as to not betray any confidences.

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

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

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

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

 

[Trisha]

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

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

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

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

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

My prayers tonight are courage, peace, strength.

Trisha

 

[Stickjockey]

(Hi, Trisha! Where ya been?)

Update from the WOG site:

Saturday, March 04, 2006
BREAKING NEWS: ANGEL OUT

I just got off the phone with Angel Shamaya.

He's out.

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

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

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


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

 

[Steam dragon]

"Your papers, please."

uh, huh.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

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

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

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

Arm chair paitriots.

Bah!

 

[Jeff White]

Sgt. Slappy said;

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

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

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

Are you serious?

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

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

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

Do you understand what an inalienable right is?

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

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

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

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

Jeff

 

[Kim]

Yeah he is out. I do not know him personally but feel like I do. He has done more for the RKBA than 100,000 run of the mill NRA members.