Gun store owner arrested with Crack firearms seized Store Closed

[Zoogster]

It is all about freedom. I don't plan to or want to partake in that particular freedom, but if it is not infringing on someone else I think it is outside the ideals we stand for to punish someone for what they do behind closed doors to themselves.

That does not mean I do not think illicit drugs are undesirable in society, would rather they didn't exist etc. It is simply ideals I believe in that keep me from feeling I am entitled to force my opinion of what I consider okay in private on others.

You obviously feel differently and you base every action you are willing to allow people to take based on a need. You are not alone, many people feel something that could potentialy pose a risk and is not necessary should be restricted or banned.

However I logicly see that our current legal situation encourages organized crime, does not reduce crime, and has most of the same results prohibition did. Most civil rights prior to this newer "war on terrorism" were ignored under the guise of the "war on drugs". No knock raids, searching vehicles and persons on what would otherwise not have been probable cause became acceptable because probable cause in the "war on drugs" is stretched to almost anything. This is less important now because the "war on terrorism" is the new excuse to undo constitutional rights, and has greater acceptance and allows greater excercise of power than the "war on drugs" could get away with, but the end result is the same.

 

[fletcher]

So meth killed the boy? Nonsense. Meth doesn't make anyone cut people up with a meat cleaver. There are millions of people taking meth every day, including air force pilots and commercial truck drivers, who don't go around chopping people up.

You're right, but different people react differently to substances.

I'm sure we've all observed people who become violent when drunk, or have other behaviors not normally seen from said individual when sober. Then again, tons of people drink without any negative effect on their behavior. This being the case, there's really no practical way to regulate behavior other than after something bad happens without criminalizing everyone.

 

[hankdatank1362]

If they had it in them on the drug, they had it in them off the drug. Blaming the drug and saying he was a perfectly fine individual is no different than blaming the gun because a perfect saint was forced to commit multiple murders when a firearm entered the equation.

Not so much. A gun is merely an inanimate object, a tool. A drug alters your state of mind and consciousness. All drugs do.

I'm all for "personal responsibility" and letting people do what they want, but I've seen too many dirty kids who don't have lunch money because their momma or daddy spent it on crack. As much as I like to believe in personal freedom, drugs don't just harm the user... they harm the user's family and ultimately society as a whole.

Now are drugs any worse than alcohol? No. I think either both should be illegal or neither. Personally I prefer both, but that will never happen. People need a release from their day-to-day lives. That's why drugs and alcohol are so popular. People want to escape from it all. There's no way to ever solve that. But we have to keep fighting it, or else we will be overrun with crack-babies in our schools, even higher healthcare costs to support the uninsured who OD or can't afford treatment because they needed that last $10 rock, etc....

There is no right or wrong answer here. All drugs are bad. So is alcohol. Humans, as a species, are too weak to overcome their need for these mood altering substances.

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

It is all about freedom. I don't plan to or want to partake in that particular freedom, but if it is not infringing on someone else I think it is outside the ideals we stand for to punish someone for what they do behind closed doors to themselves.

Yes, it is all about freedom. Like that little boy's freedom to grow up, play baseball, be with his family, learn, speak, love.... But he doesn't have those freedoms anymore because someone who took the freedom to do drugs snatched all that away from this child. BUT, OH GOODY, now we can hold him responsible. Well, that makes it all better now. I mean, let this guy do drugs as long as we can punish him after he kills someone.

So why is this guys freedom to do something that is clearly bad for him and has not one necessity on this earth more important then that boys freedom to live?

Do you honestly believe he would have killed the child had he not been high on meth? According to people who know him , the answer is no.

Having a gun has never made me do something stupid, but using drugs often does make people do stupid stuff. So the two "freedoms" are not even remotely related.

Make the argument allowing the benefits of drug use and abuse to stand on their own.

How many people on trial have EVER claimed they only committed a crime because the gun made them do it? How many have claimed the same of drugs?

Clearly each individual is responsible for their own actions, but drugs, like it or not are often times the reason people make those actions. The same can not be said about guns or the right or freedom to own them.

 

[BlkHawk73]

Quote:
So smoking marijuana - a misdemeanor in every jurisdiction I can think of - forfeits one's rights?

Milo, the actual wording on the 4473 says


Quote:
11.e Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

I'm sure there are all sorts of legalities involving the definition of "are." I don't know what the answer is if you "used to be" an unlawful user of marijuana. But if you "are" an unlawful user of marijuana (which might be a misdemeanor) you cannot honestly answer "No" to question 11.e.

As waterhoue stated, if anyone uses these substnaces they cannot honestly and therefore legally answer "no" to the above mentioned question on the 4473 form. In my opinion, if you would need to answer "yes", you have absolutely no business owning a firearm anyways.
I'm glad to se the dealer in the report get his inventory taken and hopefully his business licenses revoked. He's stupid enough to get involved he deserves all he recieves. Same goes for his trash-lady. All it takes is reports like this or even worse, incidents of crooked dealers making straw sales or guns for drugs transactions. Toss 'im in the clink!

 

[Neo-Luddite]

If they had it in them on the drug, they had it in them off the drug.

I disagree with that when it comes to extreme intoxication in it's varried forms. Normally sane and well balanced people can act as if they are channeling a demon under the influence of some drugs--especially apmhetamines and cocaine but I've seen it happen with good old booze as well.

I'll grant you that they may have 'had it in them' in some deep seated psychological way--but they might have gone their whole lives without any such behaviors mannifesting if they had avoided substance abuse.

The man in the story made bad choices--ones that will likely cost him nearly everything. But no one has said (yet) that anyone has been harmed by what he has done. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[CWL]

What if the news article said: "Gang member arrested in possession of 1/2 ounce of crack and a firearm", would anyone be posting a defense of Mr. Cheeseman?

If the article went on to state that the gangmember's posessions were confiscated as per current drug confiscation laws, would anyone bat an eye?

Let's let the courts decide, but just because this guy owned a gunstore doesn't mean that this should become a RTKBA issue.

 

[Hardware]

This is bad news. I've bought several firearms from this place. Nice bunch of guys working the counter, now out of work. Also reduces the number of gun shops in New Castle county to 2. Plus at least one 01 dealer operating out of his garage. Not such a big deal on guns, but sure hurts on ammo and accesories.

 

[Master Blaster]

It is unfortuntate that this happened for the firearm enthusiasts of Northern Delaware. X-ring was a Dillon stocking and Hornady stocking dealer and had a good selection of reloading equipment powder primers and bullets. They had a good selection of semi auto military style firearms, and were an Arsenal inc stocking dealer. They always had some Bushmaster lowers NIB in stock at a reasonable price. They stocked CZ and kimber .22lr rifles, and had all kinds of 1911's and a full line of Glock, SIG and HK firearms. I purchased a CZ452 special .22lr from them before most folks had heard of them, I also came by a Russian Biathalon basic rifle when they first came out at their recomendation.

Dave and Ron were always helpful and knew what they were selling. They were shooters and reloaders themselves.

I have to admit that in 12 years of dealingwith that shop as a law abiding customer I never saw anything that would have given me pause.

X-Ring stocked alot of black rifles and parts you couldnt find in any other shop in the area. I hope maybe one of the employees tries to reopen it.

In 12years as a customer I only ever saw Mr. Cheeseman one time in the shop. It was run by his longtime employees all of whom are now undeservedly unemployed.

 

[Walter]

I'll wait till after the trial verdict to pass judgement on this guy. I've heard rumors that some law enforcement organizations and personnel are not above creating evidence to fit certain agendas. Now before you acuse me of bashing LEO types in general tell me its never happened.

I'll side with RoadkingLarry on this one, until I see the evidence and the
trial.
Anybody here ever hear of Tulia, Texas? Check this out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575291.shtml

"Stuff" happens sometimes, so I'll wait to see what happens on this one.

Walter

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

Anybody here ever hear of Tulia, Texas? Check this out.

But that's Texas, anything in the Untied States?

 

[LiquidTension]

The agents could have left the guns at the store and let the employees run things as usual pending trial. Confiscating the inventory was entirely at their discretion and was not necessary. Obviously the owner should not be making any money from the business while charges are pending, but there's no reason to screw the employees over as well unless they were also involved.

I went on a sweep Friday morning and picked up a guy on a VOP warrant. There were two guns in the house that belonged to his dad. The kid was not allowed to have possession of any firearms due to federal law (Project Ceasefire). Could I have confiscated the guns? Sure. Did I? No - because the guy that wasn't supposed to have the guns was removed from the place where the guns were, so there was no reason to take them. This way no one else was penalized for his actions. Make sense?

 

[Ultima-Ratio]

Quote:
11.e Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Interesting, since many many folks are prescribed psychotropics and they ARE addictive as well.

 

[ConfuseUs]

So while some drugs obviously effect a person's reasoning and logic, and can cause trouble in society, I am not inclined to believe a person commiting gruesome murder is any less personaly responsible because they were using meth. If they had it in them on the drug, they had it in them off the drug. Blaming the drug and saying he was a perfectly fine individual is no different than blaming the gun because a perfect saint was forced to commit multiple murders when a firearm entered the equation.

There's a mental condition called amphetamine psychosis which users experience after several days of nonstop use and no sleep. At this point reasoning and logic pretty much go out the window since the user's brain is not only reacting to outside stimuli it is reacting to stimuli it manufactures as well. Given that I find it plausible that in the case of the man hacking up his kid that at some point he had literally gone insane because of meth use and meth use alone. Literally, meth made that guy do it.

The difference between meth and guns is rather obvious, meth is a mind-altering substance with a proven track record of causing dangerous psychoses in individuals and guns are a tool that some people misuse and most don't. I don't have a problem with an armed person of good virtue. OTOH, I am not going to hang around when a saint does meth for days on end to see how things turn out.