Rapper T.I. sentenced to one year on gun charges

[DoubleAction]

What's wrong with our laws ?

Those laws are not being enforced; this is living proof.

Andrew Young suggested that, “The civil rights movement, in many ways, was a campaign against white violence in America” that was largely “won by judges” who relied on “creative thinking” to promote racial equality and end racial violence in the South. Young thankePannell for engaging in a similar kind of creative thinking in sentencing Harris.

Harris' community work since his arrest has made visible inroads in “black violence in our society” that is “perhaps now more dangerous to the community than white violence had ever been,” Young explained.

​

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Grammy-winning rapper T.I. was sentenced to a year and a day in prison on Friday for illegally possessing machine guns and silencers, as prosecutors lauded his anti-violence advocacy since his arrest.

T.I., whose real name is Clifford Harris, originally faced up to 20 years in prison and the effective end of his career but performing community service as part of his plea agreement with prosecutors reduced his sentence.

The rapper, who has a 1998 crack cocaine conviction that made it illegal for him to own guns, pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing machine guns and silencers and possession of firearms by a convicted felon.

The charges stemmed from T.I.'s October 13, 2007, arrest by federal agents after the rapper had a bodyguard buy machine guns and silencers for him, prosecutors said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE52Q6LF20090327


Andy Young speaks up for rapper T.I. in sentencing ​

At the hearing, former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, one of Martin Luther King Jr.'s most trusted lieutenants, praised the judge as he spoke on Harris' behalf.

Young suggested that, “The civil rights movement, in many ways, was a campaign against white violence in America” that was largely “won by judges” who relied on “creative thinking” to promote racial equality and end racial violence in the South. Young thanked Pannell for engaging in a similar kind of creative thinking in sentencing Harris.

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?individual_SQL=3/30/2009@30968

"The rapper, who has a 1998 crack cocaine conviction that made it illegal for him to own guns".​

The firearms he was possessing, were classified as full auto machine guns and low report sound suppressors. For each federal offense, TI should have been charged a minimum of ten years for each offense, in a Federal Prison.

Why the Year and One Day sentence ?

Because, an inmate in a Federal Prison can received time off for good behavior, only if they are sentence to more than a year. The year might turn into 10 months.​

 

[Animal Mother]

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" --George Orwell, Animal Farm

 

[ilbob]

The charges stemmed from T.I.'s October 13, 2007, arrest by federal agents after the rapper had a bodyguard buy machine guns and silencers for him, prosecutors said.

Wonder what happened to the bodyguard. Not only did he buy machine guns and silencers illegally, he gave them to a felon.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

Heh.

Should have left Atlanta, the life style and all of that behind and went somehere else far away in more peaceful surroundings to start a new quieter life.

I suppose those guns are going to be melted down and the bodyguard prosecuted now?

 

[ny32182]

I think the non-famous would get a lot more than one year for this.

 

[slzy]

there is a site,all hiphop.com or there abouts.

i think he was related to kroger and their support of a so-called gun buy back in dallas where t.i. would appear.

the comments to the hiphop site would surprise you,at least me.

the vast majority were defending their 2nd amendment rights,castigated t.i. for the typical celeb/politico hypocrisy of telling people to disarm when their own body guards are armed to the teeth. think rosie here.

 

[RobertCohn]

I regard this as one of the most poignant, important and well-executed threads I have ever read.

Congrats to DoubleAction on the fine work done in laying out this argument completely, forcefully and visibly.

Lack of enforcement is in fact the major problem area in our society right now with respect to firearms. By letting the Few go, the government itself eliminates the incentive for people to follow the law...at the expense of the Many, like us, who willfully and dutifully follow the rules to the letter, including ownership safety and policing and helping our own such as on forums like these.

We the Few are then irrationally blamed when isolated incidents are reported in the press. And guess who we are blamed by? The liberal judges who give these people a second chance.

Is there no reward for us, the silent majority, the keepers of the law and the sacred traditions of true pride of gun ownership...when others who demean and debase gun ownership are allowed to run loose, unchecked and damaging the entire image?

This is very emotional for me.

 

[Ed Ames]

This is absurd. The guy gets a year and a day for exercising a right guaranteed by the constitution - a human right - and you are all up in arms about how he should've gotten more????

Talk about being your own enemy....

 

[kyo]

He wasn't allowed to own them anymore because he is a felon. You know the rules...
Anyway, the government made use of him instead of putting him to jail and letting him collect dust. I live in atlanta. You know how many gangster wannabees will listen to this guy? High school kids, middle school kids, they listen to him. So if this famous guy can go around for a YEAR and talk to kids about not being stupid, I think its worth it. If what he did has a 5% success rate that is still thousands upon thousands of kids that won't be stupid anymore. I call this preventative maintenance. I am sure it is more effective then I stated. And yes, fame helps. It is was made him turn into the dog of the government instead of a bitch of some inmate.

 

[Impureclient]

"The rapper, who has a 1998 crack cocaine conviction that made it illegal for him to own guns".
.....and he had automatic weapons and silencers

He gave up his right to own the guns with the felony. He also didn't have the license for the auto guns nor the silencers.
As far as human right, it's really a Constitutional right. Not all humans every where are guaranteed to own firearms.

Had he been any of us he would be getting comfortable in his cell right now because he wouldn't be seeing outside of it
for the maximum 20 years. In fact they would probably try to put one of us common folk in there for the 20 years alone
for just having an illegal silencer. One year is a slap on the wrist in this case.

Look at the bright side, maybe he can write some rap songs about his time in the slammer and win a grammy or two.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

I guess he thought *cues the music* >>>>>"he could have whatever he likes"

 

[Ed Ames]

That a right is denied makes it no less a human right.

The fact that he was caught with some drugs is no more significant than black people 70 years ago who were caught with white women, or homosexuals caught with each other, or you name it... all were against some law or another and all will seem equally barbaric examples of institutionalized prejudice to your grand kids.

 

[Zoogster]

I do not agree with his lifestyle or values.

He was however excercising an inalienable right, and one protected by the US constition.
His prior conviction was for drugs, another thing the founders strong on individual liberty would not have outlawed.

Over 10 years after being found guilty of simply possessing something, not infringing on anyone else, and becoming successful he is arrested for possession of something that is every Americans' right.

I still see no charges for any infringement of any other human being's rights.

From wiki on this:

In March 2009, T.I. was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and ordered to pay a $100,300 fine for the felony weapons charges, which will begin no sooner than May 19, 2009.[27] When released from prison, he will be subject to an audit of his finances, drug counseling, DNA testing, random searches of his property and will not be able to own firearms.[28]

So without ever infringing on another human being's rights he will be subject to DNA testing to go into a government database, and random searches of his property for years to come, while continuing to be denied the supposed inalienable rights of us all.

Yeah that sounds just like what the founding father's envisioned.


I do agree that any mere peasant would have recieved even more unconstitional time in prison though, and that would be injustice. Multiple silencers, and "machineguns", and felon in possession of many firearms. It would have been many years for a regular peasant.

 

[Lucky]

+1 for Ed and Zoogster.

People today are criminally ignorant, and we'll all be punished accordingly in due time. If citizens of any country blindly adopt 'moral relativism' in place of the principle of harm, they're condemning their Grandkids to be subjects of future little Stalins. "It is wrong because the Grand Poobah says it's wrong."

Think about that. If you allow Grand Poobah's to declare unharmful acts bad, then you allow them to declare harmful acts good as well. **** some people just don't 'get it'. And all because he used a drug without a prescription.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

 

[feedthehogs]

His prior conviction was for drugs, another thing the founders strong on individual liberty would not have outlawed.

Nation of laws, good or bad. Don't like em, change em.

It would be nice to feel that people that break the drug laws don't infringe on others rights.

But the true reality is by commiting crimes to fuel the drug habits, they infringe on my rights.

blindly adopt 'moral relativism'

Another frustrated philosophy major huh?

Justice is not fair and the rich are able to buy it a good part of the time.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

But the true reality is by commiting crimes to fuel the drug habits, they infringe on my rights.

What crime did he commit which "fueled his drug habit", and in what way did such an alleged crime, if any, infringe on your rights? Answers: None and it didn't.

I'm with Ed Ames here.

 

[RobertCohn]

I agree that it is a right...but it is a right that must be earned. It is not an "inalienable" right without restrictions...Justice Scalia even said so in his affirming opinion of Heller. The right comes with responsibility and certain reasonable restrictions. We are a nation of laws and we have to live by the rule of law. I understand how certain people get hot under the collar when you talk about gun restrictions, but I have come to feel over the years that I really DON'T want people who haven't earned the right to have guns. But this isn't about that....it's about our own system, which wrote the laws, not even enforcing the law in this case...that is the outrage for those of us who do follow the law.

Something tells me that if I straw-purchased a Class III firearm that I would somehow get a harsher penalty than the rapper did because I don't have (1) millions of dollars for a defense; and (2) notoriety and fame. No...I'm just plain old RobertCohn and I MUST follow the law.

If you acquire a weapon afoul of the law than you have not earned the right. If you acquire a weapon without thoroughly investing time in knowledge and safe handling/storage of the weapon, then you also have not earned that right. I see so many people at gun shows buying their "first gun" and they are asking the proprietors their first questions; then they buy it. They haven't even shot a gun much less know the rules of handling. These are the same types that wave their weapons around at the range with their fingers in the trigger guards. No...that person should not have the right to bring a gun to the range.

No...this is where I part with my brethren...I absolutely believe that some people should NOT have guns...to protect those of us who do. We need "smarter" restrictions and enforcement more than ever, even though it's probably impossible to get there, but in this case it wasn't even a matter of more restrictions. I'm mad because the laws on the books weren't even followed. Well how are we supposed to get smarter restrictions without the law being followed. That's what I'm mad at, the arguments of the anti-gun crowd.

 

[Apple a Day]

This isn't a 2A issue as much as it is a statement on the "Justice system" in the U.S. where "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." Sorry, I can't even type that with a straight face any more.

1) a repeat felon breaks the law and gets a ridiculously lenient sentence because he is famous and has a lot of money. If you or I had been in the same situation we would have suffered a much more severe sentence. That - fundamentaly - isn't justice and people have every right to feel angry about it.

2) Andrew Young (former Atlanta mayor) endorsed that fundamental injustice by the judge because it favored his racial group. That is blatant racism and people have every right to feel angry about it.

3) An activist judge twisted the idea of justice to fit his own political bent just like an activist judge has stalled concealed carry in national parks under the guise of doing an environmental impact study. That is unjust and should be illegal... and people have every right to be angry about it.

Y'all can argue legality or illegality of drugs and firearms but those are just part of the problems here.

 

[jeff-10]

Wonder what happened to the bodyguard. Not only did he buy machine guns and silencers illegally, he gave them to a felon.

I believe he was the one who set up TI.

 

[RP88]

regardless of whether or not should be allowed under our constitution, he should have gotten a good amount of time in prison just like probably any one of us currently non-convicted felons of all things still would have most likely gotten.

I still agree with all the political rants about the war on drugs being a farce, and most gun laws being a sham, but any upstanding citizen here would have been locked up for a couple of years minimum, yet a convicted felon gets off the hook relatively light.

Apple basically hit the nail on the head multiple times. It's utter bull----

 

[feedthehogs]

[QUOTEWhat crime did he commit which "fueled his drug habit][/QUOTE]

His original conviction that took away his right to own a gun was a crack conviction. That is illegal. That was a crime. That consumes the time of the police and the justice system of which I'm mandated to pay taxes to to support.

The larger the legal system has to get, the more taxes I have to pay. The more taxes I have to pay to deal with illegal activities, the more people infringe on MY rights.

My reply was to the notion that drug users don't infringe on my rights.

Like I said Nation of laws, good or bad. Don't like em, change em.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

According to a newspaper article I read, over 90% of murders are by convicted felons. When we let felons off the hook like this, murders happen.

This is absurd. The guy gets a year and a day for exercising a right guaranteed by the constitution - a human right - and you are all up in arms about how he should've gotten more????

He's a convicted felon. Convicted felons have no right to a handgun, much less a machine gun or silencer.

Talk about being your own enemy....

That a right is denied makes it no less a human right.

He was a convicted felon. When a felon illegally acquires machine guns and silencers that's not a human right

do not agree with his lifestyle or values.

He was however excercising an inalienable right, and one protected by the US constition.

Nope. He was a convicted felon.

His prior conviction was for drugs, another thing the founders strong on individual liberty would not have outlawed.

That law is a law. It is not unconstitutional, and the people who violate it will often have ties to organized crime. When you violate that law, you should go to jail. It may or may not be a good idea, however, people hooked on drugs are probably more likely to commit gun and other violent crimes, burgluries, etc. and I believe that Europe has the city with the most overdoses in the world.

Over 10 years after being found guilty of simply possessing something, not infringing on anyone else,

Gues who gets the money? The cartels who supplied the drugs.

and becoming successful he is arrested for possession of something that is every Americans' right.

Not his. He was a convicted felon, and straw-purchased them.

Gun control only affects the law-abiding, like you and me. That is why it is bad to not prosecute people who intentionally break laws like this (Not the guy who tried to lighten his trigger and accidentally made it full-auto), because they wil usually not be law-abiding citizens.

I still see no charges for any infringement of any other human being's rights.

Drug cartels have been able to acquire automatic weapons, submarines, and grenades. Where do you suppose they get the money for this?

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I think most people are up in arms because if it was you or I we would be demonized by the media, and given a massive sentence.

 

[bthest86]

Drug cartels have been able to acquire automatic weapons, submarines, and grenades. Where do you suppose they get the money for this?

From a massive illegal market created by prohibition and the government's "War on Drugs."

 

[Impureclient]

I see where the drug thing is going here now. To begin with I don't do any drugs nor have I ever done them. Some aspirin here and there I must admit.
A lot of people do illegal drugs and are still positively contributing to society. Kind of funny when you see a marijuana user get years in prison and a alcohol
drinker gets million dollar commercials, Nascar race cars, and all the fun stuff that goes along with alcohol. Which kills more people each year....or ever.
Of course the Government can tax that alcohol right now so that's what's best for us right now. Now if and when marijuana becomes legal that will be OK too.
So I see where the other side is coming from. If he had commited a felony that involved harming another indivuals rights I can see having the harsher sentence.

Maybe this kind of sentencing should be followed in the future. If you write a bad check or make other bad choices you should have to pay your fines and time
but, you really shouldn't have your right to protect yourself or family taken away. Now if your crime involved physical violence to others or something along the
lines where you may not be trusted with a firearm them by all means. Saying that you are affected by somebody elses drug use in another city/state? is stretching
it a little far to take away their right to protect their own families.

Now if they are using drugs and harm another person or theirself it makes sense not to trust them with a firearm. How many here know/knew somebody who did
partake in some illegal drug use and went on to watch some cartoons and eat bagel bites? They arent exactly the kind of person that should be in jail with rapists
and murderers. Again I'm not condoning what he did was OK but I see where his backers are coming from. I wonder how many people from 1919 to 1933 had their
rights taken away also only to be told at the end of 1933 that all was forgetten? With Barry in office we may very well see a repeat of that alcohol prohibition only
this time with marijuana. Next harder drugs, pills, anything could take place with the "Change."