Seen in today's paper. What might this prosecutor have been thinking?

Status
Not open for further replies.

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
Up in arms


By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman
Sunday, January 26, 2003

Anyone who questions why gun owners resist imposition of new laws and greater restrictions on firearms ownership need only look at the case of Erich Olaf Tate, a Georgia man who will spend the next two years in a federal prison for gunrunning.

How Tate wound up incarcerated for gunrunning, and only gunrunning, is a story that offers not only evidence of a broken judicial system, but also plenty of cause for law-abiding gun owners to further distrust a government that seems to single out guns as a crime problem, while ignoring other, more serious threats to the social fabric.

PRISON DESERVED

We are not defending Mr. Tate. He thoroughly deserves his trip to prison, not only because he violated the gun laws, but because the way he did it indicates he is not terribly bright. Tate purchased dozens of firearms at pawn shops in the Augusta area, then sold them illegally on the streets of New York, where many of them no doubt have been, or will be, used to commit crimes.

What tripped up Tate was his rather aggressive way of doing business. In one of those “What was he thinking?†moves, Tate visited the A-1 Jewelry Shop in April 2002 to order 34 pistols. Law-abiding gun dealers invariably have their radar raised at such a purchase, and in this case, the store owner properly contacted the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Before long, instead of conducting a land office business in illegal guns, Tate found himself in custody. He began cooperating with federal investigators, implicating several other people, and eventually received a 25-month prison sentence, followed by 200 hours of community service. In exchange for a guilty plea, prosecutors dropped 17 counts, including a charge of cocaine trafficking.

That’s outrageous. Here’s a guy who admittedly obtained guns for people who should not have them, and who are probably robbing and maybe even killing other people with those guns. He’s a guy who not only ran guns, he ran drugs, which kill far more Americans – and especially American youth – than firearms in any given year.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Dudley H. Bowen Jr. took some notice of this at sentencing, commenting from the bench, “What I’m concerned about is that he put 34 handguns on the streets of New York … and dealt in a significant amount of cocaine.â€

WRIST-SLAPPING INJUSTICE

Figure that Tate, with any kind of luck, will be on the streets in less than two years, for running guns and drugs. The prosecutor in this case must be nuts.

Slap-on-the-wrist sentences like this are why the firearms community justifiably feels as though it has become the scapegoat for this nation’s crime problems. Such light penalties are also why gun groups oppose passage of any new laws that merely ratchet down on their rights. How prosecutors could drop a charge of cocaine trafficking, when the flow of illegal drugs into this country is easily more responsible for our social ills than our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, is dumbfounding.

So long as prosecutors and judges appear unable to put this in perspective, gun owners will remain suspicious; convinced on one hand that the judicial system doesn’t work, and disgusted on the other that destruction of their rights is more important to lawmakers than punishing the criminals who flood our streets with drugs.

It should be duly noted that the firearms community has, in many ways, pressed for tougher sentencing for gun-wielding thugs. It was a gun rights activist who developed the “Three Strikes and You’re Out†and subsequent “Hard Time for Armed Crime†initiatives. Gun owners have been the loudest advocates of longer prison sentences for violent repeat offenders.

When was the last time you heard a cocaine user call for tougher prosecution of drug traffickers?

Tate’s father, Harold, was quoted in one newspaper acknowledging that his son had made “a catastrophic mistake.†The same might be said about the federal prosecutor in the Tate case. His willingness to drop 17 different charges against the defendant sends the wrong message, to Tate and anyone willing to step in and fill the void he left temporarily by going to prison.

Erich Tate is no angel. And he’s gone to jail for an inordinately short period, considering the original charges. Something about that simply does not ring right with the firearms community, but it certainly rings hollow.

Alan Gottlieb is the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is the communications director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
 
Who decides what defines a "bad guy?"

I can't see dealing in firearms /or/ dealing in drugs as any matter of concern to local, state, or federal government. People should have the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, and controlling the purchase and trade of firearms is tantamount to infringement.

As for drugs, what business is it of government what someone puts into their own body?

What, exactly, did this man do that is deserving of any criminal punishment whatsoever?

An unjust law is no law at all, and any law that deals out prison time for actions which do not cause material harm to others is not a just law.
 
He began cooperating with federal investigators, implicating several other people,
That's what the prosecutors were thinking. Plea BARGAINING, you know... quid pro quo....
 
Somebody doesn't have their facts straight

Quote from the article: "he ran drugs, which kill far more Americans – and especially American youth – than firearms in any given year."

Hmmmm, how about year 2000?

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/02facts/final2000.htm):

"Nearly 20,000 Americans died of drug-induced causes in 2000"
-AND-
"A total of 28,663 people died from firearms in 2000"

OOPS!

I am sure we all are aware that those 28,663 gun deaths are all inclusive. Good guy, bad guys, they arn't particular... Same applies to those drug deaths however and a large majority of those "nearly 20,000" drug deaths happen to be deaths from legal prescription drugs.

Trying to find out actual numbers of illegal drug death is practically impossible (by design?). I've searched up a number of 6000 per year which puts it well below the murder by gun figures. The majority of this value are supposedly heroin overdoses (really large fluctuations in the known quality due to it's illegality)). Know any kids shooting heroin?

I don't do drugs and I don't want to support lord knows how many millions of people in prison for recreational drug use. Taxes do not make me a happy camper! The original article was about cocaine. Cocaine overdose death is extremely rare! Back in the days before crack it was said to be... A half a dozen deaths a year? Sounds rediculously low for something we are spending hundreds of billions on doesn't it? Sure beats $500 toilet seats for a racket.

No excuse for selling guns to obvious criminals though. For that I'll gladly pay for this creeps room and board. :D Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
 
As for there being no crimes committed... Yawwwwwwwwn

Ah, yes. Let's ignore an argument and dismiss it as being without merit when we're unable to come up with a valid supporting case for Nanny Sam.

What business does the federal government have telling me what citizen I may sell a gun to, or what substance I may put into my body?

Selling guns to people that one knows, or should reasonable know, will use them for the robbery or murder of others: I could see that as justifiably being a criminal offense.

The drug offenses? Two words: jury nullification, if I'm on the jury, or at best a mistrial. That might earn me a contempt of court charge from the judge. So be it.
 
"How prosecutors could drop a charge of cocaine trafficking, when the flow of illegal drugs into this country is easily more responsible for our social ills than our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, is dumbfounding."

So close, and yet so far. The illegal drug trade is responsible for most of our social ills, but it's because the government insists on price protection for dealers by keeping drugs illegal.

Someone undoubtedly wrote something similar in the 1920s:

"How prosecutors could drop a charge of booze trafficking, when the flow of illegal liquor into this country is easily more responsible for our social ills than our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, is dumbfounding."

Those who do not learn from history are currently repeating it.
 
I'll see your "yawwwwwn" and respond with "sigh."

The real question is, how do we know who won that kind of argument?

This is not a silly or stupid argument to many of us. I watched Cops for a few minutes with my wife the other night. They pulled a guy over, got him out of the car, got him to consent to a search and found he had a gun. Now, this was in North Las Vegas so I assume he could have gotten a Nevada CCW and didn't. Bad on him. Then they search further and find that he has one blunt of marijuana in the car. They're all excited at this point. They've caught a violent drug dealer. . . .

When they run his name through, they find that they've really hit the jackpot! He's a convicted felon, so that gun charge just escalated. Yee haw! Law and Order all the way!

What was his previous felony? Possession of Marijuana.

So here we have a guy who has a gun but has not, to the best of anyone's knowledge, threatened or shot anybody. A guy who smokes weed. Who has he hurt? What was his crime?
If you choose to yawn, OK, but don't be surprised if people draw the logical inference.
 
Wah. There's a guy who did something illegal that he knew were illegal, and got caught, and was stupid. Sounds like a perfect and complete discription of a criminal.
 
Wah. There's a guy who did something illegal that he knew were illegal, and got caught, and was stupid. Sounds like a perfect and complete discription of a criminal.

Let's make it illegal to live in West Virginia. Would you obey that law, too? Or maybe we'll ban alcohol again and see how well it works - would you turn in anyone you saw drinking a beer?

After all, if there's a law against it, only stupid criminals would commit the act, right? Any law that exists is just and fair simply because it exists, da?
 
Well I do find the argument boring.
I read it for years at TFL and it gets duller everytime.

Yes there are alot of stupid laws, but if you are running guns to a state where you know they are illegal, you are a criminal.
So are drug dealers.

So change the laws or start your own country.
All this "serious debate" on the internet accomplishes nothing.

So sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn and pbbbbbbbbbbbbtttttttttttttttt. :p :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top