…that the DFL knows its voter base believes its own press and has no critical thinking ability whatsoever:
So – we’ve got a straw buyer problem, but DFL county attorneys would pursue charges “because the penalties aren’t high enough”, so the DFL demands more penalties to the camera, but then leads his entire ghouish, creepy, Orwellian caucus in voting against a bill that’d do just that.
We’ll need a whole lot of Minnesotans who are tired of being treated like gullible children to turn out this November.
I’m calling b***s*** on the notion that county attorneys aren’t prosecuting this because it’s “only” a gross misdemeanor. They prosecute plenty of misdemeanor cases like drunken driving, disorderly conduct, and the like, and a gross misdemeanor is a higher crime than these. The reason they’re not prosecuting is because they don’t give a rip that people are buying guns for known criminals. (just like they don’t give a rip about sexual assault and only do a good basic investigation 20% of the time)
Regarding the bill itself, we need to be careful that we don’t over-charge for this. It is a big deal, but if the penalty is seen to be too harsh, juries and prosecutors will refuse to impose it.
The case of Shannon Gooden illustrates, probably, the real reason prosecutors don’t like to prosecute this. His girlfriend bought the guns, but it was legal for them to have them in the house as long as they were technically hers. So until you have documentation of the re-sale–and typically these things are cash under the table–it’s hard to prove.
So the only way that this could have been addressed would have been when his girlfriends applied for protective orders, or when he applied to have his gun rights re-instated. But I don’t know that any of those instances are sufficient evidence for a warrant. Perhaps if the women (? woman?) who applied for the protective order had stated he was armed?
In other words, it involves a lot more work and investigation than many police departments are accustomed to putting into a case.
We need to send more white women to prison for buying guns for their black boyfriends
yup that’s a campaign winner
“So until you have documentation of the re-sale–and typically these things are cash under the table–it’s hard to prove.”
That’s not my understanding.
The way it was explained to me by a lawyer is if the prohibited person has unrestricted access to the guns, that’s called “constructive possession” and is just as illegal as if he’d bought them himself from the trunk of Sumdood’s car.
By my understanding the only way it’s legal to have guns in the home of a prohibited person is if those guns are locked up and the prohibited person doesn’t have the combination or a key. If they have access to the guns, they are a “felon in possession.”
I’m no lawyer so I suppose I may have misunderstood when it was explained to me, but that was my takeaway from the lawyer who did the explaining.
“If they have access to the guns, they are a “felon in possession.””
But, then again, upon reflection, this discussion is about straw purchasing. I doubt the person who bought the guns could be considered a straw purchaser if they live in the same house as the prohibited person, so my argument may be irrelevant to this topic.
My bad.
Slightly off-topic. Felonies. Misdemeanors. Let’s just call the whole thing off. Toronto police step up and sets a new standard for crime prevention: [Just] Leave Car Keys Where Thieves Can Get Them.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 03.15.24 (Evening Edition) : The Other McCain
SailorCurt, I’ve read about the same thing, but I would anticipate that at some point, a defendant would say “do you have any proof my loved one actually touched these guns?”
Either way, it’s still the kind of case that involves more investigation and work than police are used to devoting to a case, IMO.
So glad I no longer live in Dave Pinto’s district, or state for that matter.