Ie, they were defending DC’s right, or at least wish, to regulate guns as it sees fit, and its right to do so in the future; they were not elevating DC’s ban to be a national goal of the organization. Congress takes a dump on DC all the time, I guess we should be used to it, but it still smells. Re “tampered with”, I meant what you said about filed-off serial marks. I’d forgotten about hobbyist tinkering.

You are correct that she’s being harassed and I didn’t call her a hypocrite. I used the word irony and noted that her conviction was not as bad as it seemed.

She is part of an organization that supports handgun bans. period.

I don’t think keeping her dead son’s gun wrapped in a handkerchief in her home makes her some kind of hypocrite, even if she was for handgun control. As for MMM, their goals are:
1. renewing and strengthening the Assault Weapons Ban;
2. holding gun manufacturers accountable for their products;
3. requiring background checks on all gun purchases;
4. reinstating the 5-day Brady waiting period for all gun purchases; and
5. incorporating safety standards into gun design.

That’s not a handgun ban. So as far as I can see, she’s done nothing hypocritical, and probably nothing really wrong either even if it came to trial. I assume you concede that the laws she’s charged with breaking (a gun that’s been tampered with, failure to have the license) are laws worth having? Then I’ll concede that gun laws can be abused to harass people; so can other laws. If that’s what’s happening here, blame the police.

As i said, look into their history. They were established to get handguns banned.

I think membership in such an organization would coincide with holding its positions.

Even HCI realized its position was not at all popular and changed its name.

…violating some law she likely supported. I doubt she’s either against laws against scratching off serial numbers; I see no reason to think she’s for a ban on handguns. I’d guess she was more against assault weapons, and may have kept the handgun for the reasons you share (self protection). I’d also guess that her violation of the serial number business was likely inadvertent, given that it was her dead son’s handgun that she wrapped in a hankie and put out of sight.

She’s tied to drugs and drive-bys, according to police. Again, not exactly. She’s tied, I suppose, to her dead son’s stash — although the news story makes that charge a he-said she-said that may have to do with whatever “manufacture/distribution” means exactly. She _knows_ people accused of being involved in (nonfatal, fwiw) drive-bys, according to the newspaper article Reynolds linked to.

All told, these may be trumped-up charges designed to put some pressure on the woman to become an informant instead of an activist. You have to wonder how the police came to know about her dead son’s handgun; maybe the rival gang tipped them off.

Also, she’s tied to drugs and drive-bys, according to police.

No, what was found was a handgun; if I understand the story correctly, what made it illegal was that the serial number was scratched off. And what she was supporting (not proposing) was a federal semiautomatic assault weapons ban.

I agree, though, that there’s something fishy about how the police are proceeding here. Assuming that’s one of your points.

She is always right no matter what her stance.