Guess they’re down to 999,999 mommies now
Preliminary side-note: I received a ton of email pointing me to this story. What was funny was that four of the emails had the subject line Like you and me, only better. Heh, I may have started a meme. Now, on to the story. Via The Geek, Matt, Justin, Gunner, Insty, Jay, The Cajun, and I’m sure more, a gun control advocate has been arrested on, get this, gun charges:
A Springfield (IL) woman who began lobbying against gun violence after her son was shot to death in 2002 was arrested last week when police allegedly found an illegal gun and drugs in her home.
It sounds worse than it is. Later, we learn:
Stevens said she believes the search warrant was obtained illegally. She said no drugs were found in her home. And as for the gun, she admits to having it in the house. But she said it belonged to her son. She didn’t find it until six or seven months after he died. Not knowing what to do with it, she wrapped it up, put it in a drawer and forgot about it.
Here’s the big, fat, mildly greased irony of it: I don’t think the gun crime in this case is that significant (sure, some of the other stuff mentioned may be). The action with the gun, in this case, is not that of criminal intent. However, she’s getting prosecuted for unintentionally violating some law she proposed. This seemingly unintentional violation will hopefully instill in her some understanding as to what these misguided laws actually do.
March 2nd, 2005 at 10:15 am
it will not.
She is always right no matter what her stance.
March 3rd, 2005 at 12:03 pm
However, she’s getting prosecuted for unintentionally violating some law she proposed.
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.
March 3rd, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Good catch, thomas. I should have noted violating some law she likely supported.
Also, she’s tied to drugs and drive-bys, according to police.
March 4th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Good catch Thanks, SayUncle.
…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.
March 4th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
sorry about the poor HTML there
March 4th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
I think you may want to research the position of the MMM and Brady Campaign, which specifically sought to ban handgun ownership under their first name: handgun control, inc.
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.
March 4th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
Handgun control <> ban handgun ownership!
March 4th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
You mean like when they supported the DC gun ban.
As i said, look into their history. They were established to get handguns banned.
March 4th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
“Handgun control” is not the same thing as “banning handgun ownership”! (I put in the math symbol for “is not equal to” above forgetting it would seem like more HTML.)
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.
March 4th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
When a group like the The Brady Campaign United with the MMM (Formerly HCI) support a complete ban on handguns in DC, that is supporting a handgun ban.
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.
March 4th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
And no i don’t beleive in licensing handguns and I tamper with them all the time, just don’t remove serial numbers.
March 4th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
From the press release: “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March opposes H.R. 3193, legislation that would not only repeal District of Columbia firearm laws, but also prevent the city from enacting new laws to prevent gun violence.”
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.