OT-Stange Gun Case

That, or the jury never heard that part, or the jury was instructed that they could rule only on the facts of the case and technical violations of the law.

And, as usual, probably not one juror even knew nullification was an option.

Dave

After reading the article I at first thought it sounded like a sting. Maybe even a one of those, "you do this and maybe we will forget to call ICE type stings." Then I realized if it was then they betrayed one of their CIs. Must just be ATF is hanging around gun shows looking for a chance to nip folks. Either that or you can't trust the ATF. Hmmm... nah. Couldn't be.

As I recall, the judge pointedly told the jury they should convict the guy. The judge essentially said "Since he was Hispanic and wearing cowboy attire you should have known he was probably an illegal immigrant".

This case angers me. This guy did everything right. The law says the seller cannot *knowingly* sell to an ineligible buyer. That is generally understood to mean "don't ask, don't tell, but don't sell to someone who is obviously suspect". There is no requirement for any firearms seller to do a background check on a buyer.

This was a liberal prosecutor and a liberal judge, in Austin Texas, the only liberal bastion in the whole state. The guy was railroaded. I sure hope he appeals - he will win on appeal, or there is no justice.

I am confused, does the constutition say something like "The right of the people, except illegal aliens, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?

Your confusion is noted. Even the BATF and some courts seem not to understand that part. Their masters - the people - need to help them sort that out.

The liberals seem to pay lip service to stuff like individual freedom of choice, but want to take away your means of defending that freedom.

The neocons, on the other hand, are all for guns, but want to legislate or dictate away the rights that the guns are supposed to defend!

It's definitely time to vote Libertarian.

Cheers! Rich

Did you read the article? It said: "Agents witnessed the Defendant (Copeland) negotiate a price for a handgun with Hipolito Aviles, who then handed cash to a second Hispanic male, who then handed Aviles' cash and his own identification to the defendant," the prosecution said in court documents. " "The Defendant in turn sold the firearm and handed it to the 'straw' purchaser, who then handed the firearm to Hipolito Aviles. The Defendant then instructed Mr. Aviles to hand the firearm back to the straw purchaser because he had 'bought' the firearm. Agents witnessed the straw purchaser hand the firearm back to Hipolito Aviles a short time later."

Aviles was the illegal.

The dealer negotiated the price with the illegal alien, who handed his cash, in front of the dealer, to the strawman. The strawman in turn gave his ID and the illegal's cash to the dealer. The dealer gave the strawman the gun and he handed it to the illegal.

This deal was hinky from the start.

Paul K. Dickman

The big question is does a law enforcement officer observing a crime in progress have a duty to stop the illegal activity ? Is a LEO sworn to uphold the law ?

Best Regards Tom.

Paul, I confess I did not read that article. I had read other articles about it that somehow omitted that detail. If that had happened to me, I'd have shut down the sale when the illegal handed the money to the 'buyer'. Still, the judge apparently told the jury to decide for the state based on racial stereotyping.

Sounds like a setup and once again, the feds fail to enforce immigration laws.

Wes

They can't even keep illegal Kenyans out of the US. ;-)

Now I don't care who ya are , that's funny !!

You left out the paragraph that immediately follows:

Copeland, in an interview with FoxNews.com, said he and several other witnesses, including Aviles and Huerta's son, who was present during the gun purchase, testified that the men never exchanged money in front of him. He said that throughout the purchase, he either talked with Huerta, who he says "spoke perfect English," or to the group in general, but never to Aviles directly.

Then a bit later:

"Apparently, Huerta was not charged because he was a witness," ATF spokeswoman Franceska Perot told FoxNews.com, adding that the bureau referred the case to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE spokeswoman Gail Montenegro said there was no record of Huerta in ICE's system, indicating that there is no effort underway to deport him.

Sounds like one of those, "Testify for the prosecution, and we won't send you to prison" deals.

Yup.

The people are the citizens of the USA. We extend that right to legal residents btw. Ilegal aliens don't qualify.

Wes

-- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"And they need not apply."

I understand that illegal aliens do not have some rights (such as the right to work or even to be in the US). But do they have no rights at all? I do not think so. For example, an illegal alien has the right to free speech. Or the right to be represented in a criminal trial.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't believe illegals are the people.

As far as representation in a crimial trial. I don't understand the policy or law behind it. Free lawyers tend to be worth what you paid them.

Wes

-- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Tom,

A sting is often law enforcement enticing someone to commit a crime. Why isn't that a conspiricy to commit said crime?

Wes

-- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Oh, criminals definitely have rights. They have the right to remain silent, they have a right to have an attorney present during questioning, and if they can't afford an attorney, they have the right to have one appointed at taxpayer expense.

Hope This Helps! Rich