Anti-Gun activist breaks Gun Free Zone Law

[Tom Servo]

Interesting, because it's supposed to be charged out as a Class E felony. The news has been silent on his sentencing.

[steve4102]

He pled guilty to a Misdemeanor back on 5-27.

http://wivb.com/2014/05/27/plea-deal...uffalo-school/

Here is a read on the case and the charges. This is from April.

http://arbalestquarrel.com/update-dw...activist-case/

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Interesting, because it's supposed to be charged out as a Class E felony.

Perhaps [T]he prosecutor or the judge has the power to downgrade a felony charge to a misdemeanor, and Mr. Ferguson's attorney persuaded him/her to do so in exchange for a guilty plea.

Hopefully someone who's familiar with NYS laws regarding criminal procedure will chime in.

[steve4102]

Read the link above.

...or this one. May help, may not.

http://arbalestquarrel.com/dwayne-fe...lose-handguns/

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by steve4102

Read the link above.

...or this one. May help, may not.

http://arbalestquarrel.com/dwayne-fe...lose-handguns/

Thanks for the clarification; I had looked at the link, but I had not seen the June 5th followup due to a silly oversight.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

You see, the vast majority of "anti-gun" people are not really anti-gun. They're all for guns for police, and for private security to protect them and theirs, and for themselves.

They're actually just elitists - they want guns for themselves, but not "for all of you other little peon people out there."

[Tom Servo]

Ferguson has been sentenced to 100 hours of community service and a stern warning to stay out of trouble.

[dakota.potts]

Help lobby to make a natural born right a felony... Break that same law and you get a slap on the wrist. Justice is served

[BarryLee]

Incidents like this that make me more and more sure that many who support gun control do so with purely political motivations. They see gun owners as primarily belonging to one political group, so by demonizing gun owners they make that group look bad. At the end of the day most care little about preventing violence, but just about maintaining their own political power.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Ferguson has been sentenced to 100 hours of community service and a stern warning to stay out of trouble.

Well, I'm sure glad it was a stern warning. That will certainly send the right message to would-be mass killers.

:barf:

I suspect if I spent enough time researching the Internet I could find at least five cases in which kids with toy guns (or pictures of guns) have received sentences as "stern" as this, if not stiffer. Whatever happened to "a nation of laws"? Doesn't New York have mandatory minimum sentences?

[wogpotter]

Same story, different periodical:

On Monday, Judge John L. Michalek sentenced Ferguson to 100 hours of community service and a conditional discharge; Michalek also sternly ordered Ferguson to keep his nose clean.
If Ferguson completes the service requirements and stays out of trouble, he won’t have to answer for the substantially more serious charge initially levied against him: Possessing a firearm on schools grounds. (He initially was looking at two felony charges of criminal gun possession.)

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/23/gu...ient-sentence/

Disgust is too mild a word, but this is a family forum.

[steve4102]

Does he get to keep his carry permit and his firearms?

[wogpotter]

AS far as I can tell from the deafening silence on that yes, as long as he does community service by doing the thing he's been employed to do anyway & doesn't "be a bad boy again" for the 2 years.

[steve4102]

This is from the article linked in post #129 dated back in June. If this is how it will go down, it ain't over yet?

So, where does that leave us and Ferguson? Well, the police still have Ferguson’s two handguns. So, as it appears the Erie County Supreme Court isn’t required to revoke Ferguson’s pistol license, and, too, as the matter of the disposition of Ferguson’s pistol license is out of the hands of the First District Attorney of Erie County, the question is, then, who does have authority – if anyone at all – to revoke or allow Ferguson to keep his pistol carry license? That, we’ve learned, falls upon Wilmer Fowler.

[ThesNazud]

Ok, random thought while reading all this, someone please correct me if I'm wrong... 1) Ferguson is a sitting politician. 2) Prosecutor is an elected possition(therefore political). 3) Ferguson blatently violates a law he supported(and helped pass?) 4) Ferguson pled down to ?? and got less than a slap on the wrist. 5) Normal citizen in same jurisdiction under identical circumstances would have not recieved same treatment.

Couldn't that be considered boarder line corruption, or am I just off here, because it seems an awefully lot like a 'scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' back room deal amongst the 'non commoners'...

Like I said, I could well be off on this. I'm not looking to start any negative arguements, or insinuate anything that could be construed as an attack or falsehood...

[kilimanjaro]

You're not out of line. Some pigs are more equal than others, it seems, including under the law, which is supposed to be the great leveler of man.

There's all kinds of corruption, and ideological corruption is perhaps the worst.

[JC92]

Can his case be part of the judicial history on the GFZ law? He claimed he forgot he was carrying. Doesn't this case begin judicial history that has upheld the claim "I forgot" as a valid defense?

[Frank Ettin]

No. This prosecution was under state law.

[Spats McGee]

And it was part of a plea deal.

[btmj]

If some people get a better plea deal than others for the same charge, can the people who get the not-so-good plea deal argue that they did not recieve equal protection under the law?

[44 AMP]

can the people who get the not-so-good plea deal argue that they did not recieve equal protection under the law?

Am not a lawyer, so this is a guess, but a plea deal takes place before charges are brought. SO, I would think "not receiving equal protection" would not apply. I think you are not "under the law" in this case, until charges are filed.
OR maybe after arraignment?

But I really don't know for certain. Legal folks, am I totally off base here?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by btmj

If some people get a better plea deal than others for the same charge, can the people who get the not-so-good plea deal argue that they did not recieve equal protection under the law?

Maybe, but it would be tough, and I don't see it being very successful. Part of that is due to the sheer number of factors that the prosecutor could have considered in offering the deal. Another factor to consider is the possibility of a Plaintiff's case dying on the various immunities in play.

The first question is on is "on what basis" such a claim would be brought. Race, gender & age are all protected classes, so a Plaintiff might argue, "I'm a black woman, and: (1) non-black people have been treated better; and (2) men have been treated better." Those are (at least on their face) viable claims. We'd have to look at the (potential) Plaintiff to determine whether or not he is "similarly situated in all relevant aspects," which is necessary to mount a successful Equal Protection claim.

The second question is: Who's the defendant? The police officers? They made the arrest, but not the plea deal. The prosecutor? See above, and also consider prosecutorial immunity. The Court? Best of luck, and consider judicial immunity. The City? Only if you can make out a policy, practice, or custom claim, and that's easier said than done.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Am not a lawyer, so this is a guess, but a plea deal takes place before charges are brought. SO, I would think "not receiving equal protection" would not apply. I think you are not "under the law" in this case, until charges are filed.
OR maybe after arraignment?

But I really don't know for certain. Legal folks, am I totally off base here?

You're not "totally" off base, but somewhat off base. A plea deal happens after charges are brought. Typically, they happen after charges are brought, but before trial happens. However, I'm unaware of anything that prohibits a prosecutor and defendant from reaching a plea bargain during or even after trial. (Sort of "Look, John Prosecutor, you didn't make the case on Agg Assault, because you forgot to talk about a weapon. My guy is willing to take Simple Assault if you'll recommend no more than 90 days jail and up to 2 years probation, though.") Presumably, if it gets as far as sentencing, everyone's willing to roll the dice, though.

I think EP does apply, but this case falls into a very sticky area, and one very difficult for a Plaintiff's lawyer to overcome. EP could be made out in disparate enforcement cases against individual officers or even cities (e.g. officers are only enforcing weapons laws against a particular protected class of citizens). Individual officers would be protected by qualified immunity, though. Once the charge goes from charging officers to the prosecutor and the judge, then the Plaintiff has to deal with prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity. Those are absolute immunities, rather than "qualified" immunities, and much harder to overcome.

Going back to this question, though:

Doesn't this case begin judicial history that has upheld the claim "I forgot" as a valid defense?

The relevance of the fact that this one pled out is as follows: In building a "judicial history" under our common law system, we have statutes and case law to guide us. Statutes are enacted by legislatures. Case law is the series of decisions by appellate courts that tells us what a statute means. Yes, yes, I've heard "just read the statute" before. But when a statute says, ".... when an officer reasonably believes....," we turn to the case law to see what the appellate courts think about the phrase "reasonably believes," and under what circumstances various officers' beliefs have been held to be "reasonable" or "unreasonable" within the meaning of the statute.

The fact that this was a plea deal means that it didn't go up on appeal, so it won't form any valid case law to guide the lawyers in the future.

[44 AMP]

Thanks for the clarification, Spats!

I used to think I was learning about how the law really worked when I was watching Law & Order...until it dawned on me that since they lie about guns (which I could recognize), they probably are lying about the law, too...

sigh...

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...when I was watching Law & Order...until it dawned on me that since they lie about guns (which I could recognize), they probably are lying about the law, too...

Well law, if portrayed accurately, doesn't make good television.

[Spats McGee]

Always my pleasure, 44 AMP.

Frank's right. Most of the practice of law would make for pretty boring television. I like the courtroom because that's where the action happens, but even there you can have some pretty dull stuff going on.