8 responses

  1. Joe Potosky
    January 3, 2017

    End of the day. Once you use/carry a firearm a different ballgame. So many repeat offenders caught with firearms…. If we’re going to overcrowd the jail system, those caught with a firearm should be at the head of the line.

    Reply

    • Caleb Kruckenberg
      January 3, 2017

      I don’t disagree that guns deserve worse penalties. The problem is the mandatory consecutive nature of the sentence. In Robinson’s case even if everyone agreed that maybe an extra 10 years tacked on the end was unnecessary, the judge was required to impose it. Sometimes defendants who have a valid defense if they went to trial end up pleading to things they shouldn’t just because the danger of a 924c enhancement is too great.

      Reply

      • shg
        January 3, 2017

        I’ve known a fella or two who carried a gun to a drug deal for self-defense, because some of those *other* people are violent, you know. If the option is 10 years consec or death, which option is the most reasonable?

        Reply

      • Keith
        January 3, 2017

        I was taking a look at the definition in the opinion for brandishing: “[a] firearm is “brandished” when all or part of the firearm is displayed or made known to another person in order to intimidate that person.”

        Would the prosecution have to prove you were carrying it to intimidate (as opposed to wanting it for self defense) in order to get the enhancement?

        Related, would carrying the firearm for self defense (and not to intimidate) be a valid defense for that individual when the crime calling for the enhancement is the brandishing itself?

        Reply

      • shg
        January 3, 2017

        Think about this question: how would someone go about proving that he possessed a gun for self defense? Hint: He would have to testify, and then be exposed to cross examination about the entirety of the conduct, because you don’t just get to testify about the stuff you want and not the stuff you don’t want.

        Reply

      • Chris PD
        January 3, 2017

        Brandishing and discharging are almost superfluous in the statute given that possession alone is enough to activate the enhancement provision.

        Reply

  2. Keith
    January 3, 2017

    Chris,

    I thought about that, but in the examples cited above, the discharge or brandishing are the “violent” acts, which the court is using the modified approach for, even when the underlying act wasn’t one.

    In the example Caleb gave above, discharge created the violent criminal act. In the Robinson action, brandishing did. A person legally permitted to carry such a weapon, wouldn’t be committing an otherwise criminal act.

    That’s why I didn’t go there.

    It’s not clear to me that in a case where possession would still be illegal, it would be considered violent to bring down the hammer of the enhancement.

    But I’m curious if the lawer-peeps agree there.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Back to top
mobile desktop