Federal District Judge rules those indicted for a felony may purchase firearms

[glenwolde]

Can I ask a silly question: if one is Indicted awaiting trial, aren’t they in Jail? Or is this where Bail comes into play?
Excuse my ignorance of our legal system……….

Not necessarily. In Texas you can be indicted and the indictment is sent to the prosecuting attorney for prosecution. At this point you are not under arrest.

They can then choose to prosecute or not. Cases are often dropped by the prosecuting attorney due to lack of evidence after indictment. If they decide to prosecute they'll come arrest you or ask you to turn yourself in depending on the crime you are accused of.

 

[johngalt]

Unfortunately it takes more money than most have "to use your rights". If good private attorneys were freely available, that might have some validity. While there are public attorneys in some areas, they are usually overwhelmed and precious little resources

When prosecutors operate on the basis of ,well they can just hire an attorney and " use your rights ", it only makes fair and equal justice available to the rich and corrupt.

Seems like there should be consequences for bringing charges against the innocent.

 

[steelslaver]

Steelsaver:

Sounds like your brother preserved his rights. By using the system, incidentally.

So; Robert MacAfee fired over 300 rounds at varied police agencies one fine Lordsburg morning (we made hours of video). He actually hit a couple of police cars, but no people. He was arrested when he ran out of ammo (including blacl powder and ball for his muzzleloader). After a few weeks in jail, a magistrate released him. He went down and bought a 12 gauge and more shells, and we had to use subterfuge to get him out of his house, where his new shotgun was, and arrest him again.

He wasn't convicted at that point - do you really believe he should have been able to buy and possess another firearm and ammo while awaiting trial? Just curious...

Your whole Robert MacAfee story is interesting. First in the fact that while having a high old time while shooting at the police, he wasn't shot dead. Maybe next time they should shoot back with a guns, instead of a cameras. Next, that an idiot judge released him and the fact that even before the Federal judge ruled it was OK for those under indictment to purchase firearms, good old Bob just went ahead and got one anyway. What in the world makes you believe that other serious criminals won't do exactly the same thing???? If they are under indictment for a felony, have no previous record and are actually guilty, heaven forbid they would be the type to do something like lie on a 4473. No, of course, they wouldn't do that. Wait, you are telling me Bob did just that! No, that can't be what about the "law"? LMAO

BTW just how much extra time did he get for buying a gun while under indictment? I am guessing NONE. In fact, I bet it wasn't even included in what he actually got convicted of.

Please explain how your MacAfee story shows that society is safer because it is illegal for those indicted to purchase guns. It actually proves just the opposite, because obviously he could and he did.

On my brother. Yes, he used his rights and $150,000. I my one sister had not had enough money to hand to a good attorney with a great investigator, it would very well have gone the other way. The *** prosecutor kept offering plea deals. Close to trial, after he had actually bothered to call some people and ask questions and started seeing the writing on the wall, he offered a misdemeanors charge with time served.

Your saying that because Robert MacAfee, who was a case of a total psyco and should have never been released, it is just fine that people like my brother loose their rights. My brother could have got out on bail, but it was a case of money for bail bond or money for lawyer. Not both.

At one time I was of the opinion that it was OK if a few innocent went though the grinder as long as the guilty got punished. Way different outlook after you and a family member get run though the gears

If you our on bail, with no previous felonies, can you vote? Yes

Drive a car? Yes

Get robbed, assaulted or murdered? Yes

Should you be able to protect yourself? No, according to some.

 

[racoonbeast]

I would like to take a moment and point out that this thread is a good example of why I like this forum and is a testimony to the caliber of people who come here.

This is a very emotional issue. Folks obviously have opposite points of view on this issue and each side feels very strongly about their point of view.

Yet the debate remains civil, appropriate and respectful. It is almost taken for granted in other forums that the minute there is a disagreement, the insults and abuse begins. That is rarely, if ever seen here.

Gee, maybe folks with a conservative point of view are civilized after all. Maybe we aren't radically extreme deplorables whose knuckles drag on the ground

 

[biku324]

I would like to take a moment and point out that this thread is a good example of why I like this forum and is a testimony to the caliber of people who come here.

This is a very emotional issue. Folks obviously have opposite points of view on this issue and each side feels very strongly about their point of view.

Yet the debate remains civil, appropriate and respectful. It is almost taken for granted in other forums that the minute there is a disagreement, the insults and abuse begins. That is rarely, if ever seen here.

Gee, maybe folks with a conservative point of view are civilized after all. Maybe we aren't radically extreme deplorables whose knuckles drag on the ground

Isn't this a microaggression?

 

[biku324]

Seems like there should be consequences for bringing charges against the innocent.

There are. The Federal Tort Claims Act, state tort claims laws, 42 US Code 1983 & 1985, as well as criminal perjury laws.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

innocent UNLESS Proven guilty

Fixed it for ya!

 

[GaryS]

I believe he shouldn't have been let out of jail on bond before trial.

Steelsaver:

Sounds like your brother preserved his rights. By using the system, incidentally.

So; Robert MacAfee fired over 300 rounds at varied police agencies one fine Lordsburg morning (we made hours of video). He actually hit a couple of police cars, but no people. He was arrested when he ran out of ammo (including blacl powder and ball for his muzzleloader). After a few weeks in jail, a magistrate released him. He went down and bought a 12 gauge and more shells, and we had to use subterfuge to get him out of his house, where his new shotgun was, and arrest him again.

He wasn't convicted at that point - do you really believe he should have been able to buy and possess another firearm and ammo while awaiting trial? Just curious...

 

[biku324]

Your whole Robert MacAfee story is interesting.

1. First in the fact that while having a high old time while shooting at the police, he wasn't shot dead. Maybe next time they should shoot back with a guns, instead of a cameras.
2. Next, that an idiot judge released him and the fact that even before the Federal judge ruled it was OK for those under indictment to purchase firearms, good old Bob just went ahead and got one anyway. What in the world makes you believe that other serious criminals won't do exactly the same thing???? If they are under indictment for a felony, have no previous record and are actually guilty, heaven forbid they would be the type to do something like lie on a 4473. No, of course, they wouldn't do that. Wait, you are telling me Bob did just that! No, that can't be what about the "law"? LMAO

3. BTW just how much extra time did he get for buying a gun while under indictment? I am guessing NONE. In fact, I bet it wasn't even included in what he actually got convicted of.

4. Please explain how your MacAfee story shows that society is safer because it is illegal for those indicted to purchase guns. It actually proves just the opposite, because obviously he could and he did.

On my brother. Yes, he used his rights and $150,000. I my one sister had not had enough money to hand to a good attorney with a great investigator, it would very well have gone the other way. The *** prosecutor kept offering plea deals. Close to trial, after he had actually bothered to call some people and ask questions and started seeing the writing on the wall, he offered a misdemeanors charge with time served.

5. Your saying that because Robert MacAfee, who was a case of a total psyco and should have never been released, it is just fine that people like my brother loose their rights. My brother could have got out on bail, but it was a case of money for bail bond or money for lawyer. Not both.

At one time I was of the opinion that it was OK if a few innocent went though the grinder as long as the guilty got punished. Way different outlook after you and a family member get run though the gears

If you our on bail, with no previous felonies, can you vote? Yes

Drive a car? Yes

Get robbed, assaulted or murdered? Yes

Should you be able to protect yourself? No, according to some.

1. In policing, we don't exist to kill everyone we legally could. With MacAfee, we evacuted the few folks around his house and set a perimeter and waited. The critical incident was resolved without blood - that's the right way to handle nearly every critical incident. Killing people needs to be done infrequently, and only when absolutely necessary.

2. And the judge had the discretion and authority to release MacAfee. He was a first offender, and at the time had an 8th Amendment right to bail absent a direct, predictable danger to the public. I wouldn't have released him, but I'm not a judge.

3. MacAfee's bond was revoked for his purchase in violation of his conditions of release; the DA also used it at sentencing to remove any notion of lenient sentencing, so he got his sentence factually enhanced.

4. You're asking me to argue coulda shoulda woulda. I deal with what is, and MacAfee violated his conditions of release by purchasing the shotgun. His wife (Anne - she was very ill) believed he planned to kill her and himself, but who knows - we arrested him first.

5. I carefully reviewed what I wrote; I said nothing like that.

While I understand your passion about your brother's case, it is objectively true that police, a prosecutor, and a judge found probable cause that he go to trial or he would not have been in front of the court. He exercised his rights, and was acquitted (apparently - I don't know the specific order of his court. It could have been dismissed before trial proceedings started). If he felt he was done wrong, he could have sued the police who arrested him - it happens all the time. By the way, if he had a good case to do so, there are lots and lots of hungry attorneys who would have taken such a suit on contingency (for a percentage of the final award).

An officer I know went to grand jury for killing a guy during a narcotics raid. Just getting to 'no bill' at the grand jury cost him $25,000 out of his pocket, as our agency would not (and should not, by the way) cover criminal legal costs for targeted personnel. He preferred being 'no billed,' thereby retaining his freedom and job to not spending (borrowing and spending, actually) the money.

Does that make sense?

 

[Roger Kipwell]

But, hey the county attorney wasn't looking for the truth, he was looking for a conviction and a gold star on his record.

Truth. Sadly, the police do that too.

 

[johngalt]

Your whole Robert MacAfee story is interesting. First in the fact that while having a high old time while shooting at the police, he wasn't shot dead. Maybe next time they should shoot back with a guns, instead of a cameras. Next, that an idiot judge released him and the fact that even before the Federal judge ruled it was OK for those under indictment to purchase firearms, good old Bob just went ahead and got one anyway. What in the world makes you believe that other serious criminals won't do exactly the same thing???? If they are under indictment for a felony, have no previous record and are actually guilty, heaven forbid they would be the type to do something like lie on a 4473. No, of course, they wouldn't do that. Wait, you are telling me Bob did just that! No, that can't be what about the "law"? LMAO

BTW just how much extra time did he get for buying a gun while under indictment? I am guessing NONE. In fact, I bet it wasn't even included in what he actually got convicted of.

Please explain how your MacAfee story shows that society is safer because it is illegal for those indicted to purchase guns. It actually proves just the opposite, because obviously he could and he did.

On my brother. Yes, he used his rights and $150,000. I my one sister had not had enough money to hand to a good attorney with a great investigator, it would very well have gone the other way. The *** prosecutor kept offering plea deals. Close to trial, after he had actually bothered to call some people and ask questions and started seeing the writing on the wall, he offered a misdemeanors charge with time served.

Your saying that because Robert MacAfee, who was a case of a total psyco and should have never been released, it is just fine that people like my brother loose their rights. My brother could have got out on bail, but it was a case of money for bail bond or money for lawyer. Not both.

At one time I was of the opinion that it was OK if a few innocent went though the grinder as long as the guilty got punished. Way different outlook after you and a family member get run though the gears

If you our on bail, with no previous felonies, can you vote? Yes

Drive a car? Yes

Get robbed, assaulted or murdered? Yes

Should you be able to protect yourself? No, according to some.

That prosecutor owes your brother $150,000 plus compensation for his time in jail. Plus he should be disbarred for continuing to prosecute even after knowing he was innocent.

 

[racoonbeast]

Its not so complicated to me. We already have the mechanism to protect society from people who have been charged with serious crimes, but have not been convicted. It is called a Judge.

Virtually everyone in this country who is charged with a serious crime is taken before a judge to be "arraigned" (formally charged) and to determine bail status.

The presence of, or the absence of bail, and the amount and type of bail are determined by the Judge at this hearing. The determining factors in bail are how likely the defendant is to show up for court as needed, and how much danger the defendant presents to himself or others. Obviously, if he is likely to present a danger, the judge needs to set either very high bail, or no bail at all. Laws almost everywhere support him on this if his reasons are for either of these two reasons.

If the defendant behaves violently in the community following a bail hearing, I say it is on the Judge. He should be punished for not doing his job as opposed to punishing the rest of the human race by denying the whole of the population a very important civil right.

 

[biku324]

I'm curious. Drug offenders aside, who can point to a specific instance wherein someone indicted for a felony, released without being able to possess a firearm, was criminally victimized because they had no firearm?

 

[Muss Muggins]

Took five seconds. You did say “drug dealers aside . . . “. This was a gun charge . . .

Man shot to death on NYC street out on bail for recent gun bust

I'm curious. Drug offenders aside, who can point to a specific instance wherein someone indicted for a felony, released without being able to possess a firearm, was criminally victimized because they had no firearm?

 

[steelslaver]

Not being able to exercise your 2nd amendment rights before being proven guilty when falsely charged IS a victimzation.

BTW, the sheriff of the county my brother was living in when first accused investigated the allegations and he was released when it was dropped like a rock there. Then the prosecutor in the county he used to live in picked up the baton and charged him in that county and had the sheriff from that county arrest him. I was there when a deputies from the first county testified that statements in the allegations did not match hard evidence. One of the vehicles my brother was supposed to have used in the alleged crime, was shown to have been sold a year before the the alleged crime. The person who purchased the house in the county of the trail testified that the building was not the way the accuser said it was. On top of that one witness admitted on the stand that he signed his statement to avoid being charged with a crime. Last but not least the judge who signed off on the go ahead of my brothers
persecution was later dismissed for being a complete and total drunk. I kid you not at one point part of the jury actually laughed when my brothers attorney talked about one of the charges.

The whole thing was a political move by the prosecutor. He came out with a huge statement in the paper as soon as he had my brother arrested and well before he ever looked into it and was stuck. Everyone else in the whole county knew my ex sister in law was a notorious liar. She did end up doing some time over it. Not enough and as she had nothing and had never worked a day in her life never has had.


While I commend you for not shooting the nit wit, I believe your judge was a complete idiot.