Marysville Mt Pilchuck shooting

[Massivedesign]

I am not going to go on about him being sentenced for an unconstitutional law. For years, a lot of us have been begging to enforce those laws on the books rather than create new ones. I agree that there are better ways this could have gone, and he could have fought for rights being restored.

But, there is also the fact that he states he didn't know he had a DVRO from 2002.. Which I am not sure how you WOULDN'T know?

As far as him being partially responsible for the murder? Nope, he's not. If my son steals my car and kills somebody, that's all on my son. I may need to rethink my abilities and tactics as a parent, but I am not legally in the fray.

[ANZAC]

I guess I don't see what everyone else does, so enlighten me.

How by any reason is he partly responsible for the murders, at all, by any account?
Whether or not he had legally, or illegally obtained weapons, he didn't pull the trigger.

He is not being charged for anything relating to the murders. He is being charged with illegal possession of a firearm (etc).

For years, a lot of us have been begging to enforce those laws on the books rather than create new ones. I agree that there are better ways this could have gone, and he could have fought for rights being restored.

Exactly. Everyone here gripes about the feds not following up on weapons charges, here we have a guy that bought a gun illegally and now some people here don't want to prosecute him?

Also: how was the DVRO unconstitutional? Last I remember, there is always a hearing before it is granted, not sure if it was back then but the hearing is required under the RCW.

[Korben]

The DVRO is fine, a judge alone removing a fundamental right based on a civil process with nothing more then the testimony of a complainant is unconstitutional. No jury, no lawyers, no reasonable doubt standard, etc. The only 'logic' behind it is that people that have a DVRO against them are more likely to commit a crime. By that logic we should just remove the gun rights of all black people.

So Fryberg is going to jail cause some gun rights advocates have nothing better to say then "enforce the laws on the books". Cause they don't have the balls or brains to argue that the laws currently on the books are fucked?

With the law as it is it all hinges on if he knew about this DVRO. There's not a lot of information available on any evidence that he did or didn't know about the DVRO but I think it very likely that he didn't know. Certainly not beyond all reasonable doubt. Would you let a DVRO that removed your rights stand for 12 years? I sure wouldn't, that is unless I didn't know about it cause I lived on the rez and the jurisdictional issues with the rez are a f'n mess. Remember this is a federal law enforced on him as the result of a state DVRO. Washington state didn't have a similar law until 2014.

[ANZAC]

The DVRO is fine, a judge alone removing a fundamental right based on a civil process with nothing more then the testimony of a complainant is unconstitutional. No jury, no lawyers, no reasonable doubt standard, etc. The only 'logic' behind it is that people that have a DVRO against them are more likely to commit a crime. By that logic we should just remove the gun rights of all black people.

I think the logic is they have a specific target in mind, and therefore it is more likely. I don't think you could apply that logic to black people.
He also has or had the right of appeal, IIRC.

So Fryberg is going to jail cause some gun rights advocates have nothing better to say then "enforce the laws on the books". Cause they don't have the balls or brains to argue that the laws currently on the books are fucked?

He's going to jail because he broke the law. You can cry and bleat about it all you want, but if you think the law is bad, then either try and overturn it with legal action in a court or campaign the legislature to fix it.

With the law as it is it all hinges on if he knew about this DVRO. There's not a lot of information available on any evidence that he did or didn't know about the DVRO but I think it very likely that he didn't know. Certainly not beyond all reasonable doubt. Would you let a DVRO that removed your rights stand for 12 years? I sure wouldn't, that is unless I didn't know about it cause I lived on the rez and the jurisdictional issues with the rez are a f'n mess. Remember this is a federal law enforced on him as the result of a state DVRO. Washington state didn't have a similar law until 2014.

US code says "receives a firearm" and "is subject to....an order that restrains". They didn't have to prove knowledge of the DVRO for him have received the firearm illegally, from what I can see.

Last edited by ANZAC on Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[RENCORP]

AlI I know is that 594 did not prevent this from happening.

Very disappointed.

Gooberment passed a law that does - nothing.

Shocking, just shocking.

[Massivedesign]

AlI I know is that 594 did not prevent this from happening.

Very disappointed.

Gooberment passed a law that does - nothing.

Shocking, just shocking.

Actually, just the opposite... 594 WOULD have stopped this, if his ineligibility was properly reported to the authorities.

[beckdw]

AlI I know is that 594 did not prevent this from happening.

Very disappointed.

Gooberment passed a law that does - nothing.

Shocking, just shocking.

Actually, just the opposite... 594 WOULD have stopped this, if his ineligibility was properly reported to the authorities.

I read that he purchased the weapon at Cabelas, which means 594 has no bearing on this. 594 would not have stopped this because it was purchased from a dealer not an individual.

Sent from my SGH-T999L using Tapatalk

[ANZAC]

I read that he purchased the weapon at Cabelas, which means 594 has no bearing on this. 594 would not have stopped this because it was purchased from a dealer not an individual.

Careful, facts are ruining the peanut gallery's entertainment.

[DocNugent]

. . . he states he didn't know he had a DVRO from 2002.. Which I am not sure how you WOULDN'T know? . . .

Pretty sure that TEMPORARY ROs were routinely granted through ex parte (accused is not invited) hearings.

Accused would be invited, however, to a later hearing that made the TRO "permanent" (though proving you're not dangerous is damned near impossible).

As to having a right to appeal a RO, I call bullshit for this reason: The accused will need a good attorney and they don't work for free (and non-profit legal clinics won't touch these cases), so a minimum wage restrainee's "right to appeal" doesn't exist in the real world.

EDIT: Just learned that the Fryberg's RO was issued by a tribal court, so my first two paragraphs above are no longer relevant. I stand by the third paragraph, though.

Last edited by DocNugent on Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

[ANZAC]

. . . he states he didn't know he had a DVRO from 2002.. Which I am not sure how you WOULDN'T know? . . .

Pretty sure that TEMPORARY ROs were routinely granted through ex parte (accused is not invited) hearings.

Accused would be invited, however, to a later hearing that made the TRO "permanent" (though proving you're not dangerous is damned near impossible).

As to having a right to appeal a RO, I call bullshit for this reason: The accused will need a good attorney and they don't work for free (and non-profit legal clinics won't touch these cases), so a minimum wage restrainee's "right to appeal" doesn't exist in the real world.

But I need a good attorney to sue McDonalds for giving me that hot coffee.....

[kf7mjf]

Except their hot coffee was dangerously hot. That woman had 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her labia that fused skin together. One can reasonably expect hot coffee, perhaps even somewhat overly hot coffee. Not vagina fusing hot coffee though.

[deadshot2]

He is not being charged for anything relating to the murders. He is being charged with illegal possession of a firearm (etc).

*************************

Also: how was the DVRO unconstitutional? Last I remember, there is always a hearing before it is granted, not sure if it was back then but the hearing is required under the RCW.

He was prosecuted under a law that was on the books LOOOOOONG before I-594.


Also, Fryberg was served with a "hearing notice" which he ignored. The order was issued (and made permanent) by default.

This prosecution should be the first of many where firearms are illegally obtained. Also, make the penalties mandatory and require that it be served for each and every violation consecutively. Time to make people like this and others CARE whether or not they get caught.

[hkcavalier]

Except their hot coffee was dangerously hot. That woman had 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her labia that fused skin together. One can reasonably expect hot coffee, perhaps even somewhat overly hot coffee. Not vagina fusing hot coffee though.

[deadshot2]

Except their hot coffee was dangerously hot. That woman had 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her labia that fused skin together. One can reasonably expect hot coffee, perhaps even somewhat overly hot coffee. Not vagina fusing hot coffee though.

Is it possible that the same thing happened to Hillary??

[Guns4Liberty]

Except their hot coffee was dangerously hot. That woman had 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her labia that fused skin together. One can reasonably expect hot coffee, perhaps even somewhat overly hot coffee. Not vagina fusing hot coffee though.

Is it possible that the same thing happened to Hillary??

In Hillary's case, it was a snuke in her snizz, not hot coffee.