Posted on 10/14/2002 4:22:48 PM PDT by tarawa
This appeal presents the question whether the crime pf possession of a "prohibited weapon", specifically a sawed-off shotgun, under Texas law constitutes a crime of violence under Federal sentencing guidelines.
Ruben Serna pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court found Serna's previous state court felony conviction for possession of a prohibited weapon was a crime of violence and enhanced his sentence on that basis.
The indictment underlying this previous state court conviction identified the prohibited weapon as a "shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches." This type of weapon is commonly known as a sawed-off shotgun. It is reasonable to conclude that a sawed-off shotgun, when possessed unlawfully, is possessed for violent purposes only.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca5.uscourts.gov ...
The "sawed-off shotgun" craziness is just that -- insanity under judicial cover. Common sense and reason it ain't.
This business of imputing state of mind to an instance of possession bothers me. If a guy possesses a pint of Turkey, does that imply intention sufficient to convict him of drunken driving and manslaughter, even though the tax stamp is unbroken? Possession of a rock of cocaine -- does that sufficiently imply armed robbery to go ahead and convict the possessor on apprehension?
It all sounds a little too Judge Dredd for me.
Defense motion for continuance denied -- Kaboom!
Supporting it, what else?
There are so many places we could go with parallel reasoning...
Is it reasonable to conclude that possessing a CD burner, is possessed for copyright infringement purposes only?
Good point, poor metaphor. The judge is safe.
When I was a boy, in Oklahoma, a long time ago, many of my friends fathers had old sawed off 12 gauges left over from their fathers times. They were used mostly for hunting in blackjak thickets, not criminal or militia use. My guess is that when they were restricted they were probably mostly hunting weapons. I'd be willing to venture that most of them never got registered either.
-------------------------------
Unfortunately, this type of looseness of thought is being asserted by the woman's liberation movement and is apt to be asserted in court, with success as more people in juries and elsewhere adopt it. Life in this country has become a college freshman English class where a person receives an "a" for creativity by discerning as many vague and bizarre alegories and metaphors as possible, while avoiding the concrete. We are being trained to think nuts as a form of intellectuality. This is one reason I enjoy conversation with uneducated people. "This is a tree. This is a shovel. That is a bird." You get straigt observations and answers.
One of the cheap ones was a Raven. The dealer didn't carry that type of cheap gun and sold it to me for $5.00. I would never have bought it except I planned on using it as a trade in to avoid the waiting period. Anyway I shot the little gun a fair amount and it really was a pretty good gun. It was reliable and pretty accurate too. I eventually did use it just like I had planned but would never call it a bad gun.
I thought I was replying on the thread about the Florida kid suing the Raven distributor.
"I have found a certain type calls himself a Liberal...Now I always thought I was a Liberal. I came up terribly surprised one time when I found out that I was a Right-Wing Conservative Extremist, when I listened to everybody's point of view that I ever met, and then decided how I should feel. But this so-called new Liberal group, Jesus, they never listen to your point of view..."
"If everything isn't black and white, I say why the hell not."
----------------------
It has not changed, and shouldn't be changed. Law regarding that area should be enforced --but strictly under that rationale. The statement of violation should be strictly linited to that rather than being a statement of metaphorical poetry that has no place on the bench or any other part of the courtroom. If no concrete physically violent act was committed, a person should not be judged guilty of that act through application of metaphor or other vagueness of language, regardless of whether or not he broke some other law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.