Posted on 10/23/2020 8:14:55 PM PDT by ransomnote
PORTLAND, Ore.—U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams announced today that a Portland Oregon man with a previous felony conviction has been charged with possessing body armor during protest activity in Portland.
Maurice Lonnie Monson, 30, is charged by indictment with one count of Felon in Possession of Body Armor in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 931.
According to court documents, on the evening of September 4, 2020, a group of protestors were blocking traffic along North Lombard Street in Portland, Oregon, near the vicinity of the Portland Police Association (PPA) office. The PPA office has been targeted by violent protest activity numerous times throughout the summer.
At approximately 11:35 p.m., Portland Police declared an unlawful assembly after some within the protest hurled rocks, water bottles and cans at officers. As part of the unlawful assembly declaration, protestors were ordered to clear the roadway. Monson was arrested when he failed to comply with the order to disperse. When arrested, it was discovered that Monson was wearing a ballistic “bullet proof” vest. Additional investigation revealed that Monson has a previous felony conviction in Multnomah County, Oregon in 2009. As such, it is illegal for Monson to possess ballistic body armor.
Monson made his initial appearance in federal court today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You. He was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and ordered released pending a two-day jury trial scheduled to begin on December 22, 2020.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated this case. It is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon.
An indictment is only an accusation of a crime, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
That was my first thought as well. Why don’t we have background checks for body armor, if that’s the case?
Not sure how I feel about that.
There’s armed robbery and there’s tax evasion - should this apply to both?
I do think we’re overdue for different levels of “felon”.
First I have heard of it.
If you would like more information about what’s happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me. Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess body armor, if that person has been convicted of a felony that is—
(1) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16); or
(2) an offense under State law that would constitute a crime of violence under paragraph (1) if it occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
(b) Affirmative Defense.—
(1) In general.—It shall be an affirmative defense under this section that—
(A) the defendant obtained prior written certification from his or her employer that the defendant’s purchase, use, or possession of body armor was necessary for the safe performance of lawful business activity; and
(B) the use and possession by the defendant were limited to the course of such performance.
(2) Employer.—
In this subsection, the term “employer” means any other individual employed by the defendant’s business that supervises defendant’s activity. If that defendant has no supervisor, prior written certification is acceptable from any other employee of the business.
Did not know felons were barred from possessing body armor.
***********
Me either. I did know that they couldn’t have fire arms.
Are they prevented from learning martial arts, bb guns, or slingshots? Could be a problem if they live in the hood.
Well, there you are - this seems to involve violent felonies only; that makes more sense to me.
Instead of outlawing felons owning body armor, it would be better to have a “body armor enhancement” to their sentence if they are arrested for illegal possession of a gun or in the commission of another felony.
Not all body armors are against bullets. “Body armor is protective clothing designed to absorb or deflect physical impacts.” Martial artists can wear a type of body armor to protect them from punches and kicks.
My point is that both its description and its situational purpose are unclear in the law.
No wonder all the turtles went into hiding.
Let me guess. Weird commie state prohibits possession of body armor. Commies gotta ban all the things.
Yeah, that legislation may have arisen from gang problems.
These old laws are silly.
There is no body armor that can protect you from a five pound brick traveling a hundred miles an hour. A few dollars of electronics, and some simple programming, a brick thrown from a tall building can be put on a target smaller than a person. Or, a hundred bricks ...
Just saying — it’s a brave new world.
Did not know felons were barred from possessing body armor.
no I didn’t! Does that also mean that no citizens may have body armor?
This Judge Yim You is corrupt or incompetent. Read the other indictment for a rioter in Portland that he handled. Also released a violent thug for a future court trial/hearing.
Soon to be joined by the injunction against Constitutionalists hiring attorneys, or defending themselves in court, in the press, or in public discourse.
Neither did I.
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.