Replies

It will do no such thing. The law as it is written clearly dos not exclude LEO’s if in the performance of their duties they committ a felony. Judges as a rule, and there are exceptione when it comes to left wingers, do not try read into laws additions or conclusions they do not contain.

There are conservative/right-leaning judges do subscribe to the doctrine of original intent. This is one case that absolutely cries out for it. Again, Sutton created the worst sort of precedent for BP agents and other members of the LE community. This sort of precedent completely undermines LE to go after illegal immigrants and/or criminals. This was precisely why the Congressmen issued their brief with the court. This kind of precedent must not be allowed to stand.

Sutton fully understood that it was never ever the intent of Congress that this statute be applied to LEO's operating in the line of duty. Congress automatically assumed that any prosecutor would have enough wisdom and common sense to understand this critical truth. Tragically Sutton lacked both. He fully understood what the legislators were saying but went ahead and exploited the statute anyway in Federal Court. Attempting to justify his actions by saying that Congress never explicitly excluded LEO's from the legislation is the most chicken sh*t excuse imaginable.

Yes, there are dirty cops out there committing real crimes. But there are separate statutes dealing specifically with those kinds of matters.

“But there are separate statutes dealing specifically with those kinds of matters.”

Let’s say a dirty BP agent is being paid off by a Mexican drug cartel. During a drug bust at the border, he sees that the drug mule works for the opposition cartel and shoots the guy, looking for a nice xmas bonus from Tijuana.

What “statute” would that fall under?

If congress never intended for this legislation to include LEO’s, how come not one, not Hunter, Not Rohrbacher, not Poe not Feinstein, has proposed legislation to clarify that?

Each day that goes by without it, all LEO’s are in danger of having circumstances that may apply. Each day that goes by without it LEO’s are thinking twice about “doing there job”.

How come you haven’t demanded it?

Oh ya, you’re too busy giving an enema to something. The “cause” you know, is more important than getting R&C home with their kids or protecting LEO’s from out of control prosecutors.

A few months back, I went through all of the legislative history on 924(c). You are absolutely correct--that it was never intended to be applied to LEOs in the performance of their duties. (It would apply to an off duty, rogue cop, committing a felony not associated with his law enforcement role). But more egregious, IMO, was Sutton using the law in the absence of any separate underlying crime. There was quite a lot of discussion in the congressional record about the firearm being used in the "furtherance" of a crime. In this case, there was no underlying crime--Sutton charged use of the firearm as the crime itself. In the amicus brief, I think they did a masterful job laying out that argument and it sounds like the appeals court judge saw this clearly (at least, that is my take reading the brief comments that were reported).

Hopefully, we will see their convictions reversed. I remain hopeful that the appeals court will bring some sanity to this case.