Posted on 09/03/2018 1:19:14 PM PDT by Simon Green
In December of 2017, Dylan Stancoff forced his way into a home in Ft. Smith Arkansas where Krissy Tran lived with her husband. Tran struggled with the attacker, grabbed one of her husband’s guns and shot Stancoff, killing him. She was pregnant at the time and the shooting was eventually ruled to be justified self-defense by prosecutors.
But Tran had a previous run-in with the law. She had a felony conviction on her record from earlier that year.
In 2017, (Tran) pleaded guilty to felony possession of marijuana with intent to deliver as well as possession of drug paraphernalia. (She had been pulled over while riding in a vehicle with friends. Each person in the vehicle received the same charges when no one claimed the items.) She got a five-year suspended sentence, and as part of that was prohibited from either possessing or using firearms.
According to Tran,
The incident occurred in June 2016, ABC Fort Smith affiliate KHBS reported. (Tran) told the station that she was in the car with other people when police found drugs inside the car, but no one claimed them so everyone in the car received the same charges.
Now, more than nine months after the shooting, Tran has been charged as a felon in possession of a firearm in connection with the Stancoff shooting and authorities have petitioned the court to revoke her suspended sentence for the marijuana conviction.
She’s now facing a possible sentence of 24 years in prison.
I agree. She didn’t pick up a gun and go looking for someone to shoot.
You may not smoke pot but you think like a liberal pot head.
>>But Tran had a previous run-in with the law.<<
And your point is?
What are you? Some washed up old hippy still living in your 60’s glory days?
She got the gun out before letting him in. Even after phoning her husband and him telling her he didn’t know the dude and saying he was going to send a neighbor over, she again opened the door to the dude.
At the time of Reefer Madness Hearst had major financing for his forests to supply his newsprint business. And a patent was issued for a hemp harvesting machine that made hemp farming profitable. Hemp makes a finer paper than Hearst’s forests, with fewer environmentally destructive chemicals. It also makes the fibers used in original Levis, right as Dow was introducing chemical fibers, e.g. nylon. So the two struck an unHoly alliance, ‘marijuana’ was invented to promote ‘reefer madness’ in Hearst’s papers, and the rest is sordid history.
Yes, if their felony conviction has nothing whatsoever to do with a firearms crime as is the case here.
Hey, no fair using logic!! The State only restores a felons voting rights, and then only in Dem majority states.
But seriously, why not use the legislature to create an avenue for felons to have gun rights restored? Used judiciously it makes as much sense as restoring voting rights for political reasons.
Would have to think about crimes that would disallow weapon possession, just as laws against political corruption should void the right to vote, for life.
Why not restore the God-given human rights of felons who have served their time?
Because felons have engaged in serious anti-social behavior (at least as defined by laws passed under constitutional government) and can’t be trusted to wield deadly force responsibly. Serving time in jail or prison is punishment for past crimes. It is not a factory for expiating sins or turning convicted criminals into responsible citizens.
Thanks Jeff!
When you’re pregnant and fending off an obviously stronger male attacker, WTF are you SUPPOSED to use, a fly-swatter?
Felon I possession laws are, I’M HOME, anathema to the 2nd Amendment. If you are too dangerous to own/possess/use a weapon outside of prison, then you’re also too dangerous to be released (or given a suspended sentence). But if you’re out, then your 2nd Amendment rights should be the same as everyone else’s.
Don’t even get me started on what the Founders would think of this utter Custer flucked situation - just the idea that a pregnant woman couldn’t protect herself by any and all means would have started the Revolution, if the Limeys hadn’t first tried to grab a bunch of guns.
“she had to defend herself and her husband against home intruder”
After the dude left she called her husband and he told her he didn’t know the dude and was calling a neighbor to come over.
She saw the car return, got the gun and opened the door for him.
Turned out that her husband’s ex-gf was in the car.
Neither is the law.
“Felon I possession laws are, I’M HOME....”
At home, she has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Sounds like she got screwed.
If you ask me - ANYBODY that is out of prison should be able to own a gun, with the exception of the mentally ill. If they are “okay” enough to be out of prison, they are okay enough to own a gun.
And if they aren’t to be trusted with a gun, they shouldn’t be trusted to be out of prison. BTW - I wonder how many thugs that are released from prison go get a gun their first week out?
Thank God Federal Laws passed by Congress OVERRIDE the US Constitution, otherwise this would NOT be possible.
But she also knew the terms of her deal. And had clearly violated them by gaving a gun in ger house.
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.