Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pregnant Woman Who Shot and Killed Intruder Charged for Illegal Possession
The Truth About Guns ^ | 09/03/18 | Dan Zimmerman

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Arkansas
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last
To: JamesP81

Then this shouldnt be an issue fo her.

Courts have found that felons can use a gun in self defense if their life is in danger or protecting others from severe harm/death. It just cant be their gun, being prohibited from having a personal weapon doesnt mean under those circumstances they cannot use another persons weapon.


61 posted on 09/03/2018 7:01:25 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

You could save a lot of hate by 1) learning to read properly, and 2) refraining from projecting opinions onto others. No where do I opine that the woman is even guilty, much less that she would deserve a 24 year sentence (if all she did was kill a home invader, I’d rather give her a medal). The article presents one side of the story (the defendant’s). That’s great for getting people worked up, but not for conveying the whole truth.

I shouldn’t encourage a fool, but who does “we” refer to in your last statement, and what “position in the civil society” is it that you “will destroy”?


62 posted on 09/03/2018 7:20:41 PM PDT by Chewbarkah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

I’ve never believed people lose their right to self-defense just because they have done time in jail serving felony sentences. It is not logical to deny them their right. If you honestly cannot trust them with a gun, then you should not let them out of prison to begin with.

Criminals will always get guns if they want to. Denying them legal guns just makes them commit another crime. Which is idiocy.

That said, if I were a felon, I would simply use a black powder muzzle loading pistol for defense. It is a pain to load, but it is legal for felons to own, being a “firearm accessory” rather than a firearm under the law. A crossbow is another reasonable means of home defense, but single shot unfortunately. A cross bow would have done her not good, but a nice 1851 Navy black powder pistol would have done as good a job as whatever she used.

That is what I would have loaded at home if I was a felon with my right of self defense denied.


63 posted on 09/03/2018 7:23:27 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (End the Mueller Gestapo now. Free the Donald.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

Under the law, a felon my not live where guns are available. So technically, a married couple are prohibited from owning guns if only 1 of them is felon, even though the other is not.

That is the law. It is a stupid law.

I for one don’t believe you lose your 2nd Amendment rights just because you have a felony conviction. I would love to see that law changed. Even through it would allow a lot of criminals to legally own guns, they are going to get them illegally anyway.


64 posted on 09/03/2018 7:26:37 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (End the Mueller Gestapo now. Free the Donald.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

“Under the law, a felon my not live where guns are available. So technically, a married couple are prohibited from owning guns if only 1 of them is felon, even though the other is not.”

I’d like to see statute or Case law cited on that, because frankly, I don’t buy it. You don’t get to deny a person their rights because the person they live with have had theirs denied. That’s pretty much a slam dunk civil rights case.


65 posted on 09/03/2018 9:43:56 PM PDT by JamesP81 (Traitors are more dangerous than enemies. Vote and act accordingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Nothing in that article disproves my previous statement.


66 posted on 09/03/2018 9:47:31 PM PDT by JamesP81 (Traitors are more dangerous than enemies. Vote and act accordingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

The state of Arkansas seems to disagree.

It might be like the 1986 FOPA. This law states that you can transport a firearm cased through any jurisdiction you are passing through as long as it’s legal at your destination, and even if the weapon is otherwise illegal in jurisdictions you pass through on the way.

IOW I could transport 30 round magazines through New York and Massachusetts if traveling from New Hampshire to Pennsylvania. That’s federal law. And it doesn’t matter. If I get pulled over in NY I’ll go to jail, federal law be damned. After I’ve spent 30 grand on lawyers, lost my job due to being in jail and defaulted on my home loan for lack of a job, and after he state has stolen and “lost” my property, I’ll finally “win.” This might have to happen on appeal in a federal court on appeal of a conviction since NY gives not a single damn about federal laws protecting gun owners.

I imagine it is the same with Arkansas in this case. They don’t care about common law in this case. They’ll ignore it and do whatever they want, with the blessing of voters who keep re-electing them.


67 posted on 09/03/2018 10:00:53 PM PDT by JamesP81 (Traitors are more dangerous than enemies. Vote and act accordingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman; Pollster1
Why not restore the God-given human rights of felons who have served their time?

In this case it would make no difference, she had not served her time. She was under a suspended sentence.

She would still be a prohibited person.

68 posted on 09/04/2018 12:39:33 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green
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.

If you have teens or pre-teens here is a perfect example to have them read of why it is vitally important to choose their friends carefully.

It is also a very good reason to reserve the right to use your veto if your children choose poorly.

69 posted on 09/04/2018 1:04:50 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
Says that she was charged with possession of firearms from Nov 7 thru Dec 7, not just Dec 7.

They're probably charging her for knowingly living in a house with guns.

Generally felon cannot live in the same house that contains firearms because they have access.

70 posted on 09/04/2018 5:30:11 AM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: sargon

“Do you honestly believe that any State has the right to criminalize a plant? “

Why not?


71 posted on 09/04/2018 6:23:58 AM PDT by TexasGator (Z1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green
Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6!
72 posted on 09/04/2018 6:25:37 AM PDT by MosesKnows (Love Many, Trust Few, and Always Paddle Your Own Canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green
more than nine months after the shooting

Why?

Is someone running for office?

73 posted on 09/04/2018 6:27:25 AM PDT by MosesKnows (Love Many, Trust Few, and Always Paddle Your Own Canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

“So she’s charged with possession for the short time it took her to pick up a gun and defend her own life? “

One article lists five guns found in apartment.

Another article states three guns found in HER closet.

Why is she now referred to as NOBLE but at time of shooting as TRAN.


74 posted on 09/04/2018 8:05:41 AM PDT by TexasGator (Z1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator
The article seems to raise more questions than it answers. Typical for what passed for an article in some quarters these days.

You never know if you're getting information about something that happened or just seeing the opening spinning round for an SJW screed they're planning to tie to what they're "reporting" on

75 posted on 09/04/2018 9:29:16 AM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson