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.
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.
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”?
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.
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.
“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.
Nothing in that article disproves my previous statement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Do you honestly believe that any State has the right to criminalize a plant? “
Why not?
Why?
Is someone running for office?
“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.
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
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.