Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:39 PM Aug 2012

If the only gun charge was brandishing

can we assume they were legal gun owners?


Elderly York man charged with brandishing gun at teens

YORK — An elderly man is facing a firearm charge after he allegedly displayed a gun at two teenagers he accused of trespassing on his property.

Thurman Owens, 84, was charged July 31 with brandishing a firearm, a misdemeanor, following an incident at his home near the intersection of Big Bethel Road and Hampton Highway.

http://articles.dailypress.com/2012-08-14/news/dp-nws-york-firearm-arrest-20120814_1_teens-firearm-charge-york-man

Army logistics employee shot by Chesterfield police after brandishing gun

CHESTERFIELD, Va. --

A Moseley man shot by Chesterfield County police after authorities say he pointed a revolver at an officer has been released from the hospital and charged with brandishing a gun and severely beating his sleeping wife with a baseball bat.

Russell D. Hornkohl, 51, was shot once in the right arm early Thursday just after midnight after police said he refused commands to drop his weapon after they stopped him about 6 miles from his home in the 4900 block of Kimmeridge Drive, off Otterdale Road.

Both Russell and his wife, Leah, are employed by the Defense Logistics Agency-Aviation at Defense Supply Center Richmond on Jefferson Davis Highway. Hornkohl, who is retired from the military, worked as a contract price/cost specialist, a spokeswoman said.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/local-news/2012/aug/24/tdmet02-army-logistics-employee-shot-by-chesterfie-ar-2151740/

Ruckersville man charged in road-rage incident

A 42-year-old Ruckersville man is facing three misdemeanor charges after reportedly brandishing a gun in a road-rage incident.

George Lewis Durham III was arrested around 8 p.m. Aug. 12 in the Sheetz parking lot in Ruckersville after the Sheriff’s Office got a report about a man driving a red Ford Ranger erratically on U.S. 29 and waiving a pistol, according to Greene County Sheriff’s Maj. Russell Lane.

He said Durham acted belligerently and was charged with assault and battery, brandishing a firearm and being drunk in public. All three counts are misdemeanors, Maj. Lane said.

http://www2.greene-news.com/news/2012/aug/23/ruckersville-man-charged-road-rage-incident-ar-2151319/

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If the only gun charge was brandishing (Original Post) SecularMotion Aug 2012 OP
You can assume nothing until it's proven, unless you're engaging in wishful thinking shadowrider Aug 2012 #1
If they were not legal gun owners SecularMotion Aug 2012 #3
Possibly. Brandishing is against the law whether they're legal or not. n/t shadowrider Aug 2012 #4
Illegal possession is a felony, while brandishing is a misdemeanor SecularMotion Aug 2012 #5
IMO, brandishing is more newsworthy. shadowrider Aug 2012 #6
The cut and paste spam brigade rrneck Aug 2012 #2
I doubt that those are first offenses, except for the old guy. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #7
Were they legal gun owners? SecularMotion Aug 2012 #9
Who knows. You posted the story, why don't you find out? n/t shadowrider Aug 2012 #11
You expect them to go beyond a mere Google dump? Are you kidding? friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #13
I figure karma's gotta be good to me sooner or later n/t shadowrider Aug 2012 #14
I'm just shocked that he/she actually posted a comment other than just the normal google dump rl6214 Aug 2012 #20
Unknown, but probably not. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #15
Why weren't they charged with unlawful use or illegal possession of a firearm? SecularMotion Aug 2012 #16
I was in exactly such an accident about two years ago. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #17
That sounds very unlikely, especially when auto insurance is involved SecularMotion Aug 2012 #18
As your buddy Hoyt once said, some things are so obvious they don't need to be proven n/t shadowrider Aug 2012 #21
Not in this case SecularMotion Aug 2012 #23
GSC described federal law gejohnston Aug 2012 #19
Sometimes the cops go with lesser charges as a matter of course. Buzz Clik Aug 2012 #8
"can we assume they were legal gun owners?" rl6214 Aug 2012 #10
Congrats on actually starting the conversation ManiacJoe Aug 2012 #12
Thank you for actually Jenoch Aug 2012 #22

shadowrider

(4,941 posts)
1. You can assume nothing until it's proven, unless you're engaging in wishful thinking
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:42 PM
Aug 2012

YYYYYYEEEEEAAAAAAAAAA. Google dump time.

 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
3. If they were not legal gun owners
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:54 PM
Aug 2012

wouldn't there be additional charges of illegal possession of firearms?

 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
5. Illegal possession is a felony, while brandishing is a misdemeanor
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 01:10 PM
Aug 2012

Wouldn't illegal possession be the more serious crime and more newsworthy?

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
2. The cut and paste spam brigade
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:50 PM
Aug 2012

sallies forth once again to do battle on the charred landscape of semantic distinction. All hail the power of endless repetition to spin ideology in the vacuum of imagination!

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
7. I doubt that those are first offenses, except for the old guy.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 01:21 PM
Aug 2012

The old guy might be senility. The other two guys almost certainly have prior offenses. Guys that do stuff like that have anger problems that get them in trouble with police fairly early in life.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
15. Unknown, but probably not.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 06:12 PM
Aug 2012

The Form 4473 asks about being dependent upon alcohol so the drunk likely wasn't a legal owner.

The guy that beat his wife probably wasn't as domestic violence will get a person banned.

But I will admit that I am speculating based on probabilities.

 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
16. Why weren't they charged with unlawful use or illegal possession of a firearm?
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 06:18 PM
Aug 2012

I've never heard of a car accident or reckless driving charge where an unlicensed or unregistered driver was not charged.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
17. I was in exactly such an accident about two years ago.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 06:34 PM
Aug 2012

The other guy had a felony warrant for his arrest (Warrant read "assume to be armed and dangerous&quot ,he fled the scene on foot, (He was 100% at fault for the accident), was caught by the cops a few minutes later. He had no insurance.

He was picked up on the warrant but no charges were added due to the accident. He was out of jail the next day.

I was mildly injured (really bad bruises), my car was totaled.

 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
18. That sounds very unlikely, especially when auto insurance is involved
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 06:43 PM
Aug 2012

Can you provide anything besides a personal anecdote to support your claim?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
19. GSC described federal law
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 07:12 PM
Aug 2012

a federal law may have been violated, or the article didn't happen to mention it.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
8. Sometimes the cops go with lesser charges as a matter of course.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 01:37 PM
Aug 2012

You were going 75 in a 50, they write it up as going 65. In some states, you can go to jail for going 25+ over the speed limit.

A husband and wife are beating the hell out of each other in a domestic dispute, but they only get written up for disturbing the peace. A citation rather than a visit to the hoosegow.

Is that the case here? Who knows. Maybe and maybe not.

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
10. "can we assume they were legal gun owners?"
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 03:05 PM
Aug 2012
You posted a comment!!!



Don't know what you meant by it but you posted one non the less.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
12. Congrats on actually starting the conversation
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 03:34 PM
Aug 2012

by posting a comment!

The assumption that they are legal gun owners is not a safe assumption based only on small news articles. "Illegal possession" is not exciting as far as selling newspapers is concerned. It is similar to reporting a car driver not stopping for a pedestrian versus him later speeding 100mph on the freeway.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
22. Thank you for actually
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 07:29 PM
Aug 2012

posting a question with your thread-starter here. It appears nobody so far has the answer to your question. I am sure you are attempting to make a point, but I'll be darned if I know what it is.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»If the only gun charge wa...