Gun Store Owner angry about light sentences for burglars of his store

[RamboLiberal]

After hearing two of the three men who robbed his gun store sentenced to two years in prison Wednesday, John Ciesielski walked out of U.S. District Judge Alan N. Bloch's courtroom disappointed.

"I just think the sentence was light, entirely too light, for what they did," said Mr. Ciesielski, who runs the Jolar Inc. gun store in New Kensington. He said the three men, ages 18 and 19 at the time of the 2009 theft, stole 14 guns, for which he had paid $7,167, and promptly sold them on the street for pocket money, after which at least one was involved in a shooting.

The defendants, all of whom lived close to the store, were described by their own attorneys as "a bunch of dropouts" and "knuckleheads." Their crime involved throwing a brick through the store window, turning a security camera, and tossing the guns into a car trunk.

Prosecutors said they sold the guns to a juvenile, and had asked another juvenile to conduct a diversionary shooting that never actually occurred.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11076/1132604-54.stm#ixzz1GuV0DzDW

I don't blame him. IMHO should be at least 10 years. A toddler was shot in the foot by someone using one of the stolen guns.

[onehandle]

1. Maybe he should have secured his store/stock properly.

A brick thrown at the window of a gun shop not too far from me would net you no more than a face full of glass.

[RamboLiberal]

2. True - any gun store should make it damn near impossible to break in

But still lack of bars on windows should not say "steal from me"! But we have a number of small gun shops that never experienced crime in the past.

[cleanhippie]

5. Maybe, but are you not in favor of tougher penalties for "gun crime"?

[DonP]

13. Oh, so he was asking for it

Interesting attitude. Since he didn't secure his store the way you think he should have he was asking for it. That reminds me of people with comments a few years back about assault and how women dressed.

How about blame the criminal and a judge soft on criminals, instead of the business owner?

[Katya Mullethov]

20. The "She asked for it" crowd is still quite vocal

Battery acid facials and nose cutting are posting record numbers .

[DissedByBush]

3. 20 years minimum!

Stealing guns, and then illegally selling to a minor, which resulted in the injury of another minor.

Tough on gun crime means exactly people like this.

But the judge probably would have loved to give the gun store owner 20 years if he didn't have his paperwork perfectly in order.

[applegrove]

4. So he likes more "regulations" when it is his stuff on the line. No surprise there.

Hypocrite!

[cleanhippie]

6. Really? Where did he say that?

Or did you make that part up?

[applegrove]

7. You don't think property/criminal law is a regulation???? WOW!

[rl6214]

9. Seriously?

Property/criminal law is NOT regulation, it is enforcement of the law!

Now if he had said "we need new laws to cover this event", that would have been regulation. All he wanted was for the sentence to match the crime, it didn't.

[applegrove]

10. LOL!

[one-eyed fat man]

21. So making your position clear

You are all for encouraging those rugged individualists who decry the antiquated notions of property and redistribute wealth using their initiative rather than waiting for a government program?

Why do you take the position that the thieves should be coddled and the shop owner vilified?

Is your hatred for guns so blindingly intense you think anyone engaged in the business deserves to be victimized by criminals? Or do you just favor light treatment of criminals who are not stealing from you?

[rl6214]

23. Kinda hard to be taken seriously with a post like "LOL"

[applegrove]

27. I didn't say whether or not I thought the criminal deserved or did not deserve his sentence.

I simply pointed out the criminal/property laws are regulations and when the regulation favours you, you think it the laws should be very, very strict. But when regulations don't favour you and your collection of assault rifles, they are horrid. I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy. I'm only trying to help clarify the debate.

[cleanhippie]

19. I think you are trying desperately to make a point that you are not even sure of.

But hey, you make for good entertainment.

[applegrove]

28. And I must have been 'dropped on my head as a child'. The insults always come out

when debating with the NRA. *Yawn*

[DonP]

40. Ah, it's a wise person that knows themselves. Congratulations of your self awareness.

But that's not the NRA you're responding to, it's another DU member.

You do know that even your snark is second class crap, just like whatever it is that you substitue for logic?

[applegrove]

43. It has been a while since I've run into somebody on the pro gun side who actually thinks for

themselves. The NRA responce pattern is always the same. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. Anything but an open discussion on the issues.

[cleanhippie]

41. Did I say that? No. Another attempt to deflect and obfuscate from your lack of argument.

yawn, indeed.

[applegrove]

44. Your the one who took the discussion away from the issue of what is a regulation.

Does that mean you have no responce? What is your take on laws being regulations? A simple direct question. Go ahead.

[Callisto32]

71. I will bite.

As far as enforcement of "regulations" goes, I have the following criteria, though my language edges more toward "Law/law."

Foundational principle: Human beings are self-owning.

First, I posit that actions can be separated into two broad classes; those that are criminal, and those that are not. By criminal I mean malum in se, not malum prohibitum. The distinction between these two classes I believe to be based upon whether or not harm comes to another person, or his property. If an action can be taken without harming someone or his property, the action is NOT malum in se. The underlying idea here is that if there is no one harmed, there is no victim, and if there is no victim, there can be no crime.

Second, that those actions that are not malum in se, are the actions that a person may properly say he has a right in which to engage.

Third, that that right extends to the point where continuing to engage in the would harm another or his property. For example, one would be able to say he has a right to fire a gun because it is possible to do so without harming another or his property, but not to fire a gun in someone's direction without his permission.


I would like to see strict enforcement against actions malum in se, and no enforcement against actions non malum in se. I believe the preceding to be the best criteria upon which to judges what the Law actually is, and how well the law forwards those policies.


There you go. Why I am pro gun ownership, with (at least I think) no NRA talking points.

[rl6214]

8. Regulations?

Enforce the fucking law and make sure the criminals do time for their crimes.

[applegrove]

11. So property laws should be enacted and then enforced to the nth degree. Because

to allow for robberies would deminish society. But no laws on assault weapons are allowed. Because they so enhance the lives of people. I see.:sarcasm:

[pipoman]

12. Holy shit..

Really? This is where you go with this story? This is a text book example of simple gun hate blinding all reality.

This is a crime which resulted in the shooting of a toddler and potentially scores of others. Not a simple robbery of 'property'. The vast majority of gun crime is committed by criminals with stolen guns. Less than 2% is committed with so called 'assault weapons'. This is the problem with most gun control fantasies. Regulation of nonexistent problems imposed on people who have committed no crimes, while dismissing the actual criminals who actually perpetuate crime...fucking amazing example..bookmarked for future reference.

[aikoaiko]

17. those who would reduce legal access to firearms are so despearate, they have to go to weird places

[rl6214]

24. What is an assault weapon and what have they done

that should make them illegal? Come on, come up with some examples of assault weapons used in crimes. No sarcasm :sarcasm:, no snarky comments, no emotional "they such, they're sick" comments, real debate. Can you do that?

[Euromutt]

25. It's not about whether it "enhances" or "diminishes" society

It's simply that from a John Stuart Millsian perspective, the only legitimate limitation on one person's freedom is when the exercise of that freedom would infringe on the freedoms of another. When you steal people's property, you deprive them of the freedom to use that property the way the want to. Possession of a particular type of firearm, however, does not inherently infringe upon the freedom of others.

And nobody says we can't have any laws on semi-automatic rifles with ergonomic furniture. We're fine with the same laws applying as to other firearms, e.g. you can't possess one if you've been convicted of a felony or adjudicated "mentally deficient"; you can't point one at another person or otherwise use it to threaten, or use it to shoot someone, or discharge it within the city limits or near an open body of water (if using lead projectiles), unless you're compelled to while acting in self-defense. That sort of thing.

[applegrove]

26. And you don't care about the arms race the police have had to get into with the criminals? Because

the market sells high powered weapons that then get stolen.

[rl6214]

29. Now it's about an arms race?

You've moved the goalposts so far on this one that they're not even on the playing field anymore.

[applegrove]

30. It is an arms race. The police in American cities need tanks. T A N K S!

[Merchant Marine]

31. Bullshit

The cops have the latest and greatest full auto street-sweepers available-if they want to deploy that sort of firepower. Citizens can't even buy new manufacture machine guns.

[Euromutt]

32. There is no "arms race"; a race requires at least two contestants

The fact that an increasing number of American law enforcement agencies have armored vehicles and other military-grade hardware isn't evidence that they need any of that stuff. We can trace the fact that they have it to the entry into law of the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act of 1981, which was passed because the Reagan administration decided to step up the so-called "War on Drugs." The Act made it possible for the Dept. of Defense to supply, among other things, military equipment (especially surplus military equipment) to state and local police forces at heavily subsidized prices. This has only gotten worse since 9/11, with fears of further terrorist attacks. There seems to be no city too small, and no county too sparsely populated to not have a SWAT team these days, whether they need it or not.

Almost invariably, they don't need SWAT teams. Ever notice how SWAT teams get used for the most routine of drug busts? That's because there's almost nothing else for them to do. The possible occurrences that are conjured up to justify SWAT teams' existence--hostage situations, barricaded suspects, terrorist activity--are far too rare.

The long and short of it is that police forces have overwhelmingly armed themselves against a threat that is largely non-existent. One exception is the replacement of the shotgun as the patrol officer's heavier firepower with AR-type "patrol rifles" ("patrol rifle" is what you call a so-called "assault weapon" when a cop's carrying it); the reasons for adopting those are legitimate, and they really don't represent an increase in lethality over the shotguns they're replacing. "Patrol rifles" are more ergonomic, in that they can be more readily adapted to the stature of the shooter; recoil is (much) less punishing; and they have increased precision, range and ability to penetrate body armor. Counter-intuitively, given that last point, they also have less risk of "overpenetrating" building materials. "Low recoil" buckshot is pretty standard these days, but to offset the reduction in penetration (of tissue) caused by reducing the kinetic energy, the manufacturers typically harden the pellets, which makes them more likely to pass through walls et al. intact. By contrast, a 55-grain .223 bullet tends to disintegrate while passing through walls, even more so than slower but larger handgun bullets.

[applegrove]

34. The SWAT teams get used for regular drug busts because the police are afraid

of assault rifles and ****.

[PavePusher]

37. Obviously you are quoting buzz-phrases and have no idea what you are talking about.

Can you even tell us what an "assault rifle" is?

[applegrove]

42. Typical NRA responce. I'll discuss this issue with someone who actually wants to talk and speaks for

themselves. I'm sick of these NRA talking points.

[PavePusher]

49. Cite to evidence, please? n/t

[Euromutt]

70. No, they get used because the federal government subsidizes drug busts

Under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/jag.html), local and state police forces receive federal funding to perform police work. An investigation by the Capital Times (of Madison, WI) found out that in practice, disbursement of funding to local police forces is tied directly to the number of drug-related arrests that force has made. By way of example, the paper cited Jackson Co., WI, which quadrupled the number of drug arrests from 1999 to 2000; the following year, its federal subsidy also quadrupled.

I strongly recommend you read Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids by Radley Balko (main page: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476 PDF file: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf). Yes, it's published by the Cato institute; read it anyway. The guys at Daily Kos did, and they liked it.

And even if the cops were "afraid of assault rifles and ****," any person who looks at the actual data and is inclined to think critically would have to ask "why?" The number of officers killed on duty has dropped by 50% over the past 20 years, even though the number of officers has almost doubled in the same period. In 1974, 279 LEOs were killed on duty (the worst year on record); in 2009, 116. The leading cause of death of LEOs on duty is motor vehicle collisions, not gunshot wounds.

[PavePusher]

33. Your unfounded claim about tanks (below), not withstanding....

please name a weapon or class of weapons that criminals have/use that police do not already have or can easily obtain....

Good luck with that....

[applegrove]

35. I said tanks and I meant tanks. Don't take my argument apart and tell me what I can or cannot

discuss. TANKS!

[PavePusher]

36. Except that they don't have "tanks", nor do they "need" them.

"They" (being a very few, usually urban, police departments) have a handfull, in total, of APV's (Armored Personnel Vehicles, much different than tanks, your ignorance again notwithstanding) used pretty much for media displays and propaganda. If you can come up with 5 times they've been used as a neccesity, then you have the bare glimmering start of an unformed talking point. Good luck with that.

[applegrove]

45. There is an arms race between the police and the criminals and gun/armour manufacturers love

it.

[PavePusher]

48. Again, please name what overpowering weapons criminals have access to....

that police do not.

You'll find it is actually the other way around. Police have full access to many things that are pretty much impossible for criminals to obtain in any useful quantities.

But, I'd be happy to see your evidence.....

[Katya Mullethov]

57. The squad automatic weapon

Topical money shot at 37 seconds and at again 1:00 through 1:30ish .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On4WUDLiMbU
I dig the way he racks that mata policia .

[X_Digger]

38. If you can't support your assertion, then don't complain when you get busted on it. n/t

[applegrove]

46. The police are buying Armoured personnel carriers. Because they have to win the arms race.

[PavePusher]

51. Actually, the very few in the hands of police forces are donated/surplus from the military.

Can you cite any instances where they were "needed"?

Edit: Wait a minute, I thought they were "tanks"? I wonder what else you are wrong/ignorant/misinformed about....

[X_Digger]

54. And that's because criminals have APCs?

Or what do criminals have that require the police to get an APC, hrmm?

I mean, that's how an arms race works. Tit-for-tat escalating arms and equipment.. you match then surpass your enemy, who then matches, then supersedes you.

So. Do criminals have APCs? Or do you expect them to jump past APCs directly to actual tanks?

Police forces have access to full auto rifles, sub-machine guns, and honest-to-goodness grenades, along with armor piercing ammunition.

What do criminals have that makes you think the police are outgunned, and in an arms race? Surface-to-air rockets? Biological and/or chemical weapons? Nukes? ICBMs?

.....

Or could it be that police departments like to justify their continued spending, and rather than give back allocated dollars in the face of dropping crime, they come up with even more asinine purchases?

[applegrove]

56. "Or what do criminals have that require the police to get an APC, hrmm?" Answer: assault weapons!!!

And some criminal organizations do reinforce their 'club houses' with steel and sh**. The criminals also have body armour. These are three examples of the arms race.

[X_Digger]

60. "assault weapons" aren't armor piercing..

There is no magic 'assault weapon' caliber that's supah dupah strong. They use the same rounds as grandpap's hunting rifles. 5.56 x 45mm is the same as grandpap's .223. 7.62 x 39 is similar to grandpap's 30-06.

The latter two examples you mention, being defensive in nature, not offensive, would not justify an APC (a defensive vehicle)- they would justify weapons that the police already have access to- armor piercing ammunition.

I know, I know, you're terrified of things you don't understand. Please do some actual research and get back to us.

[applegrove]

62. Being told I don't understand and am too misinfored to have my rightful opinon on an arms

race between police and criminals is typical of the NRA. And I refuse the NRA dance. I'm off to discuss with people who are not into obfustiating. The arms race, how property laws are an example of regulations the NRA wants toughened up, and how the Military Industrial Complex wants kids to grow up with guns so they then fantasize and then join the army at 18.....these are the three things I am interested in discussing right now. But not with someone who is a pawn. I have had enough pawns in my life and they are wholly unoriginal and dim in how they think. I like to be informed...to argue with someone and come out of it with better, not lesser, information. I'm not finding that here. So I'm off.

[X_Digger]

64. You gave a wharrgarble answer, what did you expect?

If you can't explain why you think "assault weapons" represent a significant danger as compared to other guns of the same caliber, what do you expect?

[oneshooter]

66. You are right about one thing, you are "off". n/t

[PavePusher]

72. You can not hold a meaningful opinion or discussion...

when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

If you can provide some credentials, and cite to some evidence to back up your claims, then we can have a conversation.

Until then, yes, your randomly spewed ignorance is going to be smacked around in public. Get used to it.



"I like to be informed..." Apparently a lie. Go figure...

[Euromutt]

73. In other words, you're only interested in talking to people who agree with you

It is a matter of unsupported assertion on your part that "the three thing <you are> interesting in discussing" even exist.

Besides, why would the "Military Industrial Complex" want kids to join the armed forces? There's way more money to be made developing nifty gadgets that use technology to compensate for lack of manpower, like UAVs, guided missiles, and what have you. Moreover, weapons systems don't need enlistment bonuses, extended medical care, moving and housing allowances, G.I. Bill benefits, pensions, etc. etc. which is all money that comes out of the defense budget but doesn't end up being paid to arms manufacturers.

You don't "like to be informed," you like to be agreed with, and your main problem with X_digger, PavePusher and myself is that we won't take it as read that your cockamamie ideas are correct. Instead of being supercilious, you might try developing some critical thinking skills.

[applegrove]

74. This all started because I thought it was hypocritical of some gun owner to want

strong sentencing for laws broken but no regulation on actual gun ownership. Nobody will talk about that. They all simply do the NRA dance and make the discussion about anything but the issue I brought up. And then the insults fly. ...............Yeah - I gotta get me some of that!!!!! I still have questions about the issues I bring up. But I'll save that for a real discussion with real people.

[PavePusher]

39. The weapons you seem to be talking about are not at all "high powered".

You really need to actually research the subject you seem to feel so strongly about.

[applegrove]

47. So you wouldn't say there has been an increase in criminals using assault weapons in the last 30

years?

[PavePusher]

50. Not really. Unless you can cite to evidence supporting your supposition? n/t

[applegrove]

52. "Not really"? Okay. That is enough of an answer for me. If you are going to be like that there

is no point in having a discussion with you. I'll focus on someone else for now.

[PavePusher]

53. So, you have no evidence to present. Got it.

Your "focus" is quite amusing. Unfortunately, it is also an old, failed pattern of rambling diatribe that has no chance of relavence. Good luck with that.

[X_Digger]

55. Rifle use in homicides is dropping.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

What makes you think that the opposite is true?

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[applegrove]

58. The crime rate has fallen as the baby boomers pass the age of aggression.

Gun crime and death by gun has gone up in the last 30 years per capita.

[X_Digger]

61. Wrong..

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm


........Total Firearm Crimes...Murders with Firearm...Robberies with Firearm
Year.....Number....Rate..........Number......Rate......Number....Rate
1973.....361,141...172.1.........13,072......6.2.......241,088...114.9
2007.....385,178...127.7.........11,512......3.8.......190,514....63.2


The rate for all firearm crimes, murder, and robberies-- all are down.

Any other misperceptions I can clear up for you?

[applegrove]

63. Do those per capita numbers include or exclude the 2 million people locked up in prison.

[X_Digger]

65. They are per capita.

But hey, let's do the math, and see if that 2M would make a difference. (And nice of you to attempt to move those goalposts.)


All firearm crime
per capita.....per capita-2M
127.9..........128.8........

Muder with firearm
per capita.....per capita-2M
3.82...........3.84.........

Robbery with firearm
per capita.....per capita-2M
63.3...........63.7.........



So no, it doesn't matter whether or not you include +/- 2M people. There is still less gun crime per capita than 30 years ago.



Population data obtained from US Census estimates.

eta: fixed tables

[Euromutt]

75. Of course, but not in the way you think

The term "assault weapon"--in the meaning of "semi-automatic firearm with military-looking features"--didn't exist 30 years ago, so there were zero crimes committed with so-called "assault weapons." Assuming that the number of crimes committed with so-called "assault weapons" now is more than zero, it follows there must have been an increase in the interim. But is that a meaningful observation?

[applegrove]

76. Yes. Because they are being used and cause an arms race with the police.

They are an issue. But thanks for admitting there was an actual increase in use of assault weapons after they were invented. You are the only one who has admitted that. It must have really hurt to say it out loud....so I commend you.

[aikoaiko]

16. That's a reach. Almost all gun organizations want tough(er) sanctions for crimes with guns

I'll spell this out in simple language for you since you don't understand the difference.

Criminals who use guns in there crimes = bad and deserve severe punishment

Law abiding folks who use guns = good and deserve freedom from unnecessary legislative infringements.

Hope this helps with your confusion.

[One of Many]

14. Way too light a sentence

These two as well as the people who bought the guns etc (if they were found) should be away for 10-20 minimum.

[applegrove]

59. A long jail sentence is simply a long regulation. How come regulations are good

when they protect gun owners but not so good when they protect the general public?

[dmallind]

67. There already are laws that protect the public from harmful uses of guns

Shooting somebody is illegal.

Stealing from them at gunpoint is illegal.

Stealing from stores (selling guns or toothpaste) is illegal too.

All these things are rightfully criminalized, and most people gunowners or otherwise are fine with significant sentences for these crimes - because they cause harm or loss.

What I infer from your posts is that you want mere possession of at least one kind of gun, which I suspect you would find it hard to correctly define or differentiate from other guns in any objective way (and you are not alone - the term "assault weapon" is incredibly vague and subjective as used in public discourse, and not just by gun control advocates), to be illegal - even though mere possession causes no harm or loss to others and even though this category of guns, however nebulously defined, is used in a minuscule ratio of gun crimes.

Why is the difference between actually committing a harmful act (theft and illegal gun sales to minors), and just possessing one tool among thousands with which it might be possible to commit one, but which is very rarely so used (owning an "assault weapon"), not as easily apparent to you as it is to me and obviously to many others?

[Straw Man]

68. How come?

How come regulations are good

when they protect gun owners but not so good when they protect the general public?

So.. laws against burglary only protect gun owners? Could you explain how that works? And the "assault weapons ban" protected the general public? Hard to make that case, since all it really did was outlaw a bunch of cosmetic features and make standard-capacity magazines more expensive.

Try to look at it like this: All laws should be enforced. Pointless firearms regulations should be repealed. Laws against burglary and all other forms of theft should be retained.

Is that simple enough for you?

[tortoise1956]

69. If you would stop mixing your metaphors long enough to read the comments...

You might realize that the people you are are insulting are simply asking that the laws be enforced. If you want to call it "regulation", go ahead. Either way, it comes down to making it clear to criminals that using a gun in a crime WILL land you in jail - no plea bargaining, no light sentencing. That would help to lessen gun crime even more than it is already.

And no, I am not a member of the NRA, though I did take their gun and hunter's safety courses when I was a kid. That was the only way my dad would let me even touch a rifle. I still remember qualifying for all the patches and most of the bars (I think I got out at the 7th or 8th bar). And no, I have never massacred anybody, pulled a gun on an innocent bystander, or even brandished a weapon. go figure...

[-..__...]

15. Theft from an FFL is a Federal offense...

punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

Selling or disposing of stolen firearms carries an even stiffer penalty...

. STOLEN FIREARM, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVE:
18 USC § 922(j). Prohibits the receipt, possession, concealment, storage, bartering, selling, or disposing of stolen firearms and ammunition
knowing or having reason to believe the firearm or ammunition is stolen. Punishable by up to 10 years.
18 USC § 922(u). Prohibits stealing or unlawfully taking away firearms from the business inventory of a Federal firearms licensee.
Punishable by up to 5 years.
18 USC § 924 (l) Prohibits stealing a firearm which has moved in commerce. Punishable by up to 10 years.

The punks could have easily been charged with 14 separate counts on any of the charges and sentenced to some serious time.

They should have gotten 10-20 years minimum; and that's in federal prison where time sentenced usually means time served.

(In before some hand-wringing sob-sister jumps in weeping about incarceration rates in this country and/or being supportive of the privatization
of prisons for corporate dollars).

:nopity:

[Katya Mullethov]

18. But they're -JUST- children

Well they were , now they're FISH . Adios pendejos

[spin]

22. If you sell firearms illegally ...

You should be considered an accessory to any crime that is committed with them.

That might reduce the number of guns sold illegally on the street.