16 yo Boy who posed on myspace.com with guns convicted even though he had parental permission - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 16 yo Boy who posed on myspace.com with guns convicted even though he had parental permission (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 4/5/2006 7:02:45 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
So does anyone know if he was convicted of a felony or a misdameanor?

How will this affect his rights to gun ownership when he turns legal?

Will the parents have to sell their guns when the kid moves back into their house (if ever) since he would be a convicted person within possible possession of a firearm?

For the first offense, it's a misdemeanor. Since it's not a domestic violence misdemeanor, it won't impair his gun rights.

18-12-108.5. Possession of handguns by juveniles - prohibited - exceptions - penalty.
Statute text
(1) (a) Except as provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person who has not attained the age of eighteen years knowingly to have any handgun in such person's possession.

(b) Any person possessing any handgun in violation of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) commits the offense of illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile.

(c) (I) Illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile is a class 2 misdemeanor.

(II) For any second or subsequent offense, illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile is a class 5 felony.

(d) Any person under the age of eighteen years who is taken into custody by a law enforcement officer for an offense pursuant to this section shall be taken into temporary custody in the manner described in section 19-2-508, C.R.S.

(2) This section shall not apply to:

(a) Any person under the age of eighteen years who is:

(I) In attendance at a hunter's safety course or a firearms safety course; or

(II) Engaging in practice in the use of a firearm or target shooting at an established range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located or any other area where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited; or

(III) Engaging in an organized competition involving the use of a firearm or participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group under 501 (c) (3) as determined by the federal internal revenue service which uses firearms as a part of such performance; or

(IV) Hunting or trapping pursuant to a valid license issued to such person pursuant to article 4 of title 33, C.R.S.; or

(V) Traveling with any handgun in such person's possession being unloaded to or from any activity described in subparagraph (I), (II), (III), or (IV) of this paragraph (a);

(b) Any person under the age of eighteen years who is on real property under the control of such person's parent, legal guardian, or grandparent and who has the permission of such person's parent or legal guardian to possess a handgun;

(c) Any person under the age of eighteen years who is at such person's residence and who, with the permission of such person's parent or legal guardian, possesses a handgun for the purpose of exercising the rights contained in section 18-1-704 or section 18-1-704.5.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section, a handgun is "loaded" if:

(a) There is a cartridge in the chamber of the handgun; or

(b) There is a cartridge in the cylinder of the handgun, if the handgun is a revolver; or

(c) The handgun, and the ammunition for such handgun, is carried on the person of a person under the age of eighteen years or is in such close proximity to such person that such person could readily gain access to the handgun and the ammunition and load the handgun.

(4) Repealed.

Perhaps what the judge meant to say was that the house wasn't "under the control of" the parents while they weren't there. BS, I think because legally they are in control of the premises whether they're there or not, but I suppose the judge could have thought that the statute requires actual rather than just legal control.

(Regarding subsection 2(c): 18-1-704 and 18-1-704.5 relate to the use of force in defense of a person or against an intruder.)

Posted: 4/5/2006 7:42:17 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Boatright acquitted the boy on two charges in which he posed with the handguns but did not have his finger on the trigger.

He also stated in the myspace.com posting that people "deserve to die."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4595681,00.html

Sounds like there were three pictures, and his single conviction was because his finger was on the trigger in one of the pictures!!?!

The rational here is astounding."people dersive to die" does not equal "I'm gonna git you sucka" but I digress...

Posted: 4/5/2006 7:48:10 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Should not have convicted him. But the boy was stupid.

+1...

- georgestrings

Posted: 4/5/2006 8:05:16 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
while I personally wouldn't advocate it, I see no reason to call the kid "stupid" for posing with firearms.

How many pics and videos have we seen here of people posing with machine guns?

unlike shoot n scoot, no laws were being broken.

To me, the "angel of death" thing was the stupid part...

- georgestrings

Posted: 4/5/2006 8:06:26 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
while I personally wouldn't advocate it, I see no reason to call the kid "stupid" for posing with firearms.

The stupid part was likening himself to the angel of death and posting a list of people he wanted to kill.

Yup...

- georgestrings

Posted: 4/5/2006 8:12:11 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
SHIT IM 16 AND MY PROFILE PIC IS ME WITH MY M1A

heres my OLD pic of me that WAS on my myspace
img91.imageshack.us/img91/9850/tacticalblake0022gb.th.jpg
I need to lose the beret and work on my trigger finger

you do not appear to reside in Co...

Posted: 4/5/2006 8:27:06 AM EDT

[#7]

I thought that picture was a photoshop. with airsoft.

Hell, I can prove that Ted Kennedy killed Mary Joe, because I saw a picture on the internet of his car in the lake. I want that son of a bitch arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced for his crime. There is no statute of limitation on murder, after all.

Posted: 4/5/2006 8:36:10 AM EDT

[#8]

that kid has his head so far up his own ass, he can see his own teeth

Posted: 4/5/2006 8:41:48 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Kid will learn early lesson on how saying stupid things will get you in trouble. Mental Darwin effect.

Too bad our rights are suffering due to their stupidity.

This is a stupid comment. There are pictures of me @ 13/ 14 years old with handguns and rifles. While my Dad was taking the picture, he is not IN the picture, thereby, with these screaming meemies, I am defacto in illegal possession of a firearm.

A 16 year-old should NOT have this happen to him. Do your kids love to shoot guns? This sort of shit will traumatize not only this kid but hundreds of others like him, who without this incident, would not FEAR handling a weapon that they are parentally approved to handle. This is just another attack on our rights.. MAKE KIDS THINK THAT ANY HANDLING OF A GUN IS WRONG AND THEY WILL GET PUNISHED.

Posted: 4/5/2006 8:48:55 AM EDT

[#10]

Kid's a dumbass, but this is wrong.

Posted: 4/5/2006 8:52:06 AM EDT

[#11]

You all are under the impression that your children belong to you.

Those days are long gone.

"11. Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right. "

www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris_en.html

Posted: 4/5/2006 8:57:11 AM EDT

[#12]

I still want to know when a photograph became conclusive evidence. I can see a photo of a crime scene as coroborating evidence... But to be the only evidence?

Is holding a gun in a picture the same as child pornography? The very existance of the picture is conclusive proof?

Posted: 4/5/2006 9:37:35 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy crap! The ball is rolling toward a society like in the movie "Demolition Man".

Be well lu380...

I'm moving into the fucking sewers!

lu380, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute.

DAMN YOU!!!!!!

Gruntled, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute.

Now that's just funny.

TXL

Posted: 4/5/2006 1:19:14 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
while I personally wouldn't advocate it, I see no reason to call the kid "stupid" for posing with firearms.

The stupid part was likening himself to the angel of death and posting a list of people he wanted to kill.

Posted: 4/5/2006 3:00:55 PM EDT

[#15]

Being stupid is not illegal, (except for Colorado apparently) doing stupid things might be.

I sense an appeal coming, then again Juvie Courts have a lot of latitude in how they approach the crimes and punishment. Musta been some of the CA gunowners that left rather than fight the good fight with us.

Posted: 4/5/2006 6:28:46 PM EDT

[#16]

Question,
If someone had a pic of just their rifle, would that cause any trouble?

Posted: 4/5/2006 6:33:41 PM EDT

[#17]

profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=67039184

COME AND GET THEM

Posted: 4/6/2006 9:53:34 PM EDT

[#18]

Since the other thread on this got locked for being a dupe, I'll copy/paste my post from it:

Quoted:
Quoted:
http://cbs4denver.com/crime/local_story_095181805.html

(AP) GOLDEN, Colo. A teenager who posted Internet photos of himself posing with guns, including one photo captioned "Angel o' death on wings o' lead," has been convicted of possession of a handgun by a juvenile.

Defense attorney Barrett Weisz said he would appeal.

The Evergreen High School student was acquitted on two other charges of handgun possession Tuesday.

The 16-year-old boy's photos were posted on the popular social networking site MySpace.com. He posed with a number of rifles and a .45-caliber pistol, a .22-caliber revolver and a .357-caliber revolver.

Juveniles in Colorado are not allowed to possess handguns, but the law allows parents to give their children permission to possess guns in their homes.

The boy's parents testified that their son had permission to handle the weapons.

The father, a gun collector who is an airline pilot and retired Air Force pilot, said he gave the boy and his brother extensive training in the safe handling of weapons.

"That doesn't mean juveniles could run around the house and do whatever he wanted with the gun," Jefferson County District Judge Brian Boatright said, noting that the father testified that his sons were not allowed to load or fire the weapons unless he was present.

The teen, who has been held in detention since his arrest in February, was to be sentenced June 1. Boatright set bond at $5,000 and ordered that the boy be evaluated and that a safety plan drawn up before he could be freed.

Evergreen High School is in the same district as Columbine High School, where two teenage gunmen killed 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves in 1999.

Unfreakingbelievable, but doesn't surprise me seeing that's it's right by Columbine, Colorado. How do the courts get away with this? Also note he's been detained since February.

To be perfectly honest, this is the part that's most disturbing to me. The courts regulating the "behavior" (for want of a better word) of a lawful activity by imposing additional "sanctions" (again, for want of a better word).

Though it could be distinguished, this isn't too far from "Yes, the law says you can legally possess that gun, but since you have children you must keep it in a safety deposit box".

Posted: 4/6/2006 10:03:03 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Being stupid is not illegal, (except for Colorado apparently) doing stupid things might be.

I sense an appeal coming, then again Juvie Courts have a lot of latitude in how they approach the crimes and punishment. Musta been some of the CA gunowners that left rather than fight the good fight with us.

Interestingly enough, PaDanby, I was thinking about just this thing this evening.

I'm a native-born Texan, so it's moot for me, but I was thinking about all the "That's what so-and-so gets for being too dumb to move out of CA" comments that routinely pop up. Then I thought, you know what, those ppl who decide to cut-n-run instead of digging in their hells to [to borrow your words] "fight the good fight" are complicit in the leftward shift of the state.

It's certainly not the first time I had the thought, but I just found it interesting that you would post about it shortly after I thought about it........ in a thread about thought crime!

Carry on, folks.

Posted: 4/8/2006 11:28:00 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So does anyone know if he was convicted of a felony or a misdameanor?

How will this affect his rights to gun ownership when he turns legal?

Will the parents have to sell their guns when the kid moves back into their house (if ever) since he would be a convicted person within possible possession of a firearm?

For the first offense, it's a misdemeanor. Since it's not a domestic violence misdemeanor, it won't impair his gun rights.

<snippage of statute text corroborating John's point

Perhaps what the judge meant to say was that the house wasn't "under the control of" the parents while they weren't there. BS, I think because legally they are in control of the premises whether they're there or not, but I suppose the judge could have thought that the statute requires actual rather than just legal control.

(Regarding subsection 2(c): 18-1-704 and 18-1-704.5 relate to the use of force in defense of a person or against an intruder.)

John, I agree with you on that. They are certainly legally responsible for the premises. Their kid has a party, someone tumbles down the stairs, the bannister railing wasn't properly secured, large settlement to injured party.

Posted: 4/8/2006 11:31:20 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
That judge sounds like a fucking asshole, and he needs his teeth kicked out.

I wouldn't be too quick to kick the judge's teeth out. Does anyone else know if this is "par for the course" in this judge's chambers? Or is it anomalous?

Could the judge have been giving the kid and his family a "gimme" path to appeal? i.e. Judge blatantly ignores letter of law (prohibition plus clear exemption), family appeals, wins easily, now that ruling has a bit more weight of law behind it?

I guess it would also depend on whether the appeal "victory" would remand the case back to the lower court to be decided "correctly" or if the appeals court would do anything to/with it.

This thread would be much more fun in the Legal forum.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 16 yo Boy who posed on myspace.com with guns convicted even though he had parental permission (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us