PDA

View Full Version : City Councilman Can't Keep Up With Gun Laws


jdberger
09-29-2007, 12:35 PM
From Redding, CA.

Apparently, California's gun laws are so complex and mercurial that not even City Councilmen (ex-Mayors) are able to keep up with them. Really, the State should assign you an attorney before you are even allowed to think about handling a gun.....:rolleyes:

Anyway, here's the story and a couple of links:

Potential gun charges won't affect Murray's job (http://www.redding.com/news/2007/sep/27/potential-gun-charges-wont-affect-murrays-job/)

By Ryan Sabalow (Contact) (http://www.redding.com/staff/ryan-sabalow/contact/)
Thursday, September 27, 2007

Should Redding City Councilman Ken Murray be charged with a misdemeanor alleging he failed to register four guns, it won't effect his position within city government, Redding's city manager said Wednesday.

"To the best of my knowledge, none of the allegations pertaining to Councilman Murray involve the city of Redding or the Redding City Council," City Manager Kurt Starman said.

Police allege Murray purchased four guns from his brother-in-law, Herbert Ray "Skip" Tyler, the 58-year-old chief executive officer of the Triple "R" Boys Ranch, and then didn't register the .357- and .22-caliber revolvers, and 9 mm and .40-caliber semiautomatic handguns.

Tyler, in jail on charges he stole more than a quarter-million dollars from the proposed Christian retreat for troubled boys, is accused of using embezzled cash to purchase the guns before selling them to Murray.

Murray, 65, said he bought the guns from Tyler about three months ago but said he didn't know they were purchased with the allegedly embezzled money. He said he bought the guns to help Tyler, who told him he was in financial trouble.

He says he did not think he had done anything illegal.

Murray reiterated Wednesday on KQMS, the station where the councilman hosts a morning radio show, that he was in the process of registering the guns and had gone to a gun dealer to start the registry process, according to a transcript of his remarks provided by the councilman to the Record Searchlight.

"I knew the guns needed to be registered as a matter of state law," Murray said. "I don't know the law as it relates to how many days or months I'm allowed to take care of the necessary paperwork. As far as I personally know, I have broken no law. If I did, it was inadvertent. I did complete all required paperwork at the time I acquired my other guns. The last time I purchased a gun was more than 25 years ago and, as I recall, it wasn't all that complicated."

Murray's purchase of the guns came to light as part of the investigation into Tyler, police said.

District Attorney Gerald Benito said Wednesday afternoon that he had not received Murray's case from the Redding Police Department and hadn't yet reviewed it.

Benito has said he may have a conflict of interest because he's known Murray for years.

He may forward the case to the California Department of Justice, Benito said.

California gun laws require handguns, even those swapped in a private-party transaction, to be registered at a licensed firearms dealer at the time of sale.

Starman said that since any charges that might be filed likely would be misdemeanors and the allegations do not pertain to city businesses, Murray would not be asked to step down or take a break from his duties until the case is resolved.

"I don't think there's an issue with the city of Redding at all," Starman said.

Reporter Ryan Sabalow can be reached at 225-8344 or at rsabalow@redding.com.

jdberger
09-29-2007, 12:40 PM
This is pretty laughable. Imagine if one of us tried this as an excuse.

I want to make a statement about the media reports involving my possession of handguns. Several months ago my brother-in-law contacted me, said he had financial trouble, and offered to sell me four hand guns. I told him I had no need for more guns but I would be happy to loan him or give him money to help him through is financial crisis. He turned me down saying he preferred to sell the guns. Several days later I asked if he had resolved his financial problems and he said no so I offered to buy the guns to help him
out. I wrote him a check and latter took possession of the guns.

I went to a local gun dealer and asked what hoops I had to jump through to register the hand guns. I was told I had to buy trigger locks, a gun safe and have both myself and the seller come to the dealership together and sign the paperwork transferring the guns to my name. I was also told that I needed to take a test mandated by the state prior to the transfer. The total cost was going to be about $130.

I had owned guns for a long time and asked if I could just take the test without studying. I was advised that the laws were significantly changed since I had last bought a gun, over 25 years ago, and that I should read the study book prior to the test taking. I asked for and latter received a book called Handgun Safety Certificate. It has been unopened on my kitchen counter ever since.

I knew the guns needed to be registered as a matter of state law. I donít know the law as it relates to how many days or months Iím allowed to take care of the necessary paperwork. As far as I personally know I have broken no law. If I did it was inadvertent. I did complete all required paperwork at the time I acquired my other guns. The last time I purchased a gun was more than 25 years ago and as I recall it wasnít all that complicated. The most recent hand gun I acquired was 12 years ago. I won it in a raffle. It took me months to get delivery from the gun dealer in the Bay Area. I filled out the paperwork that was mailed to me at the time and didnít have to take a test.

I have not knowingly committed any crime but that is for others to determine. When interviewed at my office by two detectives Monday afternoon I answered all questions openly and honestly. I invited them to my home where I retrieved the guns and turned them over. I verified the serial numbers of each gun on a list they had in their possession. I was told that they may have been purchased with funds embezzled from a non-profit and would be held as evidence in that case. That case does not involve me and
apparently if they were acquired with such funds would ultimately be returned to the non-profit at some future time.

jdberger
09-29-2007, 12:43 PM
ex-mayor-could-see-gun-charges (http://www.redding.com/news/2007/sep/26/ex-mayor-could-see-gun-charges/)

potential-gun-charges-wont-affect-murrays-job (http://www.redding.com/news/2007/sep/27/potential-gun-charges-wont-affect-murrays-job/)

Murray Statement (http://web.redding.com/web_extras/070927_murray.htm)

former-redding-mayor-investigated (http://www.redding.com/news/2007/sep/25/former-redding-mayor-investigated/)

I know that some on this forum are gonna call for a vigorous prosecution of this guy 'cause he's a public figure - but I'm wondering if that is the same as us eating our young.


Food for thought.

CavTrooper
09-29-2007, 1:04 PM
Why on earth would they even bother prosecuting this guy? Hes a (city) government official! Hes better than regular people!

bwiese
09-29-2007, 1:07 PM
We need friends in politics so we shouldn't be calling for his head.

However he's pretty damned stoopid. Pretty much everyone knows PPTs without dealer intervention in CA is illegal.

Fortunately it's only a misdemeanor.

jdberger
09-29-2007, 1:14 PM
We need friends in politics so we shouldn't be calling for his head.



Exactly - this is one of those "teachable moments" where others in government can see how the unrestrained legislation in Sacto really threatens them.

Politicians, as a breed, are ambitious. They like to move up the ladder. City Councilmen and Mayors like to become State Senators and Assemblymen.

It's nice to have someone who was a little "butt-hurt" in there when the next looney-tunes make everyone an instant felon dumb-*ss law comes down the pike.

This also might be somewhat helpful to the case running that is challenging the AW laws as too complex....(can't remeber the name).

SemiAutoSam
09-29-2007, 1:18 PM
Isn't it like in Monopoly ? with 4 houses you get a hotel.

With 4 misdemeanors you get a felony ?

LOL just joking.



We need friends in politics so we shouldn't be calling for his head.

However he's pretty damned stupid. Pretty much everyone knows PPTs without dealer intervention in CA is illegal.

Fortunately it's only a misdemeanor.

CavTrooper
09-29-2007, 1:50 PM
We need friends in politics so we shouldn't be calling for his head.

However he's pretty damned stoopid. Pretty much everyone knows PPTs without dealer intervention in CA is illegal.

Fortunately it's only a misdemeanor.

I disagree! We should be calling for his head on a platter. He needs to be prosecuted for every single crime he commited related to purchasing, transporting, keeping these weapons. Even if the crimes are just misdemenors, he should face the maximum penalty. At least it will be more exposure to the stupidity of the law. Not prosecuting him for his crimes is just another example of government officials doing whatever they want without consequence.

Besides, wouldnt these be considered gun crimes? Its crime, involves a gun, he should get 20 years automatically! No questions asked, go straight to jail. :willy_nilly:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

SemiAutoSam
09-29-2007, 1:55 PM
+1000 I agree as a government official he should set an example for the common man.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse isn't that what they always tell US ?


he should get 20 years automatically! No questions asked, go straight to jail.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

jdberger
09-29-2007, 1:57 PM
Just for fun, pretend that this is an ordinary Moe.

Would you also be calling for his head? Or is this an "eat the rich" response?

Class envy isn't very attractive.

If this was an ordinary guy, like BWO etc., we'd be rallying around him.

SemiAutoSam
09-29-2007, 2:04 PM
IF IF IF well its not what this guy is is one of the ruling class.

Hell yes make an example out of him.

Its not class envy its wanting those that make the laws accountable to them just like US.



Just for fun, pretend that this is an ordinary Moe.

Would you also be calling for his head? Or is this an "eat the rich" response?

Class envy isn't very attractive.

If this was an ordinary guy, like BWO etc., we'd be rallying around him.

jdberger
09-29-2007, 2:08 PM
IF IF IF well its not what this guy is is one of the ruling class.

Hell yes make an example out of him.

Its not class envy its wanting those that make the laws accountable to them just like US.

You're a regular Robespierre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_Robespierre), Sam.

CavTrooper
09-29-2007, 2:11 PM
Nope. This is a "equality" issue. If this was a regular joe, we would all be sitting here calling him a dumb *** for not knowing and following the law, saying that he deserves whatever he gets for BREAKING THE LAW. I dont see anything anywhere that says that Gov officials are exempt from the LAW.

Besides, If this does go to the DOJ, they have to prosecute, how would that look on them if they are running around trying to get people for non-crimes and they just overlook an actual crime?

eta34
09-29-2007, 2:11 PM
Ridiculous. So, if the guy works for the government and is a gun enthusiast, he is now beneath the common citizen gun enthusiast? I can only imagine how hard you guys would be pushing for prosecution if he was a cop. The hypocrisy here is staggering.

CavTrooper
09-29-2007, 2:21 PM
Yes, I am amazed at the hypocricy myself.
Here we have a group of citizens who previously advocated responsible and law abiding gun ownership, suddenly flipping sides and actually condoning breaking the law!

Simply amazing.

Oh and yes if it was a cop who broke the law, Id be wanting him prosecuted too. They are not above the law either (contrary to popular opinion).

CitaDeL
09-29-2007, 3:06 PM
This is just evidence of a broken system. And inside this broken system is inequality. Remove the requirements of registration with a dealer and 'poof' suddenly the system becomes more equitable for average 'joes'.

But the system thinks that average 'joes' are too dangerous to have equity in law...
which is more the reason to repeal requirements that treat gun owners like suspects and anticipate guilt rather than innocence when one desires to be armed.

berto
09-29-2007, 3:12 PM
Follow the rules or face the consequences. It doesn't matter if the rule is stupid or and it shouldn't matter if you're rich, poor, elected, badged, or not.

Liberty1
09-29-2007, 3:17 PM
Follow the rules or face the consequences. It doesn't matter if the rule is stupid or and it shouldn't matter if you're rich, poor, elected, badged, or not.

Yes, but that doesn't remove the moral obligation to back repeal of useless purchase and possession laws. I will take no pleasure in this man's trial and or conviction for an act which should be and perhaps one day again will be protected by our constitution.

Jury nullification would be a good thing to promote in a case like this.

dustoff31
09-29-2007, 3:30 PM
Yes, but that doesn't remove the moral obligation to back repeal of useless purchase and possession laws. I will take no pleasure in this man's trial and or conviction for an act which should be and perhaps one day again will be protected by our constitution. .

I agree with your principal. But I cannot agree with those who say "he violated a silly law, we should ignore it because we might benefit from his situation."

Need I point out 15 -20 million examples of this thought process?

KenpoProfessor
09-29-2007, 3:46 PM
Throw the damn lawbook at him, let him stew in the mess the politicians have made of this state and he'll start working for us trying to get his record expunged.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

jdberger
09-29-2007, 5:36 PM
Ridiculous. So, if the guy works for the government and is a gun enthusiast, he is now beneath the common citizen gun enthusiast? I can only imagine how hard you guys would be pushing for prosecution if he was a cop. The hypocrisy here is staggering.

Not true. At least from me.

A good precedent to set would be to show that these laws are so arcane, convoluted and unworkable that they are nigh impossible to follow. Even for a City Councilman or a cop.

Honestly, how may elected officials have heard of Harrott? How many cops? How many know of the legality of a MM grip or a mag-lock? How many FFLs know? Certainly not all of them, given the stories we've heard about FFLs refusing to transfer OLLs, FAL recievers, etc.

So, how is "throw the book at him" productive? It might satisfy a selfish desire for revenge against the system that caused this problem - but revenge is rarely productive.

dwtt
09-29-2007, 5:44 PM
This guy is a former mayer and a current council member. He's a liar because his excuse is typical of politicians who break the rules and get caught. They lie about not knowing what the law was.

bruss01
09-29-2007, 8:07 PM
If politicians who pass laws that restrict all of us, then turn around and break those laws but are given a "pass" because they're Fine Upstanding Citizens and Moral Pillars who couldn't POSSIBLY committed any intentional wrongdoing, well, then, that's perfectly all right, isn't it? </sarcasm>

If law makers and law enforcers flaunt the law either through neglect, ignorance or intent and are given a "pass" then they will not be motivated to see the injustice of those laws as applied to common, everyday ordinary citizens like you and me. When you let one of them get away with breaking the law that would be harshly applied to you or I, notwithstanding OUR ignorance of the law or negligence in failing to follow it, you make it plain that some folks are "above the law". When those folks are the ones who actually MAKE the law, you are formenting a recipe for tyranny.

Listen, I'm sure this guy, if his story is as he says, is not a bad guy and probably is friendly to 2nd amendment issues. But you cannot show any favoritism in his case, because the next common bloke who does the exact same thing will certainly NOT be the recipient of any preferential treatment. Enforcement of the law has to be EQUAL to all people, regardless of their connections, position, or status.

Once a few politicians start spending a night behind bars for breaking some of the laws they helped pass, thinking they only applied to "bad guys", you will see more of them starting to really read and THINK ABOUT the legislation they are passing into law. And maybe then, we will not be seeing so many stupid irrational unjust edicts entering into the law books.

KenpoProfessor
09-29-2007, 8:20 PM
Not true. At least from me.

A good precedent to set would be to show that these laws are so arcane, convoluted and unworkable that they are nigh impossible to follow. Even for a City Councilman or a cop.

Honestly, how may elected officials have heard of Harrott? How many cops? How many know of the legality of a MM grip or a mag-lock? How many FFLs know? Certainly not all of them, given the stories we've heard about FFLs refusing to transfer OLLs, FAL recievers, etc.

So, how is "throw the book at him" productive? It might satisfy a selfish desire for revenge against the system that caused this problem - but revenge is rarely productive.


And how many "common citizens" know there's laws for AW's in the PRK? I think you'd be quite surprised at how many folks don't even know they have an AW (only in the PRK) and never registered it. If one of them were arrested, charged, and convicted because they didn't know the law, why should this guy be any different? Your logic is a wee bit skewed yes?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Can'thavenuthingood
09-29-2007, 9:01 PM
A couple things to consider.

Is his position as Mayor a fulltime endeavor or does he have a fulltime job somewhere else? Here in my town the Council and Mayor all have other jobs, teacher, druggist, recycler etc. and the city business is part time. Everything is pretty much accomplished by the City Manager and staff personnel.

Also, I have explained to many folks in my neighborhood that when something big happens the system for gun buying will be shutdown and they won't be able to get a gun.
Naturally they are aghast and in disbelief as I speak blasphemy. This is America, I can get a gun anytime I want one. I say you better start the process now.

There are many gun law ignorant people out there. Many haven't the time or inclination to keep up with the laws. I'm not defending them, its just an observation. They have this thought about the Second Amendment and the ability to get a gun when needed.

As far as this Mayor goes, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think no special treatment in either direction is warranted. Though I think it odd that a member of the City Council is not vaguely familiar with all the gun control types and their attempts to create ordinances at the city level. This in itself would give the lie to his claims of ignorance.

Vick

jdberger
09-29-2007, 9:07 PM
If politicians who pass laws that restrict all of us, then turn around and break those laws but are given a "pass" because they're Fine Upstanding Citizens and Moral Pillars who couldn't POSSIBLY committed any intentional wrongdoing, well, then, that's perfectly all right, isn't it? </sarcasm>

If law makers and law enforcers flaunt the law either through neglect, ignorance or intent and are given a "pass" then they will not be motivated to see the injustice of those laws as applied to common, everyday ordinary citizens like you and me. When you let one of them get away with breaking the law that would be harshly applied to you or I, notwithstanding OUR ignorance of the law or negligence in failing to follow it, you make it plain that some folks are "above the law". When those folks are the ones who actually MAKE the law, you are formenting a recipe for tyranny.

Listen, I'm sure this guy, if his story is as he says, is not a bad guy and probably is friendly to 2nd amendment issues. But you cannot show any favoritism in his case, because the next common bloke who does the exact same thing will certainly NOT be the recipient of any preferential treatment. Enforcement of the law has to be EQUAL to all people, regardless of their connections, position, or status.

Once a few politicians start spending a night behind bars for breaking some of the laws they helped pass, thinking they only applied to "bad guys", you will see more of them starting to really read and THINK ABOUT the legislation they are passing into law. And maybe then, we will not be seeing so many stupid irrational unjust edicts entering into the law books.
You have some points, here...

However, "throw the book at him" as posted by others is, I think, counterproductive.

berto
09-29-2007, 9:11 PM
A good precedent to set would be to show that these laws are so arcane, convoluted and unworkable that they are nigh impossible to follow. Even for a City Councilman or a cop.


We already know these laws are impossible to follow. Some small time politico getting any more sympathy than the common citizen is wrong. The anger at any suggestion that this guy get a break is based on unequal treatment especially given that those in authority have a greater responsibility to know, understand and follow the law than the peons they oversee. This isn't about revenge, it's about equality and accountability.

Rascal
09-30-2007, 7:19 AM
I think that he should be prosecuted, like the common folks, because ONLY when the elite are treated like us commoners will the laws change for the better.
If he gets off , then there is no reason for him to try and change these stupid laws, but if he gets spanked good for this little indiscretion, that wold likely give him reason to want to change that.

eta34
09-30-2007, 12:01 PM
I am not arguing that he didn't break the law. I am not even arguing that he not get prosecuted. He should be treated the same as any other citizen. My disgust is with those who seem to revel in the fact that he is a government official and enjoy that he is in trouble.

jjperl
09-30-2007, 12:28 PM
The guy should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, the "I didn't know" wouldn't fly for us and it shouldn't fly for him.

Rascal
09-30-2007, 1:15 PM
I am not arguing that he didn't break the law. I am not even arguing that he not get prosecuted. He should be treated the same as any other citizen. My disgust is with those who seem to revel in the fact that he is a government official and enjoy that he is in trouble.

I agree with you. What we need to do is use this to our advantage. Yes he broke the law, but we should be letting him know that we are on his side and he has our support in trying to change these awful laws that would make instant criminals out of good honest people like him. ;)

You can catch a lot more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.
The Idea is to win people over to our side, Not make enemies.

Whitesmoke
10-01-2007, 9:31 AM
Wow....you guys are amazing. A gun enthusiast broke a law that shouldn't even exist and you guys want to destroy him. He SHOULD be treated the same as everyone else...I agree with that. But the "ignorance is no excuse" thing is not even close to reasonable. I guarantee every one of you guys are guilty of multiple misdemeanors that you don't even know about because they are written in some obscure law book somewhere. And I don't want your head on a platter for it either.

Oh....My father is a vietnam vet...a 1/5 Marine sniper who served a tour and an extension. He is a gun enthusiast that hasn't bought a gun in over 20 years....he doesn't know the current gun laws either. I was explaining to him the process last year and he was flabergasted by it all. Guess we should string him up if he bought a gun from his brother-in-law like this guy did....??:eek:

eta34
10-01-2007, 10:00 AM
Absolutely. Ignorance is no excuse. Your father's service means nothing to us. String him up. :rolleyes:

383green
10-01-2007, 3:05 PM
I do not believe that what the councilman did should have been illegal in the first place, so I would not call for his head on a platter for it. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see him get a get out of jail free card because of his government position if an ordinary citizen wouldn't in the same circumstances. Infringement of basic rights and unfair privileges for a ruling class are both bad things.

Thus, I hope that this situation will raise awareness of the ridiculous state of CA gun laws and open up some eyes in legislative circles, but that in the end this guy doesn't get crucified for a so-called crime that leaves no victims and which should not be considered a crime in the first place.

So, perhaps we should be helping this guy out, along with a message along the lines of "look, we've been telling y'all that our gun laws are all screwed up... now do you see what we mean?".

tgriffin
10-01-2007, 3:48 PM
While I dont think we should be calling for his head on a platter I do believe that he should be treated as equally as any of us would be in the same situation. He commited a crime, ignorance is no excuse, and he should be dealt with as if he was any normal person, regardless of his prior or current civil service.

Whitesmoke
10-01-2007, 4:06 PM
While I dont think we should be calling for his head on a platter I do believe that he should be treated as equally as any of us would be in the same situation. He commited a crime, ignorance is no excuse, and he should be dealt with as if he was any normal person, regardless of his prior or current civil service.

I agree 100%

dustoff31
10-01-2007, 4:46 PM
While I dont think we should be calling for his head on a platter I do believe that he should be treated as equally as any of us would be in the same situation. He commited a crime, ignorance is no excuse, and he should be dealt with as if he was any normal person, regardless of his prior or current civil service.


I agree as well. The trouble is, that if it were any of us they would have our head on a platter.

bruss01
10-01-2007, 4:50 PM
Oh....My father is a vietnam vet...a 1/5 Marine sniper who served a tour and an extension. He is a gun enthusiast that hasn't bought a gun in over 20 years....he doesn't know the current gun laws either. I was explaining to him the process last year and he was flabergasted by it all. Guess we should string him up if he bought a gun from his brother-in-law like this guy did....??:eek:

Or maybe now that he's been educated as to the state of the world, he will join us in helping to change things for the better? I'm constantly amazed by the number of people who FOUGHT for freedom, come home from the war and think "that settles that" and that the fight for freedom isn't an everyday thing that takes place not only on battlefields, but also every time there is an election, every time that legislation is discussed in the halls of the legislature. It must be galling to him to know that the freedoms he fought for are being sold out from under him, piecemeal, every day of the week.

Your father deserves honor for the service he has rendered. But there is still fighting to be done here at home, and I hope you can enlist him to continue to fight for what's right, for our freedoms. Maybe he will educate a few more of his peers down at the VFW who are a little behind the times now that you have educated him.