HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » CeaseFire employee/gang m...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:10 PM

CeaseFire employee/gang member charged with kidnapping and rape

Bloomberg and MAIG loses an average of four mayor members to the criminal justice system. While there have been a couple of really bad ones like Bob Filner and Gary Becker, most have been for run of the mill corruption.
and then there is this guy:
Hernandez faces 36 counts charging him with sexually assaulting and kidnapping a teenage girl while he worked for the program, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned. He’s among at least nine employees of the anti-violence program to face serious criminal charges in recent years.

snip

Hernandez is a ranking member of the Maniac Latin Disciples gang, prosecutors said. He was sentenced to prison for a 2006 gun conviction and a 2005 drug conviction, court records show.

Tio Hardiman, a former director of CeaseFire Illinois, said he was unaware of Hernandez’s continued involvement in a gang. But he said Hernandez was effective in cooling off conflicts in Humboldt Park and Hermosa.

http://www.suntimes.com/28283937-761/crime-fighter-and-rapist-ceasefire-worker-charged-in-attacks-on-teen.html#.U73XFXVdVzB

These guys in Texas may be jackasses, but come, really?

63 replies, 1815 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply CeaseFire employee/gang member charged with kidnapping and rape (Original post)
gejohnston Jul 9 OP
blueridge3210 Jul 9 #1
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #2
friendly_iconoclast Jul 9 #3
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #5
friendly_iconoclast Jul 9 #7
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #9
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 10 #38
Bjorn Against Jul 10 #40
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 10 #41
gejohnston Jul 9 #4
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #6
friendly_iconoclast Jul 9 #8
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #10
friendly_iconoclast Jul 9 #11
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #12
gejohnston Jul 9 #13
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #15
gejohnston Jul 9 #17
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #19
gejohnston Jul 9 #24
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #25
gejohnston Jul 9 #27
friendly_iconoclast Jul 9 #18
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #20
friendly_iconoclast Jul 9 #23
gejohnston Jul 9 #14
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #16
gejohnston Jul 9 #21
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #22
gejohnston Jul 9 #26
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #28
gejohnston Jul 9 #29
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #30
gejohnston Jul 9 #31
Bjorn Against Jul 9 #32
gejohnston Jul 9 #33
Jenoch Jul 10 #35
Bjorn Against Jul 10 #36
Jenoch Jul 10 #37
ileus Jul 10 #34
friendly_iconoclast Jul 10 #39
jimmy the one Jul 11 #42
gejohnston Jul 11 #43
jimmy the one Jul 11 #44
gejohnston Jul 11 #48
jimmy the one Jul 11 #45
friendly_iconoclast Jul 11 #46
gejohnston Jul 11 #49
jimmy the one Jul 16 #50
gejohnston Jul 16 #55
jimmy the one Jul 16 #51
gejohnston Jul 16 #54
jimmy the one Jul 18 #57
gejohnston Jul 18 #59
jimmy the one Jul 18 #61
gejohnston Jul 18 #62
shedevil69taz Jul 11 #47
jimmy the one Jul 16 #52
jimmy the one Jul 16 #53
shedevil69taz Jul 17 #56
jimmy the one Jul 18 #58
gejohnston Jul 18 #60
beevul Jul 19 #63

Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:20 PM

1. Well, he would be a subject matter expert on criminal use of firearms. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:22 PM

2. You mean a former employee who was fired back in April

You may want to change your subject line because your own link says he was fired last April.

Hernandez’s employment with CeaseFire ended in April, a University of Illinois at Chicago spokesman said.


http://www.suntimes.com/28283937-761/crime-fighter-and-rapist-ceasefire-worker-charged-in-attacks-on-teen.html#.U73XFXVdVzB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:30 PM

3. He worked there before, during and after the crime

Not only that, he got promoted while it was going on:

Hernandez, 46, started as a temporary worker in December 2010 before becoming a $16-an-hour “violence interrupter” in May 2013, records show. The program is affiliated with the University of Illinois at Chicago.

On April 16, 2012, he allegedly took a 17-year-old girl to a White Sox game and plied her with alcohol. Afterward, he allegedly sexually assaulted her in a junkyard. The assaults continued through August 2013, prosecutors said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:38 PM

5. So do you expect every employer to monitor their employee's activities outside of work?

I don't know what your point is, they fired him. Do you believe all employers should be held liable if their employees do wrong behind their backs?

CeaseFire terminated the employment of this guy as soon as his crimes were revealed. The NRA on the other hand keeps electing and reelecting to their Board of Directors an admitted pants pooping pedophile in Ted Nugent as well as Oliver North who supplied arms to a terrorist group.

Tell me which is worse, a group who has an employee who commits a crime and then fires that employee immediately after the crime was revealed, or a group that keeps reelecting a pedophile and an illegal arms supplier to their Board of Directors long after their crimes were revealed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #5)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:48 PM

7. He wasn't fired immediately after the crime was revealed

And "They're no worse than the NRA!" is hardly a ringing endorsement
especially as I despise the NRA...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:59 PM

9. I guess I should rephrase that, we don't know if it was immediate but it did happen shortly after

We don't know when CeaseFire learned of the crime so I will acknowledge I can't prove the firing happened immediately. We do know however that he was fired three months ago as a result of his crime. Just because the crime happened in February does not automatically mean CeaseFire learned of it in February. Do you have any evidence of anything nefarious going on behind the scenes? If so please provide the evidence rather than spreading innuendo suggesting CeaseFire holds some responsibility in this guy's crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 01:29 PM

38. "Do you believe all employers should be held liable..."

The entire gun control movement hinges on having good people held liable for the actions of criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 01:36 PM

40. That is completely false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #40)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 01:41 PM

41. orly? The daily google-dump is nothing more than an effort to highlight the misdeeds of one person

and use it to impugn all gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:31 PM

4. He was still in their employ when he allegedly committed the crimes

that according to the report started in April 2012, he was arrested in February 2014 and was fired in April 2014. I stand by my title.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:43 PM

6. He was fired. Period. He is no longer an employee, your subject line is false.

Pants pooping pedophile Ted Nugent and illegal arms supplier Oliver North were never fired however. The NRA continues to keep electing them to their Board of Directors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:50 PM

8. Fine. I'll happily stipulate that CeaseFire is no worse than the NRA

Unfortunately for you, they're also no better than the NRA...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:01 PM

10. So you see no difference between firing a criminal and re-electing one?

I think most people would think that an organization that fires those who do wrong is better than one who keeps reelecting them to leadership positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #10)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:09 PM

11. CeaseFire is run by well-meaning ninnies, NRA's board is downright malevolent

CeaseFire/Cure Violence is at least marginally better in that it's the employees
that are the criminals and not the board members. Yeah, I'm also looking at you,Everytown For Gun Safety...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:10 PM

12. Which criminals are on Everytown's board?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #12)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:24 PM

13. Everytown is Bloomberg and his employee Shannon Watts

Who before starting Voxpop Public Relations LLC, who created MDA, Watts worked as head PR flack for Wellpoint and Monsanto.
There is no board, just Bloomberg and his paid PR firm, Voxpop, and lobbying firm, Raben Group, who employs Mark Glaze the former "director".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:28 PM

15. I don't like everyone on the board, but that does not make them criminals.

Oliver North was convicted of a felony and only got charges later dropped because of a technicality. Ted Nugent has actually waved a gun on stage threatening to kill Obama and Hillary. Everytown may have some people with bad stances on issues not involving guns, but they don't have any pedophiles or arms suppliers that I am aware of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:37 PM

17. some former members of MAIG

were mayors who were convicted of possessing child porn while members of MAIG. See and Gary Becker and Richard Corkery. Oh, don't forget Bob Filner. Bloomberg loses an average of four mayors a year to the criminal justice system. Oh, and this guy
While he isn't a member of MAIG or Everytown, there is always Leland Yee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:40 PM

19. So former members, but no current members

Both sides have their losers, the difference is that the anti-gun side fires their lawbreakers while the NRA keeps re-electing theirs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:51 PM

24. their names were removed from the list once they were removed as mayors

It isn't like Bloomberg is going to start a separate FMAIG for former mayors. Besides, while Nugent is a loud mouth buffoon and an asshole, he has never been convicted of a crime. As for North, I think the ACLU was right. I also think he was involved in cocaine trafficking for the Contras. But that's two out of how many? Compare that with 20+ MAIG members. This year, there will probably be another four or five.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #24)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:55 PM

25. So now you are a psychic that is predicting 4-5 crimes in the next year

Once again you are saying crap with no evidence to back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #25)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:56 PM

27. I said probably based on historical trend

It has been the case since year one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #12)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:37 PM

18. There's one crypto-fascist who liked to use his "own private army"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5076002&mesg_id=5076002

to spy on peaceful Muslims:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024830968

stop and frisk people 'walking while brown/black':

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022553815

and arrest people for exercising their right to assembly:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/12529659



Thu Jun 12, 2014, 02:32 AM

Star Member eridani (41,561 posts)

New York City Agrees to Largest Occupy Wall Street Settlement Ever

http://www.nationofchange.org/new-york-city-agrees-largest-occupy-wall-street-settlement-ever-1402499824

During Occupy Wall Street’s heyday in 2011 and 2012, the NYPD made them pay, again and again and again, for exercising their right to assembly and free speech. Nearly three years later, New York City taxpayers are still paying for the NYPD's approach to policing lawful protest. Today, lawyers announced the largest settlement with New York City yet, with the city paying out $583,024 to 14 protesters who were arrested for disorderly conduct on January 1, 2012.

Sources familiar with today’s settlement said that that the case was ready to go to trial before Judge Shira Scheindlin until a few months ago, when, while being deposed for the trial, a senior NYPD official who was present during the arrests was unable to point out in videos of the event a single moment when any of the defendants committed any act of disorderly conduct.

According to the protesters' complaint, the demonstrators were part of a march passing through the East Village that night when police ordered them to disperse.

“This was a constitutionally unlawful order,” said Wylie Stecklow, a lawyer for the protesters, at a press conference at City Hall today. “The march was not yet blocking the sidewalk, and just minutes before this unlawful dispersal order, the police had ordered the marchers to keep walking.”




But he vocally denounces guns in the hands of the non-elite, so some DUers find
him just peachy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #18)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:41 PM

20. I am no fan of Bloomberg, but what crime has he been charged with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #20)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:51 PM

23. I just showed you a few he's committed (not that he'll likely be charged with any)

In a just world, he'd be down on RICO charges for conspiracy to violate:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


...but we all know that ain't gonna happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:25 PM

14. He was still an employee after the arrest

As for Nugent and North, take it up with the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #14)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:33 PM

16. He was fired three months ago shortly after the arrest

Do you know what happened between his arrest and his firing? Do you have any evidence of anything nefarious going on in the background? If so please present your evidence rather than implying the organization was somehow tied to this guy's crimes.

Your subject line is an outright lie, someone who was fired three months ago is not an employee they are a former employee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #16)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:44 PM

21. ever hear of the silver rule?

Do you know what happened between his arrest and his firing?
No, but I have to wonder what took so long.
Do you have any evidence of anything nefarious going on in the background?
I never said there was. He was and is an active member of a criminal gang.
If so please present your evidence rather than implying the organization was somehow tied to this guy's crimes.
If it were some pro 2A group, some gun control advocate certainly would. It did remind me of Big Tim Sullivan. While I have no evidence, nor did I claim that one had anything to do with another. I was however applying the silver rule: do unto others as they would do unto you.

Your subject line is an outright lie, someone who was fired three months ago is not an employee they are a former employee.
the crimes happened while an employee, so not a lie. If I did change it, it would also be misleading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #21)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:49 PM

22. So in other words you have no evidence, only innuendo

Calling him a former employee would not be dishonest, calling him just an "employee" suggets that he is a current employee when that is completely false.

So you have now admitted that you have no clue what happened between the time he was arrested and the time he was fired, you have no knowledge of when the employer found out about the arrest, you don't know what was happening behind the scenes in the termination process, all you have is innuendo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #22)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:55 PM

26. That wouldn't make them competent employers would it?

How would he explain not showing up for work the next day? Call in sick after the arraignment? Call in sick while waiting for the bailbondsman? Lame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:58 PM

28. I don't know tell me.

If you have evidence that the employer was covering for him show me the evidence, saying "lame" would never hold up as evidence in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #28)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 10:39 PM

29. I don't think they were covering for him

Perhaps gave him the benefit of the doubt for a couple of months, or maybe didn't know what the charges were. I really don't care. It isn't relevant.
CeaseFire actually does some good work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #29)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 10:48 PM

30. So you now acknowledge there is no evidence of wrongdoing and they do some good work

You might want to edit the rest of your posts in this thread because they sure seem to imply wrong doing, now you seem to be acknowledging that there is no evidence of wrongdoing by CeaseFire so you may want to make that clear in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #30)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 11:10 PM

31. No.

because you miss the entire point, and it doesn't imply wrong doing on the part of CeaseFire other than questionable hiring practices. I never said there is any wrong doing on the part of CeaseFire anymore than anyone has said Leland Yee's corruption is representative of the California Senate.
Since my post was directed at that individual, not CeaseFire, I fail to see your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #31)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 11:16 PM

32. So tell me why their hiring practices were questionable?

Do you expect them to be psychics that know in advance the guy was going to commit a crime? He had already served his sentence and there was no evidence he was involved in crime any longer. Ceasefire tried to give him a second chance but he failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #32)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 11:37 PM

33. perhaps

still had nothing to do with CeaseFire. I don't see why you are ranting about CeaseFire being libeled. They did know that he was a high ranking member of a gang. They also should know that once in a gang, always in a gang.
The larger point, since this guy kind of reminded me of Tim Sullivan, corrupt politician and gangster, who authored New York's first gun control law and isn't that big of a stretch to modern Chicago's city hall is that gangsters and corrupt politicians tend to be gun control fans.

Oh, so far two MAIG mayors have been arrested/convicted this year. North Miami, Florida Mayor Lucie Tondreau was arrested for fraud and NOLA mayor Ray Nagin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #32)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 09:57 AM

35. Are you saying they were unaware that he was involved in criminal activities

BEFORE they hired him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #35)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 10:57 AM

36. I am saying he had served his time

Sorry but I don't think people should be automatically denied a second chance after prison, making it impossible for past criminals to find employment would only make it more likely they return to a life of crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #36)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:40 AM

37. I was unaware this was a paid position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 06:58 AM

34. Well I suppose we now know the real reason for his opposition to armed individuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #34)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 01:36 PM

39. A concern for occupational safety, it seems...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 11:17 AM

42. CF hires a lot of ex offenders

Johnston: Bloomberg and MAIG loses an average of four mayor members to the criminal justice system...

How many per year for violent offenses? How does this redound overall upon MAIG? similar could be said as per congress.

How many for calling a notable politician a 'toxic c*nt or b*tch or sub human mongrel'? (as nra bd director ted nugent did), or called the bur alcohol tobacco & firearms (batf) jack booted thugs? (as nra vp lapierre did & resulted in ghw bush resigning nra membership, as did norman Schwarzkopf), or that Clinton enjoyed seeing children die due to gunfire (wayno again).

your link, chgo suntimes: In the past, CeaseFire officials have said employees charged with crimes represent a small fraction of the hundreds of ex-offenders hired by the group in Chicago since 2000.

In their honest attempt to rehabilitate there's bound to be recidivism.
I wonder if ceasefire's ex-offenders are disallowed firearm ownership, or perhaps had it restored thanks to the nra & fopa1986.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #42)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 11:59 AM

43. how many are violent offenders out of the 25-30?

Off the top of my head I can think of six that are violent or beyond despicable. The rest is the standard fare of fraud, tax evasion, public corruption, extortion
Gary Becker-Possessing child porn and sexual assault on a child
Kwame Kilpatrick-pleaded guilty of assaulting a cop, among other things. That was before he got caught using Detroit's treasury as his own personal piggy bank.
Frank Melton-Conspiracy to violate civil rights (by tearing down a person's house), commission of a violent crime while possessing a handgun
Richard Corkery-possessing child porn
Bob Filner-assault, sexual harassment, battery, false imprisonment
James Schiliro-false imprisonment (held a gun on someone he wanted to have sex with)


How many for calling a notable politician a 'toxic c*nt or b*tch or sub human mongrel'? (as nra bd director ted nugent did), or called the bur alcohol tobacco & firearms (batf) jack booted thugs? (as nra vp lapierre did & resulted in ghw bush resigning nra membership, as did norman Schwarzkopf), or that Clinton enjoyed seeing children die due to gunfire (wayno again).
Loutish speech are not crimes. false comparison. Since we are here, how about "children of NRA members should be murdered"?

I wonder if ceasefire's ex-offenders are disallowed firearm ownership, or perhaps had it restored thanks to the nra & fopa1986.
Is that a serious question? If it is, then you don't know the law. Under the Gun Control Act, it is a five year mandatory minimum of being a felon in possession. Any felon including John Dean and Martha Stewart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 12:29 PM

44. hoisted on your own petard again

Johnston: Is that a serious question? If it is, then you don't know the law. Under the Gun Control Act, it is a five year mandatory minimum of being a felon in possession. Any felon including John Dean and Martha Stewart.

OK Johnston, quick quiz. Which came later, 1968 or 1986?
Time's up, here's the answer:

NRA backed, Gunnut approved FOPA = firearm owner protection act of 1986:

Clarification of prohibited persons
The older Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits firearms ownership in the U.S. by certain categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety. However, this list differed between the House and the Senate versions of the bill, and led to confusion. The list was later augmented, modified, and clarified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The 1986 list is:

##Anyone who has been convicted in any court of a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices, whose full civil rights have not been restored by the State in which the firearms disability was first imposed.
##Anyone who is a fugitive from justice..........................
##A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

What was that you were saying about 'not knowing the law', Johnston?
.. hoisted on your own petard you are. Ha. Nothing new.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #44)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 06:20 PM

48. excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices

Which has what to do with any of those people?
Hernandez-illegal possession of a firearm and drug possession
John Dean- obstruction of justice
Martha Stewart-conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators
With the possible exception of "obstruction of an agency proceeding", none of them have anything to do with business regulation.

What was that you were saying about 'not knowing the law', Johnston?
Like I said before
.. hoisted on your own petard you are. Ha. Nothing new.
In your arrogance, you made a fool out of yourself once again. Nothing new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 12:49 PM

45. children of nra members, safe

Johnston: Loutish speech are not crimes. false comparison.

I'm not calling for them to be imprisoned, just fired or sanctioned, rather than sit on the nra bd of directors.
Was it the fbi or the secret service which investigated nugent for his 'loutish speech' threatening Obama?

I didn't see any serious violent crimes up there in your list Johnston, like aggravated assault, robbery, murder, arson - except for one for assault with a firearm by melton & a sex assault on a child, for two.
Wow, two or 3 outta thousands, who'd a thunk it? were they democrats as well? and again, how does this redound upon MAIG?

Johnston: Since we are here, how about "children of NRA members should be murdered"?

You LIE. You're twisting about what was said, you intentionally mislead. And where did that link using your very words above come from, since it doesn't appear anywhere in the article, nor really on a google. You're not inserting your words onto a link are you?

.. the guy isn't actually saying that nra member's children should be murdered, he's essentially saying it would be different if nra children were the one's dying, instead of non-nra kids:

Associate professor David Warner Guth, master’s degree in journalism.. tweeted: #NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters . Shame on you. May God damn you.

Also he said: The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association. I don’t care how the NRA tries to spin this. One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh. Is that imagery too graphic for you? It is no worse than what we are seeing every night on our television screens. Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says. But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits. A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom. I don’t wish what happened today on anyone. But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat. Those fools don’t get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #45)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 01:14 PM

46. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander

Never serve up a dish you don't care to eat yourself.

If gun owners who do no wrong are expected to wear the misdeeds of the ones
that do, you lot can damn well wear the misdeeds of those amongst you that
do wrong.

To hell with your double standards and hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #45)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 06:39 PM

49. What Nugent said

was that he (Nugent) would be either dead or in jail of Obama were re elected. A reasonable person, such as the USSS and myself, would view that as a veiled threat with plausible deniability. The USSS walked away empty handed because Nugent was skilled at such things, unlike the average poster at MDA's facebook page.

You LIE. You're twisting about what was said, you intentionally mislead. And where did that link using your very words above come from, since it doesn't appear anywhere in the article, nor really on a google. You're not inserting your words onto a link are you?
No, a reasonable person would conclude it was a veiled wish that the children of people he didn't like, and expressed as much in an irrational rant, would be murdered in cold blood. If you read through the Brady Campaign or MDA Facebook pages, you will find like minded people who quite open about wishing peaceful gun owners and their families be murdered.

I didn't see any serious violent crimes up there in your list Johnston, like aggravated assault, robbery, murder, arson - except for one for assault with a firearm by melton & a sex assault on a child, for two.
Wow, two or 3 outta thousands, who'd a thunk it? were they democrats as well? and again, how does this redound upon MAIG?
Moving goal posts much? Raping a child is a serious violent crime, which should be a capital offense. In my opinion, it is actually worse than murder and execution should be the mandatory minimum. All of those listed are violent acts, therefore violent crimes. Those are the only ones that I know off the top of my head, not by any means all of them. MAIG claims 600 members, although many mayors on that list dispute that. OK, say 500 mayors. 30 convicted felons, out of that 30 I found six that have committed violent crimes. Were they Democrats? I don't know, and I don't give a rat's ass. A corrupt piece of shit, or child rapist piece of shit, is still a piece of shit regardless of what letter is next to his or her name. A Democrat who steals from the treasury, rapes children, sexually harasses city employees is the same as a Republican, Green, Libertarian, who does it: A piece of shit that should rot in prison who has no business telling me what "I need". It is called having principles. It is called principle and country before party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #49)

Wed Jul 16, 2014, 11:54 AM

50. address your misconception like a man

Johnston: Which has what to do with any of those people? Martha Stewart-conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators

Blowing smoke Johnston; you fail to acknowledge you hadn't a clue that the 1986 fopa law had somewhat superseded the gun control act of 1968, and that former convicted felons could have their alleged 'gun right's restored to them.
Let me review what you'd said:

Johnston first said: Is that a serious question? If it is, then you don't know the law. Under the Gun Control Act, it is a five year mandatory minimum of being a felon in possession. Any felon including John Dean and Martha Stewart.

I then posted wiki: 1986 FOPA (firearm owners protection act): Clarification of prohibited persons The older Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits firearms ownership in the US by certain categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety.. The list was later augmented, modified, and clarified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The 1986 list is:
1 ##Anyone who has been convicted in any court of a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices, whose full civil rights have not been restored by the State in which the firearms disability was first imposed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

In other words Johnston, when you wrote this: Under the {1968} Gun Control Act, it is a five year mandatory minimum of being a felon in possession. Any felon including John Dean and Martha Stewart. --- you were wrong about the 1968 guncontrol act still being absolute in affecting a mandatory sentence, weren't you? man up & admit it.

A crowning achievement {re NRA} was the Firearm Owners Protection Act {FOPA} of 1986, which significantly loosened federal gun laws. ... When it came to felons’ gun rights, the legislation essentially left the matter up to states. The federal gun restrictions would no longer apply if a state had restored a felon’s civil rights — to vote, sit on a jury and hold public office — and the individual faced no other firearms prohibitions. .... after the law passed that thousands of felons, including those convicted of violent crimes, in his state would suddenly be getting their gun rights back...
Until then, the avenues for restoration had been narrow and few:.. By contrast, the restoration of civil rights, which is now central to regaining gun rights, is relatively routine, automatic in many states upon completion of a sentence.
Today, in at least 11 states, including Kansas, Ohio, Minnesota and Rhode Island, restoration of firearms rights is automatic, without any review, for many nonviolent felons, usually once they finish their sentences, or after amount of time crime-free. Even violent felons may petition to have firearm rights restored in {some} states..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Note that a court approved catch 22 exists, where misdemeanants who did not have their civil rights taken away, & are convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse, cannot get guns back since their civil rights cannot be restored since never taken away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #50)

Wed Jul 16, 2014, 03:34 PM

55. wasn't a misconception at all

simply a basic comparison between the countries. Since my only point was violent vs nonviolent felons giving such details isn't relevant. Of course, I didn't take in account the possibility of someone better skilled at disruption and belittlement rather than rational discussion using that lack of digression as a means to make subtle personal attacks.

In other words Johnston, when you wrote this: Under the {1968} Gun Control Act, it is a five year mandatory minimum of being a felon in possession. Any felon including John Dean and Martha Stewart. --- you were wrong about the 1968 guncontrol act still being absolute in affecting a mandatory sentence, weren't you? man up & admit it.
As stated above, the default setting in the US is no gun rights unless you petition the court in that state, unlike Canada where the default setting is you regain gun privileges (their view) unless the judge issues a prohibition order. Since I was talking about "default setting" and not intended to give detailed explanation or legal advice on how to regain them.

including Kansas, Ohio, Minnesota and Rhode Island, restoration of firearms rights is automatic, without any review, for many nonviolent felons, usually once they finish their sentences, or after amount of time crime-free. Even violent felons may petition to have firearm rights restored in {some} states.
I don't know if that is an accurate description, since journalists often get things wrong. If they can't accurately explain a one paragraph long Florida self defense law, I don't trust them to do so with something more complex covering the differences between state and federal law. Also, see above about my point was the basic differences between countries. I do wonder if that would apply to state prohibitions or the federal prohibition as well. BTW, this isn't relevant in the cases of Dean and Stewart. Since they were convicted of federal crimes in federal court. They would have to go to the Secretary of the Treasury (definitely before 2004, maybe the AG since then) Since congress have denied the ATF funding for processing such appeals since 1992, it is kind of moot. While it is possible that John Dean applied and received such relief from one of the Treasury secretaries before 1992, I don't count it as likely.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/after-jail-cunningham-to-fight-wild-animals-20120529

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #49)

Wed Jul 16, 2014, 12:12 PM

51. why can't martha stewart have a gun

Johnston: Is that a serious question? If it is, then you don't know the law. Under the Gun Control Act, it is a five year mandatory minimum of being a felon in possession. Any felon including John Dean and Martha Stewart.

wiki: Under the GCA {1968), selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals is prohibited:
1 It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

wiki: .... ordered {Martha} Stewart to report to her prison sentence October 8, 2004. October 8, 2004, she reported to FPC Alderson.... Stewart was released from FPC Alderson on March 4, 2005. She was then placed in a two-year term of supervised release; during five of those months, she was placed in home confinement with electronic monitoring.
In addition to five months at a minimum-security federal prison, Ms. Stewart must spend five more months under house arrest at her 153-acre estate


Am I missing something here Johnston? I'm not that familiar with Martha stewart case, but if she only spent 5 months in prison, how does the guncontrol act of 1968 apply? so that she can't get her 'gun rights' back?
Explain the apparent rightwing adage, 'why can't Martha stewart have a gun'?

Ironically, I somewhat support this 'restoration' of being able to own a firearm for non violent offenders, since for a felony perjury conviction seems a bit harsh. Mothers & fathers do it all the time in court to protect sons & daughters etc..









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #51)

Wed Jul 16, 2014, 03:05 PM

54. key phrase

"punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" which is not the same as what the actual sentence was. Making a straw purchase is punishable by ten years, but I never heard of anyone actually getting anything near that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #54)

Fri Jul 18, 2014, 10:08 AM

57. backpedaling

Johnston: wasn't a misconception at all simply a basic comparison between the countries.

Huh? a comparison of countries? what countries? suddenly you mention a comparison between countries, blowing smoke.

Johnston: Since my only point was violent vs nonviolent felons giving such details isn't relevant.

Martha Stewart is a violent felon? Johnston blowing smoke.

the backpedaling Johnston: As stated above, the default setting in the US is no gun rights unless you petition the court in that state, unlike Canada where the default setting is you regain gun privileges (their view) unless the judge issues a prohibition order. Since I was talking about "default setting" and not intended to give detailed explanation or legal advice on how to regain them.

Oh, is canada the other 'country' you were talking about, which you first mentioned in this thread within your very post?
You weren't talking about any 'default setting' when you wrote this:

(first I wrote): I wonder if ceasefire's ex-offenders are disallowed firearm ownership, or perhaps had it restored thanks to the nra & fopa1986.
then JOHNSTON replied: Is that a serious question? If it is, then you don't know the law. Under the Gun Control Act, it is a five year mandatory minimum of being a felon in possession. Any felon including John Dean and Martha Stewart.

How in the world were talking of a 'default setting' when you said it was a 5 yr minimum for a felon in possession of a firearm? including Martha stewart? Martha a violent felon?
You weren't speaking of a default setting, that's just you tapdancing to save face & shift focus onto a red herring you created after the fact, to weasel out of your misconception. Your misconception, your misinformation which you've been spreading about for years on this board.

Backsliding & backpedaling thru some non existent escape hatch this time, you are.
If you were speaking of violent felons, why did you include Martha stewart?
You clearly said 'ANY FELON, INCLUDING MARTHA STEWART' - and now say you only meant 'violent felons' - jeez, you lie after explicitly claiming something, which wasn't true to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #57)

Fri Jul 18, 2014, 10:45 AM

59. more like mistaken with a different thread

given your pointless tangents and disruption. Not backpedaling. Basic point is as I said:
John Dean and Martha Stewart or both prohibited persons, unless Dean appealed to the Secretary of the Treasury before 1992.
All felons (other than business regulation) is the default setting in the US. Canada's default setting is may own unless judge adds prohibition order.
Do you have any valid point to make or are you going to continue to waste time and electrons on disruption and pointless tangents?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #59)

Fri Jul 18, 2014, 11:11 AM

61. the ego's self exoneration

Johnston: ... more like mistaken with a different thread given your pointless tangents and disruption. Not backpedaling. Basic point is as I said:
John Dean and Martha Stewart or both prohibited persons, unless Dean appealed to the Secretary of the Treasury before 1992.
Do you have any valid point to make or are you going to continue to waste time and electrons on disruption and pointless tangents?


You have such little integrity & are so prone to self exoneration due your monstrous ego it makes me sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #61)

Fri Jul 18, 2014, 11:20 AM

62. is it my lack of integrity or

your astounding ability to make false assumptions? As for exoneration, you would be the kind of prosecutor who would bury exculpatory evidence and knowingly imprison an innocent person simply for the win, or the politician who knowingly approves an ad or commercial that is false or slanderous. That makes me sick. My monstrous ego? You are projecting. It seems that your issue with me is personal and not the issue at hand. That's your fucking problem, not mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 04:07 PM

47. Criminals LOVE gun control laws...

It ensures that only they will get to have firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shedevil69taz (Reply #47)

Wed Jul 16, 2014, 12:17 PM

52. you mean criminals hate guncontrol laws

shedevil:Criminals LOVE gun control laws..It ensures that only they will get to have firearms

Barf, you've got it back-acewards - criminals & potential criminals love states with lax guncontrol laws, since it's easier to get & keep an illegal gun undetected, & get away with irresponsible carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #52)

Wed Jul 16, 2014, 01:47 PM

53. a push

Johnston: MAIG claims 600 members, although many mayors on that list dispute that. OK, say 500 mayors. 30 convicted felons, out of that 30 I found six that have committed violent crimes

wiki, 2013 link: Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) is a United States, bipartisan coalition of over 1,000 mayors that supports gun control.
The coalition is composed of mostly Democratic mayors, but also has some members of the Green Party, and political independents. Its statement of principles has received the endorsement of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Conference of Black Mayors. In December 2013, MAIG announced that it had joined forces with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a grassroots gun-control advocacy


addendum: MAIG membership has dropped 15% since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, from 1,046 members to 885. A statement from MAIG Chairman said the changes in membership were "just the natural course of events that mayors leave and join our coalition based on the electoral cycle

So apparently a push, which is about the best you'll ever get of me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #52)

Thu Jul 17, 2014, 09:54 AM

56. I meant exactly what I said.

Only people who already follow the law obey increased restrictions on firearms. Those who's business is breaking the law find it easier to intimidate those who they have a built in advantage over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shedevil69taz (Reply #56)

Fri Jul 18, 2014, 10:20 AM

58. demonstrably untrue

Last edited Fri Jul 18, 2014, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)

she devil: I meant exactly what I said. Only people who already follow the law obey increased restrictions on firearms.

This is obviously & demonstrably untrue, criminals are forced to 'obey' when they can't circumvent.
Gun guru Gary Kleck even said that gun control efforts prevent approx. 30% of criminals or potential criminals from obtaining a gun or committing a guncrime, so that disproves your nonsense right there.
Waiting periods & background checks often prevent clandestine criminals using fake id's trying to get guns or ammo, from doing that.
Assault rifle & superclip bans helps prevent crims from getting those too, since they're less easier to get in guncontrol states.
Safe storage laws prevent burglars from getting as many stolen guns.
You don't know what you're talking about, with your nra backed propaganda.

shedev: Those who's business is breaking the law find it easier to intimidate those who they have a built in advantage over.

And they find it easier to intimidate in red states with less gun control.

edit to add, about a third the way down the link: By definition, laws are most likely to be obeyed by the law-abiding, and gun laws are no different. http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/kdowst/kleck.html

So the way shedevil puts it, absolute sense in 'only people who already follow the law will obey' is demonstrably & logically false. Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #58)

Fri Jul 18, 2014, 10:47 AM

60. control efforts prevent approx. 30% of criminals or potential criminals from obtaining a gun or comm

prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #58)

Sat Jul 19, 2014, 01:15 AM

63. "This is obviously & demonstrably untrue, criminals are forced to 'obey' when they can't circumvent.

"This is obviously & demonstrably untrue, criminals are forced to 'obey' when they can't circumvent."

Hey, smart guy, name one place on earth other than dead in a grave, where criminals who really want to, can't "circumvent".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread