Man deemed criminally insane arrested with van full of guns

[Fuddnik]

Tuesday, December 31, 2013 8:53pm

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/officials-man-deemed-criminally-insane-arrested-with-van-load-of-guns/2159216

TAMPA — A man who shot a trucker to death in 1992 but was judged to be criminally insane seemed nervous Saturday when stopped for speeding east of Gainesville, a deputy reported.

David Harris Dunaway, 58, was wanted by federal authorities, the deputy learned. A grand jury in Tampa had indicted him on a gun charge Dec. 18, alleging that he had a pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition, illegal for someone with Dunaway's medical history.

But in a search of his green Honda van, the deputy found more — 36 guns, 4,629 rounds.

Dunaway of Hawthorne reported that he was headed to the Waldo flea market to sell "some" of his personal collection, according to Alachua County sheriff's spokesman Art Forgey.

(snip)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it gives meaning to the term "gun nut".

[Hoyt]

1. Yes it does, as well as failure of our lax gun laws and failure to control gun accumulators.

Gun fanciers, on the other hand, will just claim this is the price society must pay to protect their access to more gunz in more places.

[CreekDog]

20. the gun advocates haven't said that the amount of regulation they approve of will...

reduce shootings or bad people with guns.

i think their argument is solely that there will be more people to shoot back.

so it seems they're arguing that things will become more violent, overall.

[NYC_SKP]

23. If you say so. The advocates I know would have never have let this man into the public again.

A violent cold blooded murderer should never be released into the public again.

Fortunately for the citizens, the BATFE was doing their job and, based on a tip, stopped this crazed madman before he could hurt anyone.

And they got three dozen guns off the street.

That's what we call a WIN!

[CreekDog]

26. you're very sly...you're saying there shouldn't be gun laws regarding the criminally insane

you just wanted to keep him locked up, which is a separate question.

by the way, i'm surprised you're discussing this thread here, given that you alerted it hoping it would be locked as off topic.

[NYC_SKP]

38. There certainly should be laws to keep guns from the criminally insane. But violent offenders....

...like this guy should not be released, at all, not ever.

His release was a grave mistake.

Fortunately, guys with guns stopped him from killing others and from distributing those weapons.

As to my alert, if it's not going to be locked and reposted in a gun group, then I guess we'll have to discuss it here in GD.

Actually, the story is supportive of laws proposed by second amendment advocates.

[CreekDog]

41. i think the larger issue is why gungeoners like yourself don't want this topic discussed here

so much so that several of you alerted this post as off topic and you did so on the basis that the OP is not neutral on the gun issue.

is that what you're asking for? OP's in GD only if they are neutral?

wow. considering you're angling to run the place, that's a pretty big concern.

[NYC_SKP]

42. Hey, if Skinner decides to open up GD to guns again, that's fine with me.

I'll discuss gun laws, good and bad, with you here or in the gun groups, it doesn't matter.

I think the hosts are doing a great job, and it's not an easy one!

Also, I think after all that the OP is neutral on the matter, but that doesn't change whether or not this is big news.

[CreekDog]

45. not only did you state that you thought the OP was biased, you stated it as a reason to lock it.

you could at least own what you said. since you're trying to mislead people here, I need to quote you:

Author: Fuddnik
Man deemed criminally insane arrested with van full of guns
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024262704

Alerted by NYC_SKP: Local news, outside of SOP, "gun nut" reflects a bias and agenda in posting.

so at that moment you thought that threads should be locked if they had a bias or if the OP had an agenda in posting? really?

imagine that, a DU where all OP's had to be neutral, or did you just want neutrality for gun OPs? i think i'm getting warmer...

[NYC_SKP]

48. Like I said, I was mistaken about bias, I don't think there is one. This guy was a gun nut!!!!

Most definitely nutty, this guy, and had guns, thus...

GUN NUT!

Unfortunately, those who mock gun ownership toss insults around so often, as they have no other tools, that it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that the post was coming from that POV.

It's embarrassing, really, the use of insult to try to make a point.

Do you understand why guns are specifically mentioned in the SOP, like Israel/Palistine matters?

[CreekDog]

49. Maybe the word gun is referred to in order to avoid stuff like this:

NYC_SKP Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:47 PM

OP: What you want is a Mossberg 500 Special Purpose 12 ga with Extended Magazine.

EarlG instructed us to let gun posts stay in GD and to generally let it all hang out.

I don't actually own a Mossberg 500 Stainless Steel Shotgun with 9 round capacity, but I'm likely to order one based upon my personal environment.

Carry on if you don't want to discuss the relative plusses/minusses of a shotgun versus handgun or rifle, it's not my point.

First, read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240187710

Now, allow me the very same freedom to invite discussion about the merits or disadvantages of such a weapon.

For myself, I don't own one but am ordering one tomorrow.

It's stainless steel and I live on the water.

It's a shotgun, so I don't have to aim, and it won't go 1/4 mile like my long guns (ooh he has long guns, banish him! :rofl.

In honesty, I'm testing the DU system.

If it's OK to post gun hater threats and insults in GD, per EarlG, then my humble opinion on the Mossberg 500 is surely fair.

Thanks DU!

Loveya!

[NYC_SKP]

50. It's almost like Godwin's Law.

Sooner or later, your replies go back to the original day that EarlG opened up GD to guns and my protest post.

They've changed it back, you know. No guns unless really big news, the kind of news that's on CNN, something like that.

But I've enjoyed this thread, I think there's a lot of good discussion to be had and very few people post in the RKBA forum.

And the Gun Control Reform Activist group is even slower.

So, if these things have to be in GD, so be it.

People can use the "sort by keyword" or ignore posting members if they don't want to see gun threads.

[CreekDog]

51. i think that post, within 48 hours of Newtown shows where your values are

it explains why you try to have gun discussions in GD censored.

you don't like people advocating for gun control unless they are outnumbered by folks like yourself who oppose gun control.

when the exception was made because 20 children were gunned down in Newtown, Connecticut, you got upset.

OH YOU FINALLY got upset.

that gun control was going to be allowed as a discussion topic in GD.

THAT's what upset you and you saw to it that you got us all back for that.

[NYC_SKP]

52. I'm sorry that all of this bothers you as much as it apparently does, CreekDog.

Me, not so much.

I'm only upset that I just knew there would be a lot of energy spent in the wrong direction.

I would prefer that sensible gun laws, like universal background checks and mandatory gun safety classes come as a result of this kind of tragedy and not some of the sillier things that get tossed about, like outright gun bans or doing what Australia has done.

[CreekDog]

53. that post in the wake of Newtown was not about your hopes for "sensible gun laws"

and your attempt to run this place makes that post and your actions to squelch discussion in the context of our argument.

[NYC_SKP]

54. Newtown. Here's a very thoughtful slideshow with a picture and little bit about each victim.

I originally posted it on December 14th, 2013: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024179241

Huffpost, unfortunately, but worth the visit.

The topic is how proceeds have been spent in different ways for each victim, a very thoughtful and individualized story on this sad day.

Look for the slideshow after the text part of the article, which is about various ways donations have been spent to commemorate individual victims.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/newtown-fund-distribution_n_3046420.html#slide=1979131








Peace.

[CreekDog]

67. and on that day you were asking Skinner when gun threads would be disallowed once again

i think your whole approach to the regular membership here is disingenuous. pretending to be magnanimous about a topic you were trying to shut down behind the scenes.

please.

[rocktivity]

2. How does a criminally insane person get released, never mind get THREE dozen fireams?

Tampa forensic psychologist Robert M. Berland...was one of two psychologists who found Dunaway incompetent to stand trial, prompting Circuit Judge John W. Booth to send the defendant for treatment at the state mental hospital in Chattahoochee. Nine months later, Booth entered a judgment of not guilty by reason of insanity.

It's unclear how long he was hospitalized. The victim's son said that for the first three years, the family was notified whenever Dunaway sought release. But then the notifications stopped. "I thought he was put away for good," said Lt. Caruthers, "but obviously not."

The Fifth Judicial Circuit State Attorney's Office, which prosecuted the case, was closed Tuesday. The court clerk's file was not immediately available. Judge Booth, now retired at 89, was recovering from a medical ailment, his wife said.

It's unclear how long he was hospitalized? Well, somebody has got some explaining to do as to how he got UN-hosptialized -- a bureaucratic screwup, or did he escape?


rocktivity

[Historic NY]

4. I would say at this point he isn't insane....

and should be incarcerated.

[Fuddnik]

8. He has to be crazy.

I drive through that area a couple of times a year.

Waldo and Lawty are rated by AAA as the two biggest speed traps in the country. US 301 between Ocala and Jacksonville. They're out there writing tickets 24/7. They even have warning billboards on either side of them warning of speed traps.

[Eleanors38]

15. Got snagged in Lawtey 35 yrs ago -- and beat the rap!

[ManiacJoe]

10. There is a very big gap in the system between

"incompetent to stand trial" and "needing to be hospitalized". Unfortunately, current laws in most jurisdictions do not deal with folks that end up inside that gap.

[Kennah]

3. Headline made me think of Glenn Beck

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Hey, you never know when some nut will cut you off in traffic.

Better to be prepared than a victim, no?

[malaise]

6. Cops are lucky he didn't

Stand his ground.

[lunasun]

7. criminally insane gun seller

Poor trucker wrong place wrong time .
Dunaway could do it again
Hope he gets some time for the possession

[ailsagirl]

9. That's so scary

[shenmue]

11. Close to the University of Florida

This could very easily have turned into another Virginia Tech.

[TrollBuster9090]

12. But...Jefferson, or Madison, or somebody said nutcases with vans full of guns are all that stands

between US and TYRANNY of GOVERNMENT! It's in the Federalist Papers! (someplace) Or at least that's what I read on the Alex Jones blog.

[billh58]

13. You can read that

right here on DU. Guns for anyone and everyone. Yay America! We're number one...

[seveneyes]

21. Link?

[Ranchemp.]

28. I'd like to see a link to that, got one?

[TrollBuster9090]

73. Yes, I've run into that, too. Right here on DU. I don't have the link (like others are requesting)

but I once posted an OP about this, citing the MILITIA ACTS of 1782, which (apparently) defined what the Founding Fathers considerd to be a MILITIA. (Apparently, based on the fact that Washington signed it into law while Jefferson was in his cabinet.) Thus, there was no need to argue about whether or not the founders were referring to EVERYBODY when they mentioned a 'well regulated militia' in the 2nd Amendment. They actually DEFINED what they thought a Militia was in the Militia Acts, and they were referring to the official STATE MILITIA reserves, which could be called up by State Governors, and which would be ultimately under the control of the President. The Militia Acts also MANDATED that all military aged men had to buy a musket, powder horn, belt, coat etc. to serve in it. They were NOT referring to everybody being armed to the teeth for the purpose of overthrowing their own government the first time it passes a law they're not happy with. (That thesis was then tested during the Whiskey Rebellion, when Washington called up the reserves, under the Militia Act, and used it to put down a TAX REBELLION. If it had been the Founders' intent to give people the ability to fight against their own government over what they considered to be tyrannical government overreach, this would have been a perfect example of it, and you'd expect Washington, Jefferson, Madison etc. to come down on the side of the rebels. But the opposite happened, and they sided with the Government.)

I got hit with many negative comments, often referring to quotes in The Federalist Papers (because you can't find anything in the actual DoI or Constitution about the definition or purpose of 'a Militia'...so you have to fall back on other documents the Founders wrote to speculate about what their 'intent' was when they wrote that).

I went through a few rounds of people quoting things in the Federalist Papers, all of which I was able to prove were incorrect when you look at the whole text of what was written. But finally one guy managed to find one that was written by Madison which hints at this opinion, where Madison claims that the the examples of tyrannical kingdoms of Europe wouldn't have been possible if the citizens were allowed to arm themselves etc. That one I couldn't dispute as having another meaning. But almost all the others can be disputed.

So, you're right. Those attitudes even exist here on DU.

[billh58]

74. The arguments about

what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have little to do with the evolution and reality of American Society. That is a Tea Bagger right-wing argument.

Most of the Founders were slave owners, their wives and daughters were second class citizens, and duels to the death over "honor" were common place. Times have changed and those social inequities have been overcome for the most part. The national health menace caused by the obscene proliferation of guns, and the lax oversight of the ownership and usage of guns can, and must, be addressed.

Thankfully, public opinion is changing and sane gun control legislation will happen eventually. Appointing additional Liberal Supreme Court Justices will speed up the process.

[TrollBuster9090]

75. Absolutely. The Founders were slave owners, who didn't think women or people of color should vote,

and many thought only white men who owned property should have the right to vote (ie-Adams). So, the idolatry of the Founders that the tea party types use as a trump card can only go so far. (I usually manage to shut them up, in the face of a deluge of fake Jefferson quotes about the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants, by saying "okay, well if you agree with Jefferson on that, you must also agree with him fathering children with one of his slaves?" The fanatical pro-gun crowd is usually put off by that one.)

But for all their faults, the founders DID realize that times and circumstances will change, and gave us a means to modify and update the Constitution accordingly. Something the same crowd usually has a problem with. Particularly when you bring up the post-reconstruction amendments to the constitution.

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. 5/10- Two planted axioms and grandstanding

I wonder if you're quite as sanguine about recent 'reinterpretations' of
the Fourth Amendment?

[reACTIONary]

17. Yes! The Fabulist Papers! (nt)

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. ROFL...

Shitheads.

[valerief]

14. Florida. Freedumbs. Liberty. Rights. Mendments. USA! USA!

I think that's how the legislative logic goes.

[NCTraveler]

64. There was a warrant out for him in Florida.

Florida cops got over three dozen guns out of the hands of an insane person. What does making it illegal for this man to have guns in the state of Florida, and having a warrant out for his arrest because of a gun, have to do with your post in any way?

[CreekDog]

18. this thread has been alerted as off-topic by several gungeoners

who seem to want to shut down discussion of guns in GD.

if nobody has told you this is going on, in the interest of transparency, you should be informed.

[Ranchemp.]

32. So what?

Just going by the SOP of the forum is a bad thing? I'm quite sure that those that are quite vocal on more gun control also alert when a pro gun thread is started in GD, so what's the difference?

[CreekDog]

35. just a coincidence that gungeoners alerted on this one?

just a coincidence?

please. also as you said during the gov't shutdown, it wouldn't delay paychecks because you got paid and some guy you know got paid.

[Ranchemp.]

36. Still flogging that dead horse?

I and my collegues did get paid, what I was mistaken on was that it was for what we had already worked.
Satisfied?
Now, can you answer my question, what's the difference?
I alert on all of them in GD, no matter what the topic is, per Skinner, they don't belong in GD, they belong in the two groups set up for the discussion of firearms.

[Hoyt]

37. I've never alerted on any gun fancier's post, no matter how callous, sick and disgusting.

I welcome such posts -- Let folks see just what kind of people are arming up in this country, training to shoot people, and promoting more gunz in more places.

[Ranchemp.]

39. You welcome such posts in GD because you've been blocked from

the RKBAGC group, for what, I don't know, but as I said before, you're the gift that keeps on giving to the pro 2A movement.

[Hoyt]

40. Nope, I welcomed such GD posts long before I hurt Gungeoneers' feelings and got blocked.

I think voters need to understand how gun fanciers are harming society and supporting right wingers like the NRA and right wing sympathizers. That is why you guys oppose posts that are more likely to be read by the general population.

I get why you'd rather gun posts to be relegated to the Gungeon. Heck I wouldn't want people to know either if I had a closet full of tactical weapons, supported folks like Zman's right to shoot unarmed teenagers, strapped a gun or two on before venturing out into a city park, etc.

[Ranchemp.]

43. You are a gem.

I get why you'd rather gun posts to be relegated to the Gungeon. Heck I wouldn't want people to know either if I had a closet full of tactical weapons, supported folks like Zman's right to shoot unarmed teenagers, strapped a gun or two on before venturing out into a city park, etc.

Ever occur to you why you're not taken very seriously? This statement is a perfect example.

[Hoyt]

46. I see little reason to post "seriously" to folks who need a gun or two to venture out

onto city streets. They obviously aren't rational, nor do they care about society.

[Ranchemp.]

47. As I said, you are the gift that keeps on giving to the pro 2A movement.

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. Got 'planted axiom'?

[Hoyt]

71. Nope, it is obvious to anyone not steeped in gunz. Get rid of yours, then look at gun fanciers.

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. I don't own any guns, which illustrates my point

Come back when you've quit mistaking belief for fact...

[LanternWaste]

66. Much as the instance related in the OP is the gift the the pro 2a gives back...

"the gift that keeps on giving to the pro 2A movement..."

Much as the instance related in the OP is the gift the the pro 2a gives back...





(Six of one, half a dozen of the other, both equally petulant-- insert distinction without a difference here)

[Ranchemp.]

68. I agree that there are idiots on both sides of the equation.

[Packerowner740]

19. It would be interesting to find out how and where he was able to get them

[Hoyt]

22. That's what I'd like to see too. Of course, gun culture has long thrown road blocks into tracking

gunz back to original owners.

[oneshooter]

24. Why track them back to the origional owners?

What is wrong about tracking them to their current owners?

I have quite a few pieces of my collection that were "originally" owned by the US Government. Others were owned by my grandfather, his father, and his father before him. Why track them down to the "original" owners. Others were "owned" by the governments of other countries, and date back several centuries.

Why would they need to be tracked all the way back.

I see no logic in your statement.

[Iggo]

29. Nah, just go back one step and see who sold them to the crazy gun-fucker.

[oneshooter]

31. My question was why would you want to track back to the original owner?

It is what Hoyt was wanting to do.

[Iggo]

33. And I'm agreeing with you that going back to the original owner doesn't make sense.

And I'm also proposing an alternative: just go back one step instead of all the way back.

[Hoyt]

34. Just like to see how many interim owners sold them in back alley for fistful of cash.

Might have even sold them at a gun show. Maybe they were stolen from another gun fancier with a trunk full of guns.

Hell, maybe Randy Weaver is back to trafficking illegal guns, or gun lover Zman is thinning the herd.

I think it would be nice to know where these guns came from. To get the full picture, we need to track them back to original owner (or as far back as we can) because there might have been a bunch of "legal" back alley transfers that indicate just how little so-called "law-abiding" gun owners really care about society when it comes to profiting from their gun addiction.

However, Oneshooter, I can understand why gun fanciers would not like to see the results. Does that help you?

[Packerowner740]

56. You sure do have a lot of might have beens in that post

Wouldn't it be better to focus on the actual rather than the theoretical?

[Hoyt]

57. You mean like some gun fancier who straps on a gun in the highly unlikely event

it MIGHT be needed for anything but to bolster his courage/manhood?

I think it would be nice to know how this man ended up with a car load of gunz. The trail should be investigated.

[Packerowner740]

58. I agree that it should be investigated how he got the guns

But your ridiculous name calling and stereotyping helps nothing, it just makes your argument look like a joke.

[Hoyt]

59. I expected that, seeing as you are a Gungeon regular.

[Packerowner740]

60. This is the second time you have said this. I challenge you to find even 5 posts I have made there

I think I probably have more posts on the gun control forum.

Is this just your typical answer when you have nothing else?

Come on, find 5 posts I have made in the gungeon.


I just checked my profile, 4 , four, 4 posts in the gungeon in the last 90 days and that makes me a gungeon regular? You really need to do your homework before posting. Now I know why I got the messages telling me to ignore you.

[Duckhunter935]

61. that and NRA talking points

That too will show up soon.

[Packerowner740]

69. I assume you mean he will accuse me of using NRA talking points

I don't particularly care for the NRA so I don't think I will be using many talking points.

[Duckhunter935]

76. correct but that does not matter

anything you say will be an "NRA talking point". Have yet to find them though.

[lonestarnot]

25. Yeah! Go Nuts Racists Assholes!

[Iggo]

27. "Gun nut" already has meaning.

[thesquanderer]

55. Does the number of guns really matter?

One is enough for a mass shooting. James Holmes and Adam Lanza didn't walk into the places with 36 guns.

Though if he really was on his way to sell them (doubtful), who knows who he would have sold them to at the "flea market." Geez, can you really buy guns at a flea market??

[Duckhunter935]

63. depends on the state and local regulations

private sale of a legal item (weapon) between two people. Legal in most places.

[NCTraveler]

62. Clearly mentally ill.

What it doesn't say, did he purchase all of these guns legally, or was it illegal. How did he get them. Seems that him being in possession of just one was against the law just because of his past.

[Myrina]

65. Is his last name Zimmerman?