Running shooting thread 2023

Did I miss the part where he was arrested for shooting a man with a legal weapon?

 

That's why this is an interesting case. Looks like the guy will get a walk for killing someone, but he's facing life in prison for merely possessing the weapon he used to do it. And the other illegal weapons that compound that charge likely never would have been discovered if he hadn't had to use it in self defense.
The irony is thick with this one.

 

Why didn't he license his firearms? Whose fault is that?

 

He did have several of them licensed (five rifles out of the 26 guns in his apartment). But your questions lead into a whole other, much larger debate. Obviously, the law is the law. We can debate the justness of it, even the constitutionality of it, but it appears he will be jammed up on these weapons charges no matter what. At the very least he'll have to go to court to defend himself on those.
If you want to go a bit deeper, you can say the state and city of New York have made the ability to own a gun overly difficult. You can say political policies led to an increase in crime, which in turn led Foehner to feel the need (which was validated, as it turns out) to carry a gun for protection. I'm not sure those arguments will help him in the short term, although in the end they might sway a jury.

 

Carrying a gun for protection and killing a mugger in self-defense falls within the framework of the local laws.

His illegal weapons are an entirely separate legal matter. But because it's GUNS, BY GOD!, he deserves a free pass?

 

People seem willing to excuse a lot of bad behavior and bad personal decisions for a variety of reasons.
This guy hit a woman with a brick because he was whacked out on drugs. He shouldn't go to prison, he should go to rehab.
That guy robbed a liquor store at gunpoint because he grew up in a poor neighborhood and couldn't find a job. It's not his fault. Give him a light sentence and a second (or 17th) chance.
This guy was living a peaceful life but had an apartment full of illegal guns because he was afraid of being mugged, then had to use one of them when he was actually being mugged. The same people excusing the first two examples seem eager to throw the book at the third because it's GUNS, BY GOD! The only reason authorities even knew, or probably would ever know, that Charles Foehner had 21 illegal guns in his apartment is because he was forced to use one to defend himself in the kind of scenario that is often laughed off as implausible. The kind of scenario no police officer was going to help him escape from unscathed.
It's odd and curious to me.

But, like I said, the law is the law. And like you said, it's an entirely separate legal matter. If he wanted to get his gun on, Foehner should've moved to Texas or Montana. You live in New York City, you've got to play by their rules even if you think they're awful rules. And it's not like he had one 9mm and they're throwing the book at him. He did have quite the collection. My guess is that they try to plead it down, he confiscates the weapons, and pays a fine and some community service. He avoids spending his golden years in jail and the DA is able to sidestep a potential political shit storm.

Removing the politics and personal opinions from it, I'm really intrigued by the irony of the circumstances of the case — not getting charged for justifiably shooting someone, but potentially facing a punishment equivalent to a murder charge simply for possessing the weapon used to shoot someone, as well as some other weapons he'd never used (and likely never would have used) in anger. There are some other legal questions I'm curious about as well.

 

If he “needed” the AK-47 for self defense out on the streets, why did he not carry said AK-47 when he was out and about? Doesn’t the fact that his (presumably legal) handgun was sufficient to handle the situation sort of put the lie to the idea he needed this other gun instead? How many guns does he typically carry at once? Are the five legally registered firearms not sufficient that he needs nearly two dozen more that are not registered? If the police had stumbled upon a meth lab or a counterfeiting press in his apartment while conducting a lawful search, would you have him get a freebie for that unlawful behavior as a reward for taking out a would-be mugger?

 

And that makes sense in this matter, and that's what probably happens. So the side matter gets worked out fine.

I sympathize with the guy for his mugging ordeal, but you can't just overlook an illegal gun cache, either.

 

I’m pretty comfortable saying no one should be allowed to own an AK-47. I know, I’m a fucking tyrant.

 

Yes, but let's not ignore the real crisis here, which is Obama is coming for your guns.

 

We live in a country that has more people incarcerated in the world. We incarcerate people at the highest rate in the world. So I think we can be forgiven for thinking of ways to have fewer people behind bars.

And why is the dude hoarding 21 guns illegally? Not a lot of good has come from people who start skirting the law to amass an arsenal.

Also there is no war on self defense. There’s a war on common sense. If you shot and or kill some one, onus better be on you that you were actually in danger. Last time I checked knocking on a door isn’t a threat to someone’s life and yet we have states who have passed or are attempting to pass stand your ground laws that give full immunity to people who shoot without actually being in danger.

Guns have the biggest lobby behind them and politicians who make out their life’s work to defend your right to shoot others.

I won’t shed a tear for this guy getting what’s coming. Nor will I be upset with a program that attempts to do more than lock a criminal with other criminals and expect that will solve our crime problem.

 

I love that he had five guns legally for protection, but in his mind it wasn’t enough so let’s add 21 illegally.