Drug War

How You Get Two Years for Firing a Shotgun at a Shooting Range


White House

Last month Dallas Anthony received a two-year prison sentence for firing a shotgun at an outdoor shooting range in Charles City, Virginia. To understand why, you have to understand how drug prohibition, mandatory minimums, and stupid gun laws interact to produce absurd results.

Four years ago, Anthony was caught with a small amount of marijuana and two bottles of painkillers. He pleaded guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance and received a suspended three-year sentence. But under state and federal law, that felony conviction barred Anthony from possessing firearms. Anthony broke that rule by firing his father's shotgun at the Chickahominy Wildlife Management Area's shooting range one Sunday afternoon last January. Virginia imposes a two-year mandatory minimum sentence on people who violate the ban on gun possession within 10 years of their original conviction, no matter how brief or innocent the possession and no matter the nature of the first felony. So after Anthony pleaded guilty to that offense in June, he had no hope of avoiding prison.

In addition to the two-year prison sentence, the Hopewell News & Patriot reports, Anthony "will be placed on indefinite supervised probation upon his release for up to 10 years, during which an officer may search his property or vehicle at any time." Furthermore, "Anthony is to remain drug and alcohol free while on probation and submit to random drug and alcohol testing." Should he have a drink or a puff of pot during that time and get caught, he could go back to prison.

So here is Anthony, a two-time felon at 23, stripped of his Second Amendment rights, locked in a cage for two years, and treated like a child or as long as a decade afterward. All without committing an actual crime.

Anthony's lawyer, Patricia Nagel, called the case "a prime example" of why judges should have discretion in sentencing, although she said she didn't "want to be in a position of second-guessing the legislature." Allow me. The idea that felons should forever be prohibited from possessing guns is debatable even in the case of real criminals (especially if their crimes did not involve firearms); it is utterly unjust and inane when applied to someone like Anthony, who as far as the government knows is not a threat to anyone. Virginia's blindly punitive legislators have gone even further, decreeing that harmless people should not only lose their constitutional rights but should go to prison, no questions asked, for trying to exercise them.

[Thanks to Mike Riggs for the tip.]

NEXT: Pull Your Hair Out As You Learn the Common Core Way of Doing 6 + 10

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m sure his petition for clemency will be rapidly processed by the Governor’s office.

  2. I’d love to know what the hell Obama is shooting at in that picture, BTW.

    1. Looks like a Browning Citori.

      1. I could have sworn I asked what he was shooting AT, not what he was shooting.

        1. Liberty.

        2. Oh, I missed the at.

          On that count, we’ll probably never know. The only thing that makes sense is that they were patterning the weapon, but it’s far more likely that he is just shooting at air.

          It’s a little strange that they only have the top choke tube installed.

          1. Patterning a shotgun is something I have only seen a (very) few (very) hardcore skeet shooters do.

            I’ve never seen a waterfowl hunter do it, although turkey hunters do it as a matter of course.

            So, Ima say he’s not patterning the weapon.

            1. At least 9 holes in a paper turkey head (using that barrel, that choke and that load) is considered the minimum.

          2. That looks like a trap choke (extended beyond the barrel for extra tightness), and if so, he’d only be shooting one shot (top barrel) per pull, so it would make sense. Also his angle is feasible for trap, though if he’s that low he sucks at picking up the clay immediately like he should and almost assuredly missed because when you’re that low the drop rate is faster than people realize.

            1. Who gives a rookie a tight choke?

              Unless they want him to fail, get frustrated, and quit . . .

              Never mind. Carry on.

              1. You can’t use anything but a tight choke in trap. You need it to not have your spread become so diffuse at distance that you can’t break the clay. In skeet, yes, a tight choke is fucking retarded but in trap it’s a necessity.

                I know it’s fun to rag on the Incompetent-in-Chief but in this case he just looks like a novice trap shooter.

                1. Epi, I bow to your superior knowledge of skeet v trap. I’ve only shot skeet.

                  1. You should try trap. In my opinion it’s both more fun and more challenging than skeet. The clay comes out within a random 90 degree window (if your trap thrower is really good it’ll vary in altitude too) and so it’s not like skeet where it goes the exact same place every time (per each house). Plus if you don’t get on it fast it’ll start to drop and then you’re almost assuredly fucked (which is what I think happened with Obama in that picture).

                    Trap is super fun but hard to do by oneself (they do have voice activated throwers but it’s still kind of bland without other shooters). However, if your range has open trap some days I highly recommend it.

                    1. I’ve shot skeet and trap…

                      They both taste like shit.

                    2. You might also try sporting clays. You get a variety of targets, using different clay birds. One of them, the rabbit, runs across the ground.

                      Warning, It can be humbling.

                    3. The great thing about sporting clays is it’s fun on the range but also good training for the field since it’s designed to simulate the various types of game you’d conceivably hunt with a shotgun.

                      The rabbit is the bane of my existence. The only time I hit it is when I fixed-point shoot which is an awful habit.

        3. A poster of Hillary.

    2. We’d have to see the other photoshopped picture to know for sure.

    3. It’s a proof shot. He’s proving that he respects the second amendment and won’t take away our guns.

      And he missed.

      1. Cheney didn’t, so we are even.

  3. A question:

    How did he get caught? Who ratted him out?

    1. He’s got an enemy alright.

    2. In the miasma of gun legislation, anyone associated with the firearms business has been conscripted into being a government informant and quisling, against their will, to the point of betraying their own law-abiding customers to a lawless government. Most likely, the range has to disclose all their customers, and someone ran the names against a list of felons.

  4. “All without committing an actual crime.”

    Here’s where you went wrong: It IS an actual crime to possess controlled substances without a prescription, and it IS an actual crime for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. Right or wrong, this is the law, and violating it is an “actual” crime. Want to fix it? Change the law, but until you do, don’t tell people it’s not an “actual” crime.

    1. Both may be illegal. Neither one is a crime.

      1. See also, malum in se.

        Not to be confused with malum prohibitum.

        Legal positivists claim there is no difference. Of course, legal positivism is essentially amoral, and is a sturdy bulwark of the Total State.

      2. Exactly. No Victim = No Crime

      3. Argue that with the court, and see where it gets you. Like it or not, right or wrong, he committed crimes. Stating that these weren’t “actual crimes” ignores that reality. “But Your Honor, my client didn’t commit an ACTUAL crime”, isn’t exactly going to help fix the problem.

        1. Fuck off Tulpa. Go suck your government cock elsewhere.

          1. You go right on ahead arguing that these aren’t “actual crimes”, and I’ll just sit back while everyone with a fucking brain looks at you like the fucking idiot you are.

            I’m NOT saying the law is correct or right, or that the government isn’t composed of a bunch of morons fuckface; I’m saying that you’re arguing against REALITY, and it makes you look like a fucking idiot. Argue to get the laws changed, but don’t try to argue that the law isn’t what it really is.

            1. Fuck off Tulpa. Go suck your government cock elsewhere.

              1. Such a brilliant argument. I can see why the libertarian party does so well at the polls, what with people like you arguing their case.

                1. Fuck off Tulpa. Go suck your government cock elsewhere.

                  1. See reification.

                    1. Fuck off Tulpa. Go suck your government cock elsewhere.

                    2. No, you fuck off. I’m not going anywhere, and you’re acting like a fucking 12 year-old who’s mommy didn’t let him have his way. Grow the fuck up.

                    3. Fuck off Tulpa. Go suck your government cock elsewhere.

                    4. Yep, a 12 year old. Grow the fuck up.

                    5. Fuck off Tulpa. Go suck your government cock elsewhere.

                    6. What the fuck is a “Tulpa”, and are you retarded or what?

            2. Yeah, just fuckin’ submit already. Damn! Don’t go asserting your right to a common law jurisdiction. And don’t you even fucking think about becoming a member of a common law grand jury in your county. Submit some more, faster.
              I know which reality I operate in.

    2. I don’t give a fuck what the law says. A “crime” is only a crime if it meets the moral requirements for such a thing, and that’s basically violating the NAP and some other basic caveats. Fuck you “law and order” scumbags like Tulpa. Your mindless cocksucking of authority is disgusting.

      1. Fuck your No True Scotsman bullshit.

        1. Yeah, I fail to see what is No True Scotsman, but regardless, thanks for letting us know you’re another authority fellator. Tulpa is over there.

          1. This is a definitions battle, nothing clarifying will come out of it.

            But it is lovely to see some people read an entire article about someone getting fucked over completely by the state, and the first and only thing they feel like adding is “You’re defining ‘crime’ wrong”.

            1. Or that their first instinct is to find a way to blame it on this guy rather than the retarded, brutal government. I wonder why?

              1. This has nothing to do with a “retarded brutal government”, and everything to do with laws that voters wanted enacted. Defending the guy for breaking the law and ignoring the fact that he committed “actual crimes” isn’t going to win you any hearts and minds. Explaining why the law should be changed might.

        2. I think you need to look up the No True Scotsman fallacy. It’s not what you think it is.

    3. Go fuck yourself. Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it wrong. In my book, if it isn’t wrong, it isn’t a crime.

      I’m sure there’s a good logical legal reasoning behind that statement, but I’m too emotional right now to find out what it is.

      1. Actually there are many wrong things that are not crimes. There are a number of arguments to demonstrate that adultery is wrong, but it is not a crime. Pretty much everything is wrong about politics, but the practice of politics is not a crime.

        Vices are not crimes regardless of whether most people think they are wrong. (Lysander Spooner has a great essay on the topic.)

        A genuine crime requires that the criminal coerces, defrauds, or assaults a victim.

        1. “I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a persons right to life, liberty or property, a crime.”

          -Neal Bortz

        2. The major problem is the philosophy that crimes are actually committed “against the state.” If some dude is charged with rape, the state isn’t actually prosecuting him on behalf of the woman that was raped. The state is prosecuting him because he violated the edict of the government that prohibits rape. It may seem a fine point (or one without a difference) but I think it leads legislators/judges/prosecutors/police to some of these outrageous outcomes. The STATE is the victim (sigh).

    4. Victimless crimes aren’t real crimes,
      Democracy isn’t an arbiter of right and wrong,
      Majorities aren’t magically imbued with correctness.

      Fuck off slaver.

    5. Hopefully you are never on the jury for a trial involving a victimless crime. Of course, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if you gave someone that committed war crimes a free pass as long as they were acting to reduce the price at the pump.

      1. Hopefully for their sake I would be, because I’d probably let them walk. Recognizing the reality that illegal possession of a controlled substance and felon in possession are “actual crimes”, even if I disagree with the law, hardly makes me the jack-booted thug you all want so hard to make me out to be.

        Don’t even start with the retarded “war for oil” bullshit.

        1. I wouldn’t probably let the person walk. I definitely would. It isn’t a crime. The law is wrong.

          I didn’t call you a jack-booted thug. But you are the one that continued to deploy (while getting paid by taxpayers) on missions that violated the NAP.

          I agree that war for oil is bullshit. But I wasn’t the one that trumpeted $10 a gallo for gasoline if we practice non-interventionism in the Middle East.

          1. The law may be wrong, but violating it is still a crime, and no reification fallacy will change that.

            I don’t conform to your NAP. In fact, the only reason I don’t leave a trail of dead bodies in my wake is because it’s illegal and against my self-imposed morals, and one of those is subjective. In fact, there’s a whole list of people I would shoot on the spot if it were legal, including child rapists, people who peddle hard drugs to kids, and people who intentionally drive slower than the flow of traffic in the fast-lane.

            And yes, non-interventionism in the Middle East will result in $10+ a gallon gasoline, and higher costs for everything from artichokes to zucchettos.

            1. And yes, non-interventionism in the Middle East will result in $10+ a gallon gasoline, and higher costs for everything from artichokes to zucchettos.

              Ah, good. So prices for apples and zucchini will stay reasonable.

              I can live with that.

            2. While I also believe gas prices would increase, my belief system doesn’t support using force to take something I want from others. The reduction in borrowing needed for the military spending that would not occur under non-interventionism would result in less inflation. So the dollar that I earn would be worth more. And we would have a freer market. Free minds and free markets. And as a bonus I would be MORE safe from Middle Easterners with the proclivity towards violence.

              We know that military adventurism results in the death of innocent children. Including in countries where we do not have permission to operate, where we have never legally declared war and where we don’t have international legal standing. Should the persons involved with that be shot on sight? Or is that ok because in your mind it leads to lower prices at the pumps?

              And along those lines would child rape be ok if it resulted in lower gas prices?

  5. That’s my shotgun. Franchi Alcione.

    Suggested future Alt Text…FdA’s shotgun.

    1. You really want that alt-text on that pic?

      1. How about?

        Asshole shooting FdA’s shotgun.

  6. How did he get caught? Who ratted him out?

    My first question, as well.

    1. My first question is why is alcohol prohibition always part of parole? Whether the offense had anything to do with drinking or not. Dude can’t have a drink for ten years because he shot a gun, isn’t the punishment ‘spose to fit the crime.

      1. Because it’s about Fuck You, That’s Why. It’s a basic thing that they know everyone is going to violate but they tell them they can’t drink because they can.

        1. My dad was a PO and yeah, the reason for the no drinking clause is because it gives them an easy way to violate someone if they are looking for it.

          For example, it wasn’t all that unusual to get a call at home from some wife or girlfriend who was crying because the parolee was beating on her. My dad would offer to have the sheriff come out and pick them up, but the gal would say no because she didn’t want him to go back to jail/prison she just wanted him to stop hitting her. Without her testimony it would be very hard to violate him, but my dad knew he could make him come in the next day for a drug test and get him that way.

          On the other hand, I know my dad didn’t go out of his way to drug test for no reason. He understood the prohibition to mean “don’t drink and get in trouble”, not “don’t drink”.

      2. Dude can’t have a drink for ten years

        Just shoot me.

        1. Well, since you can’t shoot yourself . . .

        2. exactly, when they come and get me that is the thing thats gonna really suck, the rape cage and beatings sill be bad enough but the no drinking may just be a fate worse than death

      3. Because criminals are generally stupid, and being drunk and stupid simply compounds the problem.

        1. Fuck off Tulpa. Go suck your government cock elsewhere.

          1. Kiss my ass. I’m not going anywhere boy.

            1. Fuck off Tulpa. Go suck your government cock elsewhere.

              1. What are you, 12 years old or something? Grow the fuck up.

                1. Fuck off Tulpa. Go suck your government cock elsewhere.

                  1. One more time, retard?

  7. This guy is about half a dumbass-level stupid. Look, the law is a stupid law, and he would have been a sympathetic character to get it repealed…especially in a state like Virginia that really respects hunting. Instead, he committed a foolish act (that shouldn’t be illegal) and then pleaded guilty to it. Hell, he would have even been a sympathetic figure had he pleaded ignorance and taken his chances with a jury.*

    *Charles City County, VA is about as red and redneck as you will find. It’s no stretch that he would have found a sympathetic jury, although they’re probably pretty “just say no” there. In my estimation, gunsdrug war in that part of The Commonwealth.

    1. Patricia P. Nagel, Assistant Public Defender

      Everyone’s on the same team.

    2. Is it really so stupid to assume that no one is going to rat you out for shooting someone else’s gun at a range? Or that possessing a firearm means more than just holding on to one for a few minutes?

    3. Everyone who saw him would have had to perjure themselves…..that could have been tough, especially if some did and some didn’t. The range may (should?) have security cameras also.

      1. Should the range collect DNA samples and conduct retina scans?

      2. Security cameras at a range? Some ranges put out snacks and cokes, you pay in a cardboard box honor system.

    4. We don’t know what he was facing, they likely over charged him, with the option of: “take your two year minimum or kiss your life goodbye in prison, feel lucky punk?”

      1. That’s standard operating procedure. Often followed with some implied version of “I’ll never admit to saying this, but your public defender works for us.”

        1. What I don’t understand is why is the outrage is so limited? US jails are stacking people like pringle potato chips in over crowded jails for victimless crimes. These people have families, many had jobs and were producing before they were kidnapped and put in rape cages.

          I’m disgusted with the government, but my disgust is rapidly growing to include the society that supports these atrocities.

  8. Instead, he committed a foolish act (that shouldn’t be illegal) and then pleaded guilty to it.

    Let’s take a look at what charges were being threatened if he had the temerity to ask for a trial, before we accuse him of being stupid for taking the plea deal.

    1. This.

  9. I think we can assume he will be forced to pay out of pocket for all those years of drug and alcohol testing, so he gets an onerous financial burden to go with everything else.

    Land of the free.

    1. This is really a tiny taste of what many of the black populace have been going through since…well, just about forever.

      What little land they owned was often taken away by law enforcement after their kids were arrested by the local Sheriffs….they often had to put the land up for “bail” or sign things over with a “wink wink”.

      Of course, the financial burdens imposed on all these people when they can’t work…or even help an aging parent or their own children.

      Welcome to America – where a larger percentage of the population is locked up than anywhere else on the planet – AND, this is supported by most Americans (and especially the right….)

      1. This is really a tiny taste of what many of the black populace have been going through since…well, just about forever.

        Don’t you mean poor people who lack much of an education? That describes much of the black population. Though anyone who fits that description, regardless of their skin color, is a constant target of the cops. Because poor people without much of an education often turn to drugs as a way to make a quick buck, and because poor people can’t afford to defend themselves in court.

        It’s not a black thing. It’s a poor thing.

  10. Wait! He can’t drink? That sounds made up.

    1. It’s not; it is an extremely common added caveat to probation. It started out with things related to alcohol in some way (DUI, bar brawl), and of course extended to everything because it’s a nice additional FYTW.

  11. There’s a glaring omission from the story: How did anyone know he’d shot the gun? Who was there (after closing, the story said) to witness the act, and to know that he was forbidden to hold the gun, and gave a shit?

    1. He didn’t have to shoot it, he just had to “possess” it. And apparently, possession doesn’t even imply ownership. The gun was his dad’s.

      1. Yeah. All a prohibited person has to do is touch a gun and they’re committing a felony.

        1. or live in a home where a gun is present. He might not know that his parents, friend or family own the gun but he is still breaking the law.

  12. Sounds like a very good plan to me dude.


  13. Outrage of the day, I guess….

    Having seen many good people go to jail for weed and other such things, none of this surprises me. The pills and dope should not have been a felony in the first place. Problem solved.

    If they need a while to get to that point, they should at least allow the guy to do his thing at shooting ranges, etc. even if temporarily barred from ownership (although I see little reason a bottle of pills which tens of millions of people use regularly should have much to do with banning anything except perhaps making sure the guy doesn’t work in the auditing department of an opiate maker).

  14. Government, the things we do together!

  15. Today I picked up a hitchhiker. Nice guy, but he didn’t strike me as being the brightest bulb on the tree. Second time he lost his license. Didn’t ask about the first, but this time it was because he got caught driving while suspension because he didn’t pay a speeding ticket.

    That’s what struck me as him not being too bright. First off, he didn’t pay the fine or contest it in court. That will get your license suspended. Period. That and he got caught. That suggests to me that even after losing his license, he continued to drive in such a manner as to draw the attention of the police. Again, not that smart.

    I suggested to him that this could be an opportunity to bank some dough. He’s not spending money on gas, insurance or a car payment. That’s money in the bank. He agreed, but said he’s not too good at managing money. Again, not that bright.

    My point is that victimless crimes seem to adversely affect people who aren’t that smart. They don’t think before or after they act, and they tend to run their mouths around people who will rat them out.

    Smart people on the other hand can get away with shit because they’re smart about it.

    1. And because not too smart people often are also poor, it means the hammer of enforcement comes down hardest on people who can least afford it.

      1. Bullies avoid people who can fight back.

    2. Seems to me it wasn’t the victimless crime that affected him adversely, but the legal system.

  16. My point is that prosecuting and punishing victimless crimes seem to adversely affect people who aren’t that smart.

    1. To the tune of The Pink Panther:

      Pedant, pedant, pedant pedant pedant pedant pedaaaaaant, pedadidadant.

      But yeah, your right.

    2. That would make this an ADA violation, no?

  17. and tell me again how prosecuting this man for using a shotgun while target practicing will prevent violent gun crime in the future. Seems to me that violent criminals will obtain and use guns no matter what the gun laws restrict since they don’t follow them anyway

    1. Guns are bad, mmmkay?

  18. I don’t know what an “actual crime” is, but he did violate several laws. Those are doubtlessly stupid laws, but they aren’t going to go away merely by ignoring them.

  19. Is this some bizarre form of Americanized Jihadi justice without the cutting off of limbs or heads? Christ. This sort of shit is scandalous.

  20. I am not a libertarian. I think you all should pay taxes for our roads. Taxes for free lunch for kids or anyone else needs a hearty meal of potatoes, peas, and carrots. Taxes for PBS and NPR to make really boring programing. Taxes for real world training and education, so more people can help us pay for the potato soup. I think that every person that lives in our society is entitled to a warm sleeping bag and a 7’x2’x2′ piece of property to call their own. I think we should pay for all of that and a lot more.

    I’m not sure why we are going to pay for to lock this guy up for two years. Can’t we make him eat potato soup for two years?

    1. In different words, you don’t know what libertarians are or what we want, and you don’t understand economics either. You’re just an ignorant, self-righteous, arrogant liberal who doesn’t care about the issues or the welfare of this country as long as his team wins.

    2. Well, we do.
      We don’t want to, but we do.

  21. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $74 /hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for seven months but last month her check was $12917 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    find more information========== http://www.jobsfish.com

  22. I’ve gone to ranges in half a dozen states including here in Va. I have NEVER had to tell anyone my name or where I was from. HOW did this guy’s PO find out he went to a range, that he fired a weapon or that anything about him? Sounds fishy to me. Fun Fact – The reason mandatory sentences were created is because judges CANNOT be trusted to put the scum of the Earth where they belong. Most won’t remember but there was a judge that sentenced TWO ADULT MALE rapists that raped a young girl to 3 months counseling. In July 2014 “ANDERSON TWP., Ohio — A 72-year-old Anderson Township man who pleaded guilty to sexually abusing two young girls was sentenced Thursday to five years probation.

    Charles R. Martin was charged with rape and gross sexual imposition after investigators say he raped two 8-year-olds.”
    These are why mandatory sentences are in place – JUDGES CAN NOT, REPEAT NOT BE TRUSTED TO HAND OUT JUSTICE.

    1. Really? Any range that has a business license (as in, “not in the backwoods”) requires a license and signing of a waiver, simply for their insurance purposes, at least if you are a first time shooter there.

      The thought that that information is audited by or turned over to the police and that’s how they caught this dimwit is utterly terrifying though…

    2. My guess, knowing some of the local outdoor ranges: The range owners are usually chummy with the local sheriff and cops, who are customers. The sheriff makes a habit of swinging by the range after closing time, to check for vandals, make sure people aren’t using the range after closing (because it’s closed). He sees the two, starts asking questions, asks for ID, runs the ID. The rest is history.

  23. This isn’t going to change. Both democrats and republicans fully believe that American citizens should be permanently stripped of their constitutionally guaranteed rights if convicted of a felony (as defined by the state of conviction). Right now there are people out there who are felons by virtue of having been convicted of felonies that are no longer felonies and in some instances are no longer even crimes in state of conviction. In SC bigamy is a felony, until a few years ago sodomy was. The difference between a felony theft and a misdemeanor theft is $1 in every state.

  24. my neighbor’s mother makes $70 every hour on the computer . She has been without a job for seven months but last month her payment was $20967 just working on the computer for a few hours. take a look at the site here …..

    ============ http://www.netjob70.com

  25. How did he get caught?

  26. No harm; no foul. Give Mr. Anthony a break. Are we creating problems by severly punishing victimless crimes? Maybe this is not the whole story. But it is troubling to see a young guy thrown under the bus – for what?

  27. Well here is a question,
    What if the crime committed was not a crime under state law but was under federal law, e.g. possessing marijuana in Colorado, then getting charged with a felony under federal law.
    Does the federal law then prohibit that person from possessing a firearm?
    From what I understand, you have to commit a state felony in order for the federal possession ban to take effect.
    Anyone know the answer to this one?

    1. Yes, you are prohibited, according to a recent article right here on Reason.

  28. While many drug crimes should arguably not be crimes, they still are listed as crimes. Thus, the author’s opinion that Mr. Anthony committed no real crime is specious.

    In a really just society that prizes liberty – sure, I agree. But Mr. Anthony has choices and he chose to plead guilty to drug charges instead of fighting them. His firing a shotgun after his conviction was just heaping idiocy on top of stupid.

    As I’ve warned others here and in Colorado, if there’s a record of you having a “medical marijuana” card and you own firearms, then you’re at risk for being arrested by the Feds. State law may allow you to have weed but federal laws don’t allow you to have weed AND guns.

    Call me skeptical or cynical, but “two bottles of pills” is non-descriptive. Most painkillers I’ve received have come in either a week or two-week amounts. If Mr. Anthony’s two bottles contained, say 100 pills each, then that’s clearly a violation of controlled substance laws. Federal law also prohibits carrying them in an unlabeled container. Without the details we don’t know if he was flagrantly violating the law or just sneaking a few pills from someone’s supply.

    Do we need to overhaul our laws to make sentencing and loss of rights more reasonable? I think we do. We have too many laws and too many ineffective laws.

  29. Great article. Another reason for voting for Trump. Trump is great? No. One reason I voted for him, as did many others, was how bad the opponent was. The War on Drugs has often been used as a means to get elected and re:elected and re:elected and re:elected. Spare me weeping about protecting someone or something. It is about the candidate, their relatives and friends, and associates who aide them and in some cases those who bribe them. Who are the leaders of the pack, usually the MSM. Is there a bigger business than the MSM? Of course, government by far. If big business is evil in the market place, how about big government?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.