Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Pot Prohibition Makes Self-Defense Illegal

The case against Krissy Noble shows how drug and gun laws conspire to deprive people of a fundamental right.

When a stranger forced his way into her apartment, tackled her, punched her repeatedly, and tried to cover her mouth with a cloth, Krissy Noble says, she did what she thought was necessary to protect herself and her unborn baby. She grabbed a handgun from the coffee table and shot the man three times, then ran to a neighbor's apartment and asked her to call the police.

Although local prosecutors agreed that the shooting was justified, Noble faces charges that could put her behind bars for years, thanks to a marijuana conviction that made it illegal for her to possess firearms. Her case shows how drug prohibition and indiscriminate gun laws conspire to deprive people of the constitutional right to armed self-defense.

The man who came to Noble's door in Fort Smith, Arkansas, on December 7 was Dylan Stancoff, the boyfriend of a woman who had once lived in the apartment with Brendon Tran, now Noble's husband. Noble told police that Stancoff, who apparently had come to recover his girlfriend's possessions, initially knocked on the door, identified himself as Cameron White, and asked for Tran, who wasn't there.

By the time Stancoff came back, Noble had talked to Tran, who said he did not know anyone by that name. Already nervous because of prior break-in attempts, she had retrieved Tran's .40-caliber pistol from the bedroom and had it in the living room when Stancoff attacked her.

"It is the opinion of this office that Krissy Lenae Noble was justified in her use of force and that this is a justifiable homicide, which does not merit the filing of criminal charges with regard to the homicidal event," Sebastian County Prosecuting Attorney Daniel Shue said in a statement issued last month. Noble, who had pleaded guilty to possessing marijuana with intent to deliver in February 2017, was nevertheless arrested for violating a state law that bars felons from possessing guns.

That offense is a Class D felony, punishable by up to six years in prison. Noble, who is 21 and now the mother of a baby boy, may also have to serve time for the marijuana offense, since staying away from guns was a condition of the five-year suspended sentence she received.

Noble told a local TV station "she was in a car with other people when police found drugs inside the car, and since no one claimed them all inside were charged." But even if the marijuana was hers, there is nothing inherently criminal about possessing cannabis, which is legal for recreational or medical use in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

Arkansas is hardly unique in treating nonviolent felons as unworthy of gun rights. Most states have similar laws, and the federal government forbids gun possession by cannabis consumers as well as people convicted of marijuana felonies. Violating that ban is itself a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The upshot is that people who have never violated anyone's rights or demonstrated any violent tendencies can go to prison for exercising a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Constitution. That is true even of people who were convicted of doing things that are no longer crimes under state law, unless they manage to get their records downgraded or expunged.

Ten years ago, when the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep guns for self-defense, it said "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons." Yet if the right to protect oneself against aggressors is "fundamental," as the Court said it has long been considered, if it is "the primary law of nature," as William Blackstone called it, and "paramount to all positive forms of government," as Alexander Hamilton thought, it cannot be treated so lightly that proximity to a bag of dried vegetable matter leaves a young pregnant woman defenseless in her own home.

© Copyright 2018 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

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.

  • SQRLSY One||

    http://www.brainyquote.com/aut.....ch_himmler

    Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State. Heinrich Himmler

    The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear. Heinrich Himmler

    USA politicians today follow Himmler, whether they admit it, or not!

  • Anomalous||

    None of them will admit it.

  • Sonny Bono's Ghost||

    Does one blade of grass follow the next? No, the proceed from the same soil, and in their own time.

  • Rob Misek||

    Commission of crime forfeits your rights.

    You have no right to liberty as long as you're in jail, maybe your entire life.

    Similarly, you forfeit your second amendment.

    You are at liberty to choose to commit a crime that forfeits your liberty.

  • Horny Lizard||

    And you're a dumb evil bastard. Do you understand that North Korea has laws? Laws can be the crimes you fool.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, "3 felonies a day" is a "thing", and The Google can tell you all about it!

  • Horny Lizard||

    And anyway Sullum is making the case that the law is unconstitutional because it arbitrarily and irrationally deprives people of a fundamental right to self defense and to control their own health.

  • Rob Misek||

    Just because laws may be wrong, doesn't mean they are. Many laws are good, representing justice.

    You have the opportunity now, while you still have free speech, to challenge which you consider are bad laws with evidence of truth demonstrated by logic and science.

    If you're not up to the task, that's on you. Keep whining.

    We have laws specifically to forfeit rights and change behaviour. That's what they're for.

  • sarcasmic||

    If someone is a danger to society then they should be locked up. If they're not then leave them alone. Let them own guns. Let them hold professional licenses. Let them vote. This in-between crap is crap.

  • Rob Misek||

    Lock em up or let em go eh?

    Be careful what you wish for.

    We aren't going to "let em go".

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, especially those pot-smokers!!!

    Look, you flaming idiot, we are letting child molesters go loose from jails, for lack of space, and then settling for making them put a sign in front of their houses, "Beware, child molester lives here".

    Wouldn't it make more sense to keep repeat offender child molesters in jail, and let loose the pot smokers, and put up a sign in front of their houses, "Beware, pot smoker lives here"?

    Which traumatizes you more, having your child molested, or dealing with the idea that someone is catching a buzz on a substance that you don't like? Duh!

    It's not jails per se that we freedom-lovers object to, it is HOW MANY of them there are, and WHAT TRIVIAL "OFFENSES" can get you in there!!!

  • Rob Misek||

    If reputable drug companies lied and sold you a drug ostensibly to save your life but actually resulted in your death, do you think that should be legal?

    Marijuana causes mental illness. We are under no moral or practical obligation to legalize it.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Whatever bad things you can honestly say about pot, most of them can be multiplied at least a few times and applied to tobacco and booze. The drugs war is flat-out irrational, not data-driven at all.

    And you are flat-out irrational, and not data-driven at all, as well, I will be far more successful arguing with my air conditioner, than arguing with you!

    PS, prescribed drugs lead to TONS of deaths regularly. But my body belongs to me, not to Government Almighty.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Marijuana causes mental illness

    And your evidence is? "Reefer Madness"? lulz, troglodyte.

  • IceTrey||

    Of course there is a moral obligation to legalize it. No man has the right to tell another what they can do to their own body.

  • Rob Misek||

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ article-205447/ Cannabis-causes-mental-illness.html

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice /problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx?theme= mobile

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ articles/314222.php

    https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications / research-reports/marijuana/there-link-
    between-marijuana-use-psychiatric-disorders

  • SQRLSY One||

    Ditto troubles with booze. Booze prohibition failed. Ditto pot prohibition. Go stuff it where the sun don't shine!

  • ||

    "Marijuana causes mental illness"

    And Masturbating grows hair on your palms...

  • SQRLSY One||

    And if the 51% of the voters decide to be utter morons and self-righteous micro-managing anti-freedom assholes, it leaves the rest of us with no other choice other than to fire up the chipper-shredders, the hangmen's nooses, and the firearms, to regain our freedoms! Democracy not-equal freedom! I am not quite yet ready to start shooting the bastards, but we're getting closer...

  • Hank Phillips||

    In point of fact, every one of those prohibition laws was enacted because of the tiny percentage of spoiler votes cast for the platforms of the Prohibition, Populist, Socialist, Bull Moose, Socialist Labor and Communist parties right here in These Sovereign States and Dominions. And as Milton Friedman pointed out decades back, those sorry bastards got hardly any votes at all, yet their hateful screed is the Law of the Land today. So, do these facts suffice to deliver a clue as to how best to REPEAL those murderous usurpations?

  • Rockabilly||

    ------

    So you have a right to protect your body but not a right to put something into your body because there is a law that says the government has the right to tell you want you can put into your own body?

    This makes no sense man. For a law to be just, it must be justified by the US Constitution. No where in the US Constitution does it give government the right to tell individuals what they can eat, drink, smoke, etc.

    That's why when the prohibitionists wanted to make the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol illegal, they had to pass a constitutional amendment .

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yeah man, in the old days, when there was actual respect for the Constitution, they made and ratified amendments.

    These days, the Government Almighty has made up the EPA, FDA, DEA, medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security, president-declared wars, and on an on, w/o amendments, totally ignoring the 9th... We might as well wipe our asses with the constitution these days, for all the non-respect we pay it!

    The SCROTUS finds emanations and penumbras and aura-fields surrounding the constitution that the rest of us cannot see!!! Politicians obviously see them as well...

    Therefor, pot and LSD and all should be legal for EVERYONE EXCEPT the SCROTUS and the politicians, because by them seeing all these hallucinatory emanations and penumbras and aura-fields surrounding the constitution, we already know that they are hallucinating plenty enough already!!!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Note to foreign readers: Governments have power (ability to kill with impunity) which increases proportionately as fools vote away rights (moral claims to freedom of action). It is to increase power and diminish rights that every unemployable republican sockpuppet (plus maybe two socialist looters) are assigned to create stench in the Reason comments section.

  • Rossami||

    It seems to me that the author of the article and the people commenting above are doing exactly what you asked, Rob Misek - challenging bad laws with evidence demonstrated by logic and science. You, on the other hand, are merely dogmatically restating the status quo. Doing so implies that you support the status quo but you provide no evidence, logic or even argument why that should be so.

    So tell us, oh wise one, precisely why you think the current abrogation of fundamental rights is the appropriate social balance based on the fact pattern in the article above.

  • RabbitHead||

    Stripping people of their rights is just "what we do together"

  • RabbitHead||

    Stripping people of their rights is just "what we do together"

  • sarcasmic||

    How much to cross the bridge?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Don't want to lose your fundamental right to defend yourself like a thug? Don't be in close proximity to a bag of weed like a thug, amiright? /sarc

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Fribley||

    The Fugitive Slave Act must be enforced because it's the law.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Yep, Lizard has got you pegged exactly right.

  • DesparateReasoning||

    Funny how the 2nd Amendment is the only Amendment you automatically lose. You don't lose your right to any other Amendments automatically.

  • DesparateReasoning||

    Funny how the 2nd Amendment is the only Amendment you automatically lose. You don't lose your right to any other Amendments automatically.

  • Observant||

    It's the one most feared by the government. The 1st is second-most feared.

  • Whorton||

    While I agree that felons, by default forfeit their right to purchase, possess etc firearms, this case illustrates the folly of that approach. Most have no issue with prohibiting felons from carrying firearms, but even felons should be able to defend themselves within their own home.

    Congress could fix this by specifying which crimes disqualify someone from firearm possession. While violent crimes should be a disqualifier, tearing the tag off your mattress or isolated errors on your income tax return should not be.

  • Horny Lizard||

    The durg war is one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever.

  • sarcasmic||

    One nifty thing about depriving felons of their right to vote is that they can't vote for people who will change the law. It's so slick it almost seems planned.

  • Observant||

    'Seems'???? Your naivete is amusing....

  • SQRLSY One||

    For those of you who don't want to be imprisoned by Government Almighty, and - or have your rights to self-defense taken away from you, I would remind you to NOT blow on a cheap plastic flute w/o a doctor's permission!!!

    For more details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ , for EXACT details of what to NOT do!!!

    This has been a pubic service of and by the Church of SQRLS....

  • AlgerHiss||

    "grabbed a handgun from the coffee table"

    Not exactly where I would keep a firearm, but I'm on her side.

    Leave her alone.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    She anticipated a threat and positioned the gun for rapid response.

    Smart girl.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Having a pot conviction in her home state meant she was eligible to be on the prohibited person list for NICS. Never ride in a car with someone who has pot but won't own up to owning it if you are pulled over. If no one claims it, all are assumed to be in possession. She could have waited and tried to get the state conviction expunged before having to defend hersel with her husband's gun. (Federal convictions require a presidential pardon.)

    Lacking a felony conviction, if you are not a current user, ATF has no problem with you checking NO on the controlled substance question on the 4473. Gun dealers were notified in the Obama Admin that anyone producing a state medical marijuana card as proof of residency is to be assumed YES and no gun sale (why have a marijuana card if you are not a user?). BUT absent a felony conviction for illegal possession and no proof of legal possession, non-current pot users are OK.

    Pot and guns is like alcohol and guns, an evil disaster in the lurking. Locally we had a convenience store that sold beer under the same roof as a hunting and fishing store that sold guns. Even though there was a solid wall between the two establishments, beer and guns under the same roof was a clear and present danger and the state ruled that simply could not be allowed.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "She could have waited and tried to get the state conviction expunged before having to defend herself with her husband's gun."

    The violent criminal that was victimizing her wasn't willing to wait. Stop making excuses for utter stupid laws, you kisser of Government Almighty butt!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    She could have waited and tried to get the state conviction expunged before having to defend hersel with her husband's gun.

    I'm sure politely asking the violent asshole who was assaulting her to please some back in a few years after she's gotten through all the legal hoops of getting the bullshit pot charge expunged would have worked out great for her.

    I'm really hoping you were being sarcastic, because how could anyone be that fucking stupid?

  • Naaman Brown||

    Sorry I omitted my [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags for that statement.

    Actually if the Brave New World Order had any respect for "defense of necessity" and "jury nullification" of nonsensical application of the law, the right of a pot head to use a gun in self-defense against a violent intruder in her own home would be accepted by common sense, if not reason.

    [sarcasm]There is still the possibility one of her parents or grandparents read "Tales From The Crypt" horror comics before the Kefauver Commission got it banned and she was the product of crazed juvenile delinquents.[/sarcasm]

  • loveconstitution1789||

    She was on a suspended sentence. Which means she was still under the thumb of state custody and supervision if she does something wrong.

    This is not the same as someone not on a suspended sentence, probation, or parole that possesses a firearm.

    With those things being said, Everyone has a right to protect themselves, even prisoners in jail or prison. Additionally, the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, which would protect ex-felons too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    My last point would be that the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional. So this lady's drug conviction should not even be a conviction in the first place.

    Even the Prohibitionists knew they needed a Constitutional Amendment (18A) to ban alcohol. Drug prohibitionists would need a constitutional amendment too, which they dont have.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Amen loveconstitution1789!!! Right on!!!

  • Hank Phillips||

    All the looters do have is the votes of some remaining frightened vidiots and hateful mystics. But not for long. Recent LP vote counts fit the Fisher-Pry replacement curve in textbook hockey-stick acceleration. Voters increasingly shun the Republican, Tea, Democrat, Green and Communist parties and sanction libertarian freedom and tolerance. Meanwhile the teeth of senile prohibition laws in a glass by the bedside are knocked into the dustbin where they belong.
    The Grateful Dead and Fat Freddy say: register and vote!

  • PubliusVA||

    "My last point would be that the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional."

    Be that as it may, this lady had been convicted of a drug offense under state law, so the unconstitutionality of the CSA would seem to have little relevance to the validity of her conviction.

  • SQRLSY One||

    So then the constitution means nothing, and we might as well wipe our asses with it. And yes, that does seem to be more and more the reality of "it is what it is", lately, and the constitution ain't what it ain't.

    We live in strange times, getting stranger every day, and strange minds defend this sad state of affairs!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Let me explain from the perspective of a USA military veteran.

    When I served in the military, they were all "Constitution this that and the other", enticing me to volunteer to get my bod shot at with bullets… (That never happened, fortunately, but I did volunteer for it). Oaths to "defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic", and ribbons on my chest, and what-not. Make me feel GOOD about (at least potentially) getting shot at, when it suits Government Almighty…
    But now, as a juror, I am NOT allowed to know about my historical common-law right to "jury nullification", and I sure as hell am NOT allowed to drag my copy of the USA Constitution into the jury deliberation room!
    The Constitution is reserved for the Highest of High Priests, when it comes time to interpret it! But you never see the High Priests in the foxholes… Getting shot at, to DEFEND the Constitution, is reserved for the grunts and peons!

    MeThinks that before they are allowed to sit their fat asses in their fancy black robes in the plush seat of the SCROTUS, they should first be required to sit their fat asses in fox holes, and get shot at, so that they will appreciate what they are supposed to be defending for us!

  • PubliusVA||

    "So then the constitution means nothing"

    No, one of the things the Constitution means is that the enumeration of powers in Article I, Section 8 applies to Congress and not to the state legislatures. See also the 10th Amendment.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Oh bullshit!

    If this were strictly true, a state would be allowed to totally ignore freedom of religion, and tell us (East Dakota or Old Jersey, what have you state) state residents which church or mosque we can or cannot attend. And we all know that is not true!

    I don't know the fancy legal term, but whoop-de-do... The SCROTUS and the Feds in general have repeatedly made the USA constitution apply to all states in the union, on many specific issues.

  • PubliusVA||

    PARTS of the Constitution apply to all states in the union. In particular, the Bill of Rights applies to the states through the 14th Amendment, which is why a state can't ignore freedom of religion. But Article I, section 8 applies only to Congress, as that's the section that defines the scope of Congress's legislative authority. And loveconstitution1789's point is that the CSA is beyond the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress, as illustrated by the fact that prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment. There may also be OTHER constitutional arguments you can make against state drug laws, but whether the CSA falls within the scope of Congress's enumerated powers has nothing to do with that.

    TL;DR: There may well be arguments you can make against the constitutionality of state drug laws, but my point is that the constitutionality of the federal CSA does not determine the validity of Noble's state law conviction. The constitutionality of the state law would have to be determined on its own merits.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "...is beyond the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress..."

    ... Hasn't prevented Congress from passing laws concerning the EPA, FDA, DEA, medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security, president-declared wars, fed involvement in housing and education, and on an on, w/o amendments, totally ignoring the 9th... We are back to, we might as well wipe our asses with the constitution these days, for all the non-respect we pay it!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I clarified below.

    States still dont have unlimited police powers. Their powers are limited by their state Constitution and the US Constitution, and federal law.

    No state constitution that I can think of lists the power to ban products and services.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    PubliusVA, States cannot ban products or services either, unless they amend their state constitutions to allow for that.

    States dont have that power.

    States have just been so lazy for a long time, that nobody really calls the state Legislatures on it and courts rarely strike down laws for having zero constitutional authority.

  • ipatrol||

    Most state constitutions reserve plenary police powers for themselves. Which means they are limited only by specifically enumerated prohibitions in their own constitutions, plus the federal ones under the 14 Amendment. That was deliberately intended by the founders, who said that the powers of the federal government would be limited and defined, while those of the states would be broad and virtually unlimited. Only in our more recent experience do we think that state powers to regulate should be limited too.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Let's hear about the criminal records, if any, of Stancoff, Tran, and the mystery woman, who previously lived in the apartment with Tran, and was also linked to Stancoff.

    I get that from the point of view of gun advocates, this narrative can be presented as a story too good to check. But there are loose ends.

    Excluding Noble as a source (as any investigator would, who intended to discover whether she should be a criminal suspect), what we know, objectively, is that Noble killed an unarmed person with whom her husband (and possibly she, as well) had previous contact. So, were Stancoff, Tran, and Noble actually confederates in a drug sales enterprise? Was Stancoff coming to the house to get drugs, or money from drug sales? What might the unnamed woman who previously lived with Tran have to say? Has anyone previously seen Noble and Stancoff together? Or all of them together?

    Maybe all the questions like those were already asked and answered to the satisfaction of investigators. If so, it's surprising that this narrative doesn't include more of the already-available exculpatory evidence on Noble's behalf. Because without that kind of detail, it's a very thin narrative indeed, in which not a shred of evidence is out of step with the innocence of the person telling the tale. The truth usually doesn't look like that, and cover stories usually do.

  • SQRLSY One||

    My inside sources indicate that this criminal syndicate of four co-conspirators were almost definitely in the business of synthesizing dangerously addictive medical devices, and distributing them without licenses or prescriptions! THAT may have been what was REALLY going on!

    That all should read and heed, and be scared straight, here is my warning...

    DON'T DO THIS!!!!

    For more details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ , for EXACT details of what to NOT do!!!

    This has been a pubic service of and by the Church of SQRLS....

  • Hank Phillips||

    Readers here have an example of what coercive mysticism relies on to replace deductive logic while replacing freedom with coercion at gunpoint. Thanks Stephen, I couldn't have made it up.

  • Eddy||

    I suppose it's possible this killing was a setup where the guy was lured to the apartment and the woman killed him because of drugs. If so, she arranged the crime scene neatly enough that there wasn't enough evidence to show her to be the aggressor.

    OR it could be a case of self-defense.

    The presumption of innocence, which applies in every case, should particularly apply when you end up shooting someone in your own home.

    I imagine that if she's allowed a defense of necessity to the gun charge, then the burden on her would be to show self-defense. But that's if she's allowed to make the argument at all, which I don't know.

  • RabbitHead||

    So you saying that the fact that there is nothing in this story that indicates she is culpable for killing the man should be taken as evidence that she may be?

    Wow

    What next? Are you going to assert that it is more likely the sun will rise in the West tomorrow because its turn is way overdue?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    As a semi-retired defense attorney I have five words: "Take It To The Jury". If there were ever a case for jury nullification, this is it. She's in Arkansas? I can't believe any 12 people would ever convict

  • Cynical Asshole||

    She's in Arkansas? I can't believe any 12 people would ever convict

    I don't know about that. It's been a while since I was anywhere near Arkansas, but ~20 years ago all it would have taken for the prosecutor to get a conviction would have been to say "She's a pothead and a drug dealer," and the jury would have most likely convicted her after less than 5 minutes of deliberation. Lot's of "Law 'n Order" conservatives down there.

    Maybe if she's extremely luck she'll get at least one southern good ol' boy who like to smoke a little weed himself while listening to Lynyrd Skynyrd and doesn't see anything wrong with that to hang the jury, but that's about it.

  • Hank Phillips||

    So superstition and pseudocience in the Islamic Republic of Arkansas puts Sharia prohibitionism above the Second Amendment? This is a surprise? Al Capone, his brothers and colleagues were just as surprised to learn a similar lesson. In 1927 most of the Suprema Corte that had recently ruled conscription by press gangs into the chlorine-gas trenches of heroin-exporting France was NOT involuntary servitude also ruled that Communist Manifesto plank 2 amended into the 16th Amendment was way more important than the entire Bill of Rights. The partial solution of 1932 lay in copying the plank of the Liberal Party that demanded the repeal of the 18th Amendment. Voting for the Libertarian Party of Arkansas and freeing that lady is way more important than all the hysterical bleating by BOTH halves of the looter kleptocracy. Arkansas residents need only set aside their cowardice for an hour on election day.

  • Warren||

    Jesus Christ what a fucking stupid argument. You get convicted of a crime you lose your rights.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Just like in North Korea, yes... All Obey the Dear Leader! The Law is The Law is The Sacred Law, after all!

  • SQRLSY One||

    http://www.swtimes.com/news/20.....n-shooting says that her family has set up a "go fund me" page, but they do not link to it. My Dearly Beloved wants to sent money, and I cannot find where to send the money. Any advice here anyone?

    Thanks! -SQRLSY

  • SQRLSY One||

    From the above link...

    "Despite Arkansas law that possession of less than 4 ounces of marijuana is not a felony, prosecutors applied Class D felony charges for possession with the intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia."

    The more I learn about this case, the more it stinks to beyond the Highest Heavens!!!

  • Lachowsky||

    gf.me/u/k6vidr

    There you go squirrely one. Send a bit of money. This happened about 20 miles from where I live. It's a huge load of horseshit and I'm sure the lady needs all the help she can get.

  • Lachowsky||

    https://www.gofundme.com/KrissysFreedomFight

    Sorry. Bad link. This may work.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Money sent... Thanks Much!!!

  • Uncle Jay||

    Prohibition is essential to any good socialist slave state.

  • Calidissident||

    Can someone who understands the law better than I do explain - it's not illegal for someone banned from possessing firearms to live with someone who can and does legally own a firearm, correct? So the illegal activity her is just her possessing it to shoot the intruder, right? That is seriously fucked up, what happened to exigent circumstances?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Pot is bad, only bad persons smoke pot, or get caught with "someone's" pot in the car that they are riding in. Bad persons no touchee guns... Must let themselves be maimed or killed by criminals, and not defend themselves in their own homes... 'Cause they are bad people!

    (And even if their home state has legalized pot, they are STILL bad people!)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its not illegal for an ex-felon to live with a non-felon who possesses a firearm.

    Setting aside the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear Arms for the ex-felon, the non-felon cannot be barred from possessing a firearm.

    There was a recent case of this circumstance in another state. (cannot remember case right now). The ex-felon used the firearm belonging to the non-felon and killed an intruder. The right to self-defense trumped the law prohibiting ex-felons from possessing firearms.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Worse case, represent yourself and throw yourself at the mercy of the jury. Some attorneys wont agree to do this because the judge might try and prevent jury nullification. Most attorneys are pussies and wont risk a day in jail or fine for contempt to properly represent their clients.

    Demand a speedy jury trial.

    Only 12 heartless pieces of shit would convict you.

  • tommhan||

    Losing your second amendment rights should only be for violent crimes.

  • Naaman Brown||

    If she had used something other than a gun, the opening post and the comments in this thread would not be here.

    If she had used something at hand besides a gun in self-defense, it would not be an issue at all.

    This "crime" is only a "crime" because of the 1968 Gun Control Act, the ever-expanding Prohibited Persons List. and the left wing obsession with guns.

    And yes, we were told in 1968 that the Prohibited Person List would be adjudicated violent dangerous felons and mental cases, a danger to self or others, only. Democrats added Disabled Vets and Social Security recipients whose crime was having a fiduciary handling their finances. And the Democrat clamor to add the No Fly List, that kept Sen Ted Kennedy from flying at least five times because there was a IRA terrorist with the nom de guerre T. Kennedy. The No Fly List that has barred 10 month old babies from flying for sharing the same name as a terrorist. What adjudication? What promises? Give an inch, they take a mile, camel's nose under the tent.

  • mjs_28s||

    Any time that you have already served your sentence and paid for your crime you should have full rights restored.

    If you are actually a danger to society and your time is already served, is it really that hard to get a gun illegally?

    No it is not.

    So why deny those that want to legally defend themselves the right to?

    Many that end up in jail the first time don't always do via legally acquired weapon.

    In this woman's case, her pot crime isn't even a violent crime to begin with.

    I guess what the government is saying is that if you wish to rob someone or their home, start with ex-cons first since, supposedly, they will not be armed...at least legally.

    Taking someone's right away like that is a life sentence whether you are behind bars or not.

  • Thor||

    Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online