A federal grand jury has charged two men with illegally possessing firearms in Lawrence, the United States attorney's office said Thursday.
Quinton Wilson, 31, and Christopher Musick, 29, are each charged with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony.
Wilson, of Lawrence, allegedly committed the crime June 16 and Musick allegedly committed the crime Dec. 19, federal prosecutors said.
Comments
puddleglum 7 years, 11 months ago
and then???
imastinker 7 years, 11 months ago
What crime?
Why was a grand jury involved? I thought they were for making unpopular indictments?
1029 7 years, 11 months ago
Nothing like big government saying who can and who can't defend himself. If anything, I would think felons need to defend themselves more than others because they probably know more dangerous people than non-felons. You just wait--Obama's master plan is to take away all the guns so that nobody can defend themselves and their money and property from the socialism.
meggers 7 years, 11 months ago
Shouldn't it say 'firearms violations' or 'firearms charges', instead of just firearms?
I'm guessing the firearms themselves aren't the culprit; instead, it was probably the manner in which they were handled, or who was doing the handling. The headline seems to imply otherwise.
costello 7 years, 11 months ago
"Why was a grand jury involved? I thought they were for making unpopular indictments?"
I think it's because it's a federal felony. The Constitution requires a grand jury.
Amendment V. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ..."
BrianR 7 years, 11 months ago
"...Obama's master plan is to take away all the guns so that nobody can defend themselves and their money and property from the socialism."
Wack-a-doodle-doo
Kim Murphree 7 years, 11 months ago
BrianR---this has NOTHING to do with Mr. Obama or gun control...and everything to do with FELONS in possession of firearms....did you read the article? FELONS don't get to have firearms---that law has been on the books for a long time AND is supported by Republicans.
BrianR 7 years, 11 months ago
Wow vocal, did you actually just say that? Try reading the thread too, moron.
frank mcguinness 7 years, 11 months ago
1029 Obviously thinks people convicted of cooking meth should have guns.
He also wins the award for the dumbest post of 2009
govenorteacup 7 years, 11 months ago
Nicely said, Rooster
RogueThrill 7 years, 11 months ago
1029 is being sarcastic.
beatrice 7 years, 11 months ago
1029 is a superstar in my book. Thanks again for the excellent post.
Guess it is time for these two to face the "Musick." (bad boys bad boys / whatcha gonna do ...)
hipper_than_hip 7 years, 11 months ago
Non-violent felonies shouldn't be cause for you to lose your gun rights. Anything involving drugs, violence, or dangerous behavior should.
If you're so dangerous that you can't own a gun, maybe you shouldn't be out of jail.
Stuart Evans 7 years, 11 months ago
hipper, why should people convicted of drug felonies be included in that list? why should someone who was merely possessing pot and failed to get a tax stamp suddenly unworthy of carrying a firearm?
hipper_than_hip 7 years, 11 months ago
Possession of a bag of weed without a stamp isn't a felony; in Lawrence, it's a ticket. Possession of 500 lbs of weed without a stamp is something different. Two different crimes, two different punishments.
Steve Jacob 7 years, 11 months ago
If your first time thru the system is non-violent or non-drugs, it's not going to be a felony.
Anyway, you can about indict anyone with a grand jury, so let's not pass judgment yet.
Christine Anderson 7 years, 11 months ago
Beatrice, I had to giggle at the mention of the "Inner Circle" tune. You stinker, now it's stuck in my head.
jonas_opines 7 years, 11 months ago
"If anything, I would think felons need to defend themselves more than others because they probably know more dangerous people than non-felons."
Chuckle. I just wanted to thank you, 1029, for your assistance in testing my theory on how wacky you have to get before no one will take you as serious or legitimate on the net.
. .. . and again, the answer seems to be: there is no point to where you are too wacky to have no one take you seriously.
Mike Wagner 7 years, 11 months ago
Were the automatic firearms? So many questions, so little answers. Thanks LJW, great work as usual!!!
redfred 7 years, 11 months ago
One has to wonder as to why they are being dealt with at the Federal level when there are state laws that also cover this. Does the Federal prosecutor not have enough to do?
oldvet 7 years, 11 months ago
Wow! So the existing gun laws on the book actually do work when they are applied by prosecutors! Amazing!!!
RoeDapple 7 years, 11 months ago
whodathunkit?
ralphralph 7 years, 11 months ago
It's good to see the Feds charging this. My experience would say that there is more to it than just the gun charges, but those are easy to prove: Element #1 - the guy is a convicted felon (paperwork proves it); Element #2 - he possessed a firearm (the gun itself generally proves it, maybe with an eyewitness to prove he had it, and an expert to prove it's a gun). Years ago I would try and try to get the Feds to prosecute these cases, and they wouldn't do it unless there was some glamour angle to it. Protecting the rights of those who follow the law requires punishment of those who do not.
RoeDapple 7 years, 11 months ago
Certain states, Washington and Montana for example have laws allowing ownership of weapons if felony was non-violent in nature. Federal law supersedes state law however, so the Feds can still step in and file charges even if your state allowed purchase. Not sure where Kansas is on this, but the Feds ultimately rule on this. Best to not be a felon
Boosh 7 years, 11 months ago
Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says… "And if the more intelligent party happens to feel that blowing a more dangerous party is appropriate"
and
"After all, they've just announce that 'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'. Sometimes you just have to throw the baby out with the bathwater."
heehawhee (snort)
jonas_opines 7 years, 11 months ago
Yeah right. Freudian slip maybe.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.