Why does this guy still have a right to a gun?
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:26 am
http://washingtonexaminer.com/virginia- ... PossWeshHb
"
A Virginia lawmaker who drew gasps from his colleagues when he brandished a borrowed AK-47 during an anti-gun speech Thursday was found guilty in 2002 of committing a vicious 1999 assault, was sanctioned for legal misconduct while prosecuting a rape case, spent six months in jail for contempt of a federal court, and saw his law license revoked in 2003. [...]
According to legal brief filed by the victim's attorneys, Morrissey shouted, "I'm going to kill you. I'm going to beat your head in," before beating the victim and "smash[ing] his head into the corner of a brick wall."
Morrissey was charged with Aggravated Malicious Wounding, a felony in Virginia. He was ultimately convicted of a lesser charge of assault & battery, a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor does not usually limit a convict's legal right to possess a weapon. However, a history of violence should.
"
So, we've seen another case where a violent person, unstable, still has access to guns, legally, because the courts and others didn't follow the law and report his violent actions or his tendency towards violence to the system.
Seems kind of odd that a Democrat that supports the banning of guns, who also has a history of violence, would be permitted to have guns.
"
A Virginia lawmaker who drew gasps from his colleagues when he brandished a borrowed AK-47 during an anti-gun speech Thursday was found guilty in 2002 of committing a vicious 1999 assault, was sanctioned for legal misconduct while prosecuting a rape case, spent six months in jail for contempt of a federal court, and saw his law license revoked in 2003. [...]
According to legal brief filed by the victim's attorneys, Morrissey shouted, "I'm going to kill you. I'm going to beat your head in," before beating the victim and "smash[ing] his head into the corner of a brick wall."
Morrissey was charged with Aggravated Malicious Wounding, a felony in Virginia. He was ultimately convicted of a lesser charge of assault & battery, a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor does not usually limit a convict's legal right to possess a weapon. However, a history of violence should.
"
So, we've seen another case where a violent person, unstable, still has access to guns, legally, because the courts and others didn't follow the law and report his violent actions or his tendency towards violence to the system.
Seems kind of odd that a Democrat that supports the banning of guns, who also has a history of violence, would be permitted to have guns.