J6 idiots getting into trouble again...

[plague311]

I saw one other J6er that got shot and killed when he decided to FAFO with PD. Well, it seems the king dumb ◊◊◊◊ of the Proud Boys couldn't keep his ass out of trouble either.

Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader granted clemency by President Donald Trump last month, was arrested outside the U.S. Capitol on Friday and charged with assaulting a female protester.

Tarrio was handcuffed, searched and put in a police van by U.S. Capitol Police after he appeared on Capitol Hill with several other members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for a "press conference." The police said he was charged with assault. Source

Apparently he just slapped the phone out of a woman's hand who was recording him. I feel like this might need a dedicated thread considering I truly believe there will be many more of these dummies getting into trouble now that they feel invincible after getting a pardon.

I also read an article in the Times earlier where a woman who was pardoned applied for a gun license and answered "no" to the question of if she's ever been charged with a felony, etc. Which, I believe, is a bit of a grey area but I don't think any of these people learned a lesson.

 

[dirtywick]

lying on a gun application is one of the worst things you can do

 

[dudalb]

There is no quick cure for stupid.

 

[JayUtah]

I also read an article in the Times earlier where a woman who was pardoned applied for a gun license and answered "no" to the question of if she's ever been charged with a felony, etc. Which, I believe, is a bit of a grey area but I don't think any of these people learned a lesson.

Does the application say "charged" or "convicted?" Normally they only want to know about things you were convicted of, since it's usually unlawful for a felon to own a gun. But if you were charged and acquitted, you're not a felon. Guessing that the Times would be reporting a New York violation, I looked at the application form, which says:

Have you ever been arrested, summoned, charged or indicted anywhere for any offense, including DWI (except traffic infractions)? If yes, furnish the following information. Sealed arrests must be included.

The information required includes the police agency, the charge, and the disposition of the charge.

I can see why this would trip people up. Many people are either told or have come to believe that a pardon "wipes the slate clean" or has an effect tantamount to "It's as if the charge never happened." This is not my experience. The pardon removes the punishment but does not erase the criminal record. You are still considered a felon for most purposes that involve a background check, and you must still answer yes if asked if you were convicted of a felony. The gray area is that a pardon restores your rights that you will have lost by the conviction. You can vote again and you can own a gun. But you can't lie on the form. You have to say you were convicted of a felony which has since been pardoned.

 

[William Parcher]

I hope most of them learned a lesson.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Sounds like leopards eating their own faces off.

 

[plague311]

I hope most of them learned a lesson.

Read the statements of those that have been pardoned. I truly don't believe they have...like at all.

 

[plague311]

Does the application say "charged" or "convicted?" Normally they only want to know about things you were convicted of, since it's usually unlawful for a felon to own a gun. But if you were charged and acquitted, you're not a felon. Guessing that the Times would be reporting a New York violation, I looked at the application form, which says:

I snipped a lot for brevity. Just for a point of clarification, I believe the article was referring to the Federal Firearms License. The two questions I believe she answered "no" to are worded as such:

26. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial? (See definition #10)

27. Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See definition #10)

The gray area is that a pardon restores your rights that you will have lost by the conviction. You can vote again and you can own a gun. But you can't lie on the form. You have to say you were convicted of a felony which has since been pardoned.

I am a convicted felon and it gets even murkier with regards to what you described as well. Each state dictates when you can vote again and when you can own a gun again. According to North Dakota:

Voting rights are lost if a person has been:1. Convicted of a felony and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. However, the person’s voting rights are lost only during the time of actual incarceration. NDCC §12.1-33-01(1)

So I could vote the moment I was done on probation but not while I was on it as that was considered "incarceration". When it comes to gun ownership it depends on the felony. Mine was non-violent, non-drug related so I could own a gun in North Dakota after 5 years. The ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb part is if it's a violent felony then I'd have to wait 10 years (mine was 25 years ago). That's right, violent felons can get firearms in North Dakota after 10 years. That's crazy to me.

All of that being said, the irony is that if I wanted a gun I'd HAVE to buy it off of like craigslist or facebook or a gun show because I couldn't pass the background check. I'd also get arrested if I got searched by border patrol (which there are a lot of in Northern North Dakota), but I'd be fine if it were by the locals.

That's a long rambling way to say that gun rights and voting rights are crazy, but that doesn't stop these people. This woman didn't even know the answer and rather than finding out first, she just (possibly) lied on a federal form.