Lady shoots attacker in home, but was a "prohibited person"

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Lady shoots attacker in home, but was a "prohibited person"

Post by bignflnut »

Here we go with the "prohibited person" nonsense...
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.

SNIP

"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.
Shall NOT be infringed.
Unalienable.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
OhioPaints
Posts: 5666
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 4:22 pm
Location: Brown Co./ southern Ohio

Re: Lady shoots attacker in home, but was a "prohibited pers

Post by OhioPaints »

I agree. A juvenile mistake should not take away fundamental rights for a lifetime.

Should a 60 year old woman not be able to defend herself and her grandkids because of a mistake she made 45 years ago?

Do we take away a felon's freedom of religion or freedom of speech after they have served their sentence?

Of course, during their sentence, they do lose most rights, as is reasonable and proper. And that is the situation here, she was was on probation and serving a suspended sentence. If you don't like the terms of a suspended sentence, stay in jail and serve your time.

Ken
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Lady shoots attacker in home, but was a "prohibited pers

Post by bignflnut »

OhioPaints wrote:I agree. A juvenile mistake should not take away fundamental rights for a lifetime.

Should a 60 year old woman not be able to defend herself and her grandkids because of a mistake she made 45 years ago?

Do we take away a felon's freedom of religion or freedom of speech after they have served their sentence?

Of course, during their sentence, they do lose most rights, as is reasonable and proper. And that is the situation here, she was was on probation and serving a suspended sentence. If you don't like the terms of a suspended sentence, stay in jail and serve your time.

Ken
Ken, respectfully, could she be serving a suspended sentence, free in society, and have her 4th Amendment Right to illegal Search and Seizure suspended during that time? Perhaps her 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination? Shall her church be dictated to her? Shall she be required to quarter troops?

Understanding how much of a broken record I am on this matter...The BOR and other Rights are unalienable, they cannot be removed from a person and have that person be a human. If a person is actively incarcerated, we all agree that the punishment should fit the crime and that one of the proper functions of government is to punish injustice in such a way to deter future lawlessness.
9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.

It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.
The silly way that the MJ case was prosecuted and the silly connection to this silly notion of "prohibited person"-hood makes this case very silly indeed.

If a person is properly incarcerated, of course their Liberties are restricted. However, this concept that they're free in society, but cannot own certain property, much less use that property to defend their own lives, is abhorrent.

Justice isn't a lukewarm, one foot in and one foot out, fence-riding concept. A person is free, or is incarcerated. Of course my negative rights are bounded by the negative rights of others, as is proper.

The injustices perpetrated against Noble continue, unabated.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
OhioPaints
Posts: 5666
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 4:22 pm
Location: Brown Co./ southern Ohio

Re: Lady shoots attacker in home, but was a "prohibited pers

Post by OhioPaints »

Of course, while on probation, officials can search and seize at will. That is a condition of probation. The violator freely agrees to those rules as part of accepting the probation/get out of jail agreement. They have the option of spending their entire sentence in jail.
User avatar
catfish86
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm

Re: Lady shoots attacker in home, but was a "prohibited pers

Post by catfish86 »

Knowing your rights in this regard is no easy feat. Many of you may remember I was arrested on a gun charge, the propriety of which was hotly debated. Regardless I was charged with Mishandling a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle (5th Degree Felony) and Aggravated Menacing (1st Degree Misdemeanor). A guy threatened me in a road rage situation and I scared him off by pulling a gun. As the time, it was illegal to touch your gun while in the car, which this organization at great effort got repealed after the incident but before trial.

Now, IF I plead guilty to the Agg Men, it is a crime of violence and thus my rights are barred in Ohio and Fed.

If I plead guilty to the Mishandling charge, it is a felony and same result.

I refused to plead guilty to the Agg Men because he came after me, even though my attorney and prosecutor said it was only a misdemeanor. My attorney was clueless about the gun rights impact. I also factored in my gun rights.

Now I made much of the fact I was being charged with breaking a repealed law. This lead to them being willing to drop it to the same charge as a misdemeanor which did not affect my gun rights. I received a year of probation and 1 day jail time (served upon arrest). The judge on her own put the condition of no firearms AND revoked my license.

Now the statute specifically states that the SHERIFF SHALL SUSPEND the license for one year and SHALL (which means must) return it afterward. I did get my guns returned after the probation. Then I went to get my license. It took some wrangling I spare you the details on, but I finally got the Judge to blankly say she no longer had jurisdiction as sentence was served and wouldn't overturn the "revoke". I convinced the Sheriff that case law is clear, if a statute specifically vests authority in a certain person (ie the Sheriff), a judge CANNOT usurp that authority and that when a statute says SHALL rather than MAY, it means the prescribed actions are without discretion. I got my license back and have since renewed it.

When I bought guns in subsequent years, I initially had to wait the 3 days for a decision hold on the background check and my gun shop would then make the discretionary decision to sell when the three days lapsed without a rejection. Last year it went through first time.

I then had a problem with my PA license (needed until recently). They said that the offense was over one year potential punishment (PA misdemeanors can be up to two years). I filed an appeal showing what the conviction was and the punishments statutes in Ohio (misdemeanors are less than a year). I got my PA license.

Every step of the way was a maze and I had to stand up for my rights.

BTW, I now carry CHL insurance. They pay for all the legal stuff and hand pick gun right respecting defense lawyers. I had to correct my lawyer on several gun rights points along the way. You would be surprised at how many defense lawyers are gun grabbers.
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.

Gun control is racist.
Post Reply