A couple of weeks ago, I noted the arrest of open carry advocate Jesus Gonzalez on charges he killed one man and severely wounded another during a dispute, and in a followup to that story, Mr. Gonzalez has been released on $100,000 cash bond. However, despite being alleged to have killed one man and shot and wounded another, the conditions of Gonzalez’s bond don’t prevent him from continuing to carry a firearm. Prosecutors have said they are going to ask the judge in Gonzalez’s case to modify the conditions of his bond to forbid him from carrying a gun while the criminal case against him moves through the courts.
Curiously, I haven’t heard any outrage from the right-wing outrage squad about the fact that Jesus Gonzalez is allowed to carry a gun while out on bond for a shooting death….why do you suppose that is?
Mention the possibility of a felon on probation voting, and the right goes wild. But carrying a gun while out on bond for killing someone? No big deal.
I’m sure very few on the right actually condone it, but speak up then!
I don’t know the story so I’ll research it but the difference between what you speak of and this man’s situation, Jim, is “CONVICTION.”
I am assuming Jesus is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
If a judge can tell a person that was arrested not to drink alcohol when they are out on bond, that judge could certainly tell them not to carry a handgun.
There are plenty of laws regulating firearms. The second amendment is not an absolute “any gun, anywhere, anytime.” It is legal to make a person be 21 before they are permitted to own a handgun. Just as that law is acceptable under the second amendment, so is restricting a person out on bond for a violent crime from carrying a firearm.
Also, your argument seems to hinge on, because something isn’t explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, the government could outlaw it. Seems like a pretty broad view of governmental authority to me.
Maybe, the judge’s decision is an indication that the shooting was justified. The local media has done such a terrible job of actually reporting the entire story that none of us really know much about it. As reported this was a right-wing gun fanatic who for no reason whatsoever gunned down two innocent people. Logic would tell you that if those were the facts the judge would not only prohibit him from carrying, but would have also set bail at an unattainable amount.
What ever the argument is doesn’t matter. The fact is that the guy hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. He apparently doesn’t have a record of any other crimes or felonies. If you have a problem with him being able to carry I suggest you send a letter to the judge. This isn’t a conservative thing like Zach makes it out to be. It’s about the law,possible loopholes in that law, and what the judge DIDN’T do to prevent what you think is wrong.
E, so you’re comfortable with alleged murderers being allowed to carry firearms while they’re awaiting trial?
Good to know.
Never said that Zach…… Just pointing out the facts as I see them. You should be whining about what the judge did or didn’t do, not what think conservatives might say.
It’s a moot point, I believe the judge has now restricted his access to dangerous weapons including firearms and he can’t leave the state without the court’s permission. So he apparently is now also considered a flight risk.
Such a bail condition was a no-brainer, and Barry Slagle should have known better because he is better than that…ADA Molitor should have brought it up at the time bail was set as well…not two weeks later. Regardless, you guys do realize that if this dude is intent on carrying a gun, a court order will do nothing to stop him, don’t you? I don’t think we can rationally presume a probable murderer will choose to obey that law after already ignoring the one outlawing homicide.
I have two questions:
Where did this guy come up with $100k for bail?
Why doesn’t CCAP show when the bail was posted? Such entries typically follow the “Cash Bond Set” entry.