http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/49173.asp

Anti-gun activist arrested after firearm found at home

A Springfield (IL) woman who began lobbying against gun violence after her son was shot to death in 2002 was arrested last week when police allegedly found an illegal gun and drugs in her home.

Annette "Flirty" Stevens, however, said Monday she's innocent, and the arrest is an attempt by police to get her to give up information about unsolved crime in the city.

The handgun, which had a scratched-off serial number, and drugs allegedly were discovered Friday morning inside Stevens' home in the 2500 block of South 15th Street. Authorities said they obtained a search warrant for the residence as part of an ongoing investigation of a recent series of drive-by shootings. No one has been hurt in the gunplay.

Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives assisted in the search.

The law should apply equally to all.

and all her gun grabbing friends

maybe this one will be different.

:evilgrin:

... an ongoing investigation of a recent series
of drive-by shootings ...

I doubt that anyone is suggesting that the individual in question actually committed *that* crime, anyhow.

Frankly, the likelihood of the "illegal gun and drugs" actually belonging to what seems to be a middle-aged woman would seem rather remote as well ...

Frankly, the likelihood of the "illegal gun and drugs" actually belonging to what seems to be a middle-aged woman would seem rather remote as well ...

Take time to read a newspaper or two. You can start with the (Louisville, KY) Courier-Journal. You'll find that quite a few of those convicted of drug and firearms-related crimes are in their 40's and 50's.

Having worked in corrections, I've seen the ages and gender of many who are incarcerated for such violations.

Damn! There's another one of those anecdotes. Oh, well. You can look up the proof if you care to.

to remind her of her son.

"She said the police wrongly believe she is the ringleader of the shootings, and they think she has information to solve those cases, as well as others, including the December murder of Andre Ayers, 22, who was shot as a procession of cars wound through the city's east side.

"This is a blatant attempt to try and undermine me," she said Monday night. "... They can't solve these crimes, and I'm familiar with these individuals, so they're going after me because I socialize with all of them.""

What, exactly, is she doing socializing with people that are doing drive-by shootings while in possession of a gun with defaced serial numbers and drugs?

It's not the first MMMer to break the law....one of the other ones capped a guy, and IIRC, is currently in prison for it.

Speaking of the law, my daughter is about to graduate from law school. She did extremely well.

it's the fact that the woman ADMITS in the article to knowingly possessing the firearm with obliterated serial numbers. It's a strict liability offense. Viewing the reported information in a manner most beneficial to the defendant, she's still guilty by her own admission of possessing a contraband weapon. Given her status as a MMM organizer, I find that somewhat strange.

WRT your daughter, please offer her my congratulations. I hope she finds a job she enjoys 1/100th as much as I enjoy mine, and I hope it pays her 100 times what mine pays me. ;)

Should still be incarcerated.

http://www.tincher.to/mmmppr1.htm

Washington, D.C. - United States Attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein announced that Barbara Graham, 49, of Capitol Heights, Maryland, was sentenced today by D.C. Superior Court Judge Michael Rankin to 10 years to life imprisonment after being found guilty by a jury on February 1, 2001, of Assault With Intent To Kill While Armed, Aggravated Assault While Armed, Mayhem While Armed, three separate counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Crime of Violence, and other related gun charges. On April 30, 2001, Graham's co-defendant in this case, Erskine Moorer, was sentenced to 15 years to life for his role in the offense. According to the government's evidence, on January 26, 2000, at approximately 6:10 p.m., Barbara Graham approached a 22-year-old man by the name of Kikko Smith and asked him his name. Mr. Smith responded that his name was Kikko, whereupon Ms. Graham reached inside her purse, pulled out a handgun with an extended clip and began to chase Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith ran for his life and was then shot at and hit a number of times by Graham and her daughter's long term boyfriend, Erskine Moorer. One of the bullets struck Mr. Smith in his back, breaking his rib, collapsing his lung and eventually shattering his spine. Other shots struck Mr. Smith in his foot and head. Due to this incident, Mr. Smith spent over one year in either hospitals or assisted living facilities. He is now confined to a wheel chair and has no movement from the waist down.

Barbara Lipscomb a.k.a. Graham's story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40501-2000Jul13¬Found=true

The mother of a young man gunned down on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday observance, who had grieved that her son's death went unnoticed as the city celebrated the life of the civil rights leader, was arrested yesterday in the shooting of a man she blamed for her son's death.

Barbara Lipscomb, 48, was arrested at her home in Capitol Heights at 7 a.m. on a charge of assault with intent to kill in a Jan. 26 incident that left a 21-year-old man paralyzed from the waist down. Police recovered three handguns and a TEC-9 submachine gun at her home.

"This is a vigilante antic that went awry," Winston Robinson, commander of the 7th District, said of the shooting. "... This was an innocent man, and now he's paralyzed."

... Yesterday, police said they had enough evidence to show that Lipscomb--whom they identified by her most recent married name, Barbara Ann Martin--was also a shooter that January evening. It was just two days after the funeral of her son, Le'Pierre Clemons, 19, who was hit by a spray of bullets in the same Southeast neighborhood.

Had the person she shot been the one who killed her son, and had she been one of those ordinary citizens no one had ever heard of, I suspect we'd be hearing the usual lines about how the guy who got shot had just got what was coming to him and how nobody was going to be shedding any tears for him.

There is no reason to think that if her son had not been killed, she would ever have owned or used a firearm. And her son was killed precisely because someone who should never have had access to firearms did, and shot him. One can understand why she'd be marching against gun violence ... and unfortunately, one can also understand why she did what she did.

It is the very fact that ordinary people do do such things that makes it so unwise for them to have ready access to the firearms to do it with.

Her son was killed by "a spray of bullets". Who will be the first to argue that he would have been killed anyway, even had the firearm(s?) been absent from the equation. By a spray of lawn darts, maybe?

She shot her victim with a handgun. Who will be the first to argue that she could have wandered abroad with a shotgun or rifle, until she found her unsuspecting victim, just as easily as she did with the handgun that she "reached inside her purse, pulled out" and shot him with? How about that she could just as easily have achieved the same outcome if she had chased the victim, as she did, who "ran for his life and was then shot at", if she had been armed with a knife?

I'm no more eager to have people like her possessing handguns than I am to have the people who killed her son possessing whatever firearm(s) they used to kill him, which I rather suspect was also a handgun.


As for the woman in the story that opened the thread, I am in no position at all to assess her credibility or to even guess at the actual facts surrounding her possession of the firearm in question. *IF* she were not involved in any criminal activities herself (and I say this purely as a hypothetical, which might apply to cases other than hers), and the handgun had been in her possession purely because it had been possessed by her son and left on her property when he died, then she would have committed a crime that she would never have committed had it not been for the ready access to firearms that he enjoyed.

The fact that the serial number had been filed off suggests a couple of possibilities. One is that the handgun had been stolen from a lawful owner, and the number was obliterated to prevent tracing to that crime. That possibility is perhaps more remote than the possibility that it was legally acquired (leaving some record of who acquired it, I assume) and that the legal (even if "straw") purchaser then transferred it to someone (perhaps the first in a series) who was not entitled to own it and obliterated the number to prevent tracing to him/herself. All those "illegal" guns were "legal" at one time, let's all remember.


All in all, I'm seeing a few tragedies that would all have been averted had the protagonists not had access to handguns. And I'm not saying that had stricter controls on access to handguns (and/or stricter safe storage laws, if any of the handguns in issue were at one time legally owned and then stolen) been in place, these particular people would not have been able to get access to them anyway. But for cripes' sake, obviously *some* of the nearly 10,000 handgun homicides a year in the US could be averted by limiting access to the things.

... Yesterday, police said they had enough evidence to show that Lipscomb--whom they identified by her most recent married name, Barbara Ann Martin--was also a shooter that January evening. It was just two days after the funeral of her son, Le'Pierre Clemons, 19, who was hit by a spray of bullets in the same Southeast neighborhood.

Had the person she shot been the one who killed her son, and had she been one of those ordinary citizens no one had ever heard of, I suspect we'd be hearing the usual lines about how the guy who got shot had just got what was coming to him and how nobody was going to be shedding any tears for him.


except she has been very actively working to strip law abiding people of their 2nd A rights. then she attempts to murder someone, the wrong guy BTW, and also has an illegal machine gun. this is way beyond any kettle calling the pot black.

Had the person she shot been the one who killed her son, and had she been one of those ordinary citizens no one had ever heard of, I suspect we'd be hearing the usual lines about how the guy who got shot had just got what was coming to him and how nobody was going to be shedding any tears for him.

Is that right? Care to cite the "usual lines" from people here who advocate hunting down and killing criminals long after the crime has taken place? Since you say "usual" I'd expect at least perhaps 5 or 6 different individuals (non-tombstoned of course) saying such things. Or perhaps this is one of your "unsupported assertions" that you so like to post? Maybe you should give yourself that little award too?

She shot her victim with a handgun. Who will be the first to argue that she could have wandered abroad with a shotgun or rifle, until she found her unsuspecting victim, just as easily as she did with the handgun that she "reached inside her purse, pulled out" and shot him with? How about that she could just as easily have achieved the same outcome if she had chased the victim, as she did, who "ran for his life and was then shot at", if she had been armed with a knife?

Considering she went looking for him in a car, it would have been quite simple to go around with a shotgun or rifle. In fact, the simplest way to get the kid would probably be to just run him over with car. If she had gone that route he probably would be dead instead of paralyzed.

But for cripes' sake, obviously *some* of the nearly 10,000 handgun homicides a year in the US could be averted by limiting access to the things.

And how many extra homicides would you like to cause by further "limiting access" to defensive tools?

the arrest is an attempt by police to get her to give up information about unsolved crime in the city.
Seems to me that if she has this information about unsolved crime in the city, and is genunely concerned about reducing violence, perhaps she should give it to the police?

From the article: "And as for the gun, she admits to having it in the house. But she said it belonged to her son. She didn't find it until six or seven months after he died. Not knowing what to do with it, she wrapped it up, put it in a drawer and forgot about it."
I call bullshit - not knowing what to do with it? Please. I'm sure she realized she could have brought it to the cops and they would have been happy to take it off her hands; lord knows that's what I'd do if I found a filed gun in my house. Last thing I'd do is hold on to it...if her son has passed away, wouldn't she become the legal owner of said gun?

"She helped establish and is president of a Springfield chapter of the Million Mom March, an organization that aims to prevent gun violence."

"Last fall, she appeared with other anti-gun advocates at a Statehouse news conference to urge federal officials to renew a ban against semiautomatic assault weapons."

Interesting that a woman who is president of a MMM chapter, whose answer to self defense appears to be "call the police", now claims to be set-up by her saviors.

if her son has passed away, wouldn't she
become the legal owner of said gun?

You can't be the "legal owner" of something it is illegal to own. ;)

She would appear to have been in possession of it though, which would be the crime. (Assuming the veracity of her explanation, of course.) Had she not actively done something with it, she might be having a bit more of a leg to stand on. I kind of think that mere knowledge of its presence on her property would amount to possession, though, although that might be a debatable point in particular circumstances. Some intent would presumably be required.

Very true...perhaps "owner in the eyes of the law" would have been a better choice.

I certainly don't think she should be hung out to dry on multiple Federal counts, but at the same time, if she was as involved in the anti-gun scene as she claims, she most definitely should have realized that a filed gun is a Very Bad Thing; as I've already said, she certainly should have known what to do with it, i.e. turn it over to the cops. Tossing it in a drawer is just foolish, and at any rate, last I heard ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I didn't mean that she could have claimed ignorance of law -- I was just musing about whether, if someone leaves something behind on one's property without one's consent, and one does nothing about it, one is "in possession" of the thing.

Like I said, in her case, by her own account, she actively "possessed" it. She did something with it, and she herself stored it on her property after she discovered it. Stupidity is no defence to an intentional act. But the stupidity of the actor, and the absence of any actual harm, are considered in deciding whether to prosecute and how to punish.

My problem here, with what she actually did, apart from simply having something it was illegal to have, is that she says she stored it in a drawer, I think it was. Nice safe-storage practices, not.

AFAIK (IANAL, so I don't know for sure), if somebody leaves something on your property and you are or become aware of it, you are then in possession of said item. I think in this case, since she did know of the weapon, and knew that it was likely illegally procured/possessed (I don't know if she knew it was filed, but that thing isn't too hard to notice), she should be charged with possession of an illegal firearm. Nothing more, since as you say, she didn't intend to cause any harm, but at the same time, she shouldn't just be yelled at at let go - after all, she DID know about the gun and yet do nothing about it. Actually, she didn't do nothing about it - she found it, presumably picked it up and looked at it, and then put it away. I would have to say that constitues possession.

Incidentally, I do agree with you 100% on the sheer idiocy of just tossing it in a drawer, and if the statutes provide for it, perhaps a charge of improper storage should be tacked on.

she wrapped it up, put it in a drawer and forgot about it,

It sounds like possesion.

My problem here, with what she actually did, apart from simply having something it was illegal to have, is that she says she stored it in a drawer, I think it was. Nice safe-storage practices, not.


Gun-safety training would be so helpful when one finds these illegal things.

I wonder how well she will like running afoul of her “pet” laws; I seem to recall that destroying the serial numbers is a BIG offence

She would give us no pity, in her situation, SO NO PITY for her, so I am glad the cops "Got a dangerous criminal off the streets”.

Feinstein has a CCW, she wants to tote a gun, but no one else can own one

I remember several years ago, Sara Brady bought a rifle for her son, committing a “Straw Purchase”

Their own hypocrisy is burning their own house down.

Something tells me they THINK they are better than everyone else……………

Andrew

Her son was legally able to own the rifle he received as a gift.

Than why didn’t her son BUY IT himself, my understanding is that if you buy a gun for someone else, it is a “Straw Purchase” and is frowned upon.

Actually that goes to show how insane some of these silly laws are.

When I provide Firearms to MY children they will come out of my gun cabinet. Just like the M1 Carbine I gave my 8 year old daughter to use, I had, had that particular rifle for 20 years. And its small size made it a nice small center-fire rifle for her.

I know some of ya’ll are having puppies at that last statement, so let me clarify

YES, the M1 Carbine WAS BANNED by the AW BAN,
YES, It IS hers
NO, she does NOT have ready access to it, she must ASK for it, and the ammunition

She is responsible for the cleaning and care of the rifle, and when she moves out, (hopefully when she goes to collage) she will be FREE to take it with her

And yes, as she matures (in several years) she will gain 100% access to it and ammunition at anytime.

I also have another center-fire rifle set aside for my son, and when he get around 8 years of age, he will have his.

This way, I steer clear of that “straw purchase” B.S.


Andrew

under Federal law, it's legal for one person to purchase a gun for another person as a gift, provided that is what it actually is....a gift.

Feinstein used to have a CCW, but she has supposedly given it up

I think there is actually a provision in the law for buying a firearm as a gift, but I'd have to do some digging to find it.

This doesn't mean I agree with Brady or Feinstein on their firearms politics

There are provisions for “gift purchases” but they are vague, like allot of gun laws.

The Sara Brady problem was that she did not disclose of the federal form that they gun was for someone else, in short she FALSIFIED the document, heck, she LIED.

Whether Feinstein has a CCW or not now, is in material, it shows that she thinks she has special rights above the citizenry.

Andrew

can be truthfully answered if it's a gift. You need to sit down and actually read the first question on it carefully.

We try to NOT spread propaganda here. Well, at least I do.

"Stupidity is no defence to an intentional act. But the stupidity of the actor, and the absence of any actual harm, are considered in deciding whether to prosecute and how to punish."

Umm, not when you're talking about gun crimes in the US and BATFE is involved..... If she's got a whole bunch of people she can inform on or entrap into committing other gun crimes, she's OK. If not, she's going to prison for a very, VERY long time.

she was in possession of a handgun with an "altered or obliterated" serial number? That in itself is a federal felony.

It's amazing what the lab techs can do with raising obliterated serials these days. Also, I hope ballistics are run on anything unsolved involving that caliber.

Poorly stated, but I'm sure all understand my meaning. Damn that late late movie anyway. More coffffffeeeeeeeeeeeee

Obliterating the SN.

Ballistic characteristics IF used in crime are more incriminating, if not moree easily changed.

A Springfield woman who began lobbying against gun violence after her son was shot to death in 2002 was arrested last week when police allegedly found an illegal gun and drugs in her home.

Annette "Flirty" Stevens, however, said Monday she's innocent, and the arrest is an attempt by police to get her to give up information about unsolved crime in the city.

The handgun, which had a scratched-off serial number, and drugs allegedly were discovered Friday morning inside Stevens' home in the 2500 block of South 15th Street. Authorities said they obtained a search warrant for the residence as part of an ongoing investigation of a recent series of drive-by shootings. No one has been hurt in the gunplay.

Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives assisted in the search.

http://www.sj-r.com/Sections/News/Stories/49173.asp

I can't know.

And all o her gun grabber friends too. Let’s see how she likes living under the rules she is campaigning for.

:eyes:

Perhaps if she had opted out of the whole "ban the guns" idea and instead tried a little education about the appropriate use, care and caution of guns she would have known what to do with the weapon when she found it. I know my children know what to do if they find a gun.

It reminds me of that line from Indiana Jones...."perhaps if you read a book instead of burning them!"

Oh, I forgot......ROVE ROVE ROVE!!!!

The headline says anti gun activist, but technically, she is an anti gun violence crusader. Does that make her anti gun? There is nothing wrong with firearms if used responsibly. Perhaps she has nothing against guns, just the misuse of them.

"Last fall, she appeared with other anti-gun advocates at a Statehouse news conference to urge federal officials to renew a ban against semiautomatic assault weapons."

Semi-automatic weapons don't need to be used in hunting or even target shooting, which is what I have done in the past. But I still maintain that there's nothing wrong with guns per say. Just the misuse of them.

Guns dont need to be used for hunting, semi auto or not. Care to elaborate on that?

Who needs a semi-automatic hunting rifle?

A bow works, snares too. Surely we can hunt without guns, right? Lever action, single shots even, all are unnecessary, right?

Where does this little slippery slope of "needs" take us?

Who needs a lever-action? They can be cycled almost as quickly as a semiauto.

Who needs a bolt-action? Plenty of hunters hunt with single-shots, and Charles Whitman committed a shooting rampage with a bolt-action in 6mm Remington.

Who needs smokeless powder? Plenty hunt with blackpowder, and most guns used in crime use smokeless powder.

Which leads us to...

WHO NEEDS HUNTING? The vast majority of gun owners DON'T HUNT...

(I'm not against hunting, but the argument "you don't need X for hunting, therefore you 80% of gun owners who don't hunt should go jump in a lake" bugs me...)

/rant

and many hunting rifles, ARE semiautomatic, yes? That you're talking about the type of gun your local police officer carries on her hip, or a Ruger 10/22 or Remington Model 66 .22.

Semiautomatic means "self-loader," as in the gun uses recoil forces or residual gas pressure to eject the spent casing and reload the chamber.

You may be thinking of automatic weapons, which are another animal entirely (e.g., hold down the trigger and spray bullets)? Those are heavily restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

For hunting, I would pick a bolt-action over a semi-auto pretty much any day; 99.9% of semis just aren't accurate enough for my tastes - I go against shot-placement dogma and always aim for the brainstem of a whitetail...an instant "lights out" on an unsuspecting deer leaves the meat so tender and delicious, yummy. None of that gamey flavor that turns so many people off wild meat. Course, I use a "varmint" rifle in 308, which is probably a damned sight more accurate than most vanilla deer rifles, but still...no semi-auto for me, unless it's a PSG-1.

with the nickname of "Flirty" anyway?

neighborhood. Just my guess.

:spank:

here or porn sites. :)

I'm not surprised.

....to all you Gun Radicals expressing support of and absolute belief in the BATF over this incident. Considering your movement has done everything it can to discredit and generally kneecap the Bureau over the years, this ought to be entertaining.......

normally you only post on Sundays. Who gave you the extra freedom?

I haven't kept track of the days on which you post. Sorry about that.
And nobody gave me any extra freedom, I just took it. Without a gun.

If you ever venture out of the Gungeon, you'll find I post on a lot of different days, in a lot of different DU forums. Give it a try.....

most of my meager posts have been posted elsewhere. I don't keep track, it is just something I have noticed about you. With my job I dont have access to a computer and usually a limited amount of time during the evening to be on. I do find it much easier to post here since things dont move so fast. Time I get home from work everything that happend on GD is already yesterdays news.

...I find more time to post on the weekends. Weekdays (and some weekends as well) are taken up with pain-in-the-ass things like making a living. Probably like a lot of DUers.

Nice passing a civil word with you, by the way. We ought to do it more often.....

Too funny.