If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KOB4)   Not news: town has only two cops. Fark: neither of them can legally carry a firearm. Bonus: because they both have criminal records   ( kob.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, New Mexico, New Mexico State Police, criminal records, firearms, town  
•       •       •

8538 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2012 at 4:50 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

59 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2012-06-29 11:44:46 AM  

ansius: It would be interesting to see the stats on crime in these towns.

To tell the truth, it might be safer living in a town without armed police.

I do.
My front door is unlocked right now.
As it always is.

Of course, if you want to pull in my driveway to use the wifi, the ex-con working at the barn will come over and ask you wft you are up to.
And yes, he is armed.
He carries 2 (two, count 'em) navy colt dragoons, loaded.
He hates vermin and has critters to protect.
He likes me because I treated him like he had got back from vacastion when he got out.
2012-06-29 11:46:53 AM  
Kudos to the reporter here. Source docs attached! Outstanding when compared to their peers.
2012-06-29 12:12:29 PM  
There's little traffic and not much crime in this sleepy little town that 500 people call home.

Ranchers, farmers and business owners all support the second amendment.

Many own guns.

Why would the cops need guns?
2012-06-29 12:35:27 PM  

malaktaus: FTFA: "I know what you are looking at," Armijo told Wheeler. "The dog hit her head on top of her cage. The drug dealers in town are making allegations that I have been hitting and abusing my dog. They are afraid I'm going to bust them."

Yes, I'm sure they are so very, very afraid, all the drug dealers in this town of 500 people. Dude sounds like the clown of the earth.

Seriously. Everyone knows you set up the meth-lab/oxy depot a half hour outside of town to avoid the busybodies.

He doesn't sound like someone I'd give a gun to either.
2012-06-29 12:47:11 PM  
From the email alleging animal cruelty:
Ernest C. Armijo has been defendant in a number of cases: making terroristic threats, assault & battery, and larceny.

2012-06-29 01:01:45 PM  

Aigoo: Domestic violence? Hell fark YES it should be a bar to firearm ownership! Even as a misdemeanor, there is a REASON that law was passed, and it's bloody well valid! If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a man, woman, or teenager of either sex has committed domestic violence, they do not now or ever need to be anywhere near a weapon, let alone a firearm - even if they've passed an anger management course. It doesn't take much to convince an instructor of something when they see you a couple of hours a week, then go home and beat the shiat out of whomever you live with despite having passed your class.

The correct answer isn't to give people a complete lifetime ban on a fundamental constitutional right for a misdemeanor. If the state has a compelling interest in preventing those people from owning firearms forever, then the correct way to handle it is to make domestic violence a felony.

There are people who pled guilty to a misdemeanor 30 years ago to make a bullshiat charge go away, back when a misdemeanor wasn't a big deal, and who have led exemplary lives since, yet if they so much as touch a firearm, that's a federal felony.
2012-06-29 01:08:11 PM  
There's a lake of stew and of whiskey too
2012-06-29 01:16:52 PM  

Aigoo: What a farking idiotic goddamned thing to say.

You know what's truly idiotic? Giving up a fundamental, enumerated constitutional right for a farking *MISDEMEANOR*.

Would you permanently ban a person from their First Amendment rights because they had once gone to a party that got a little out of hand?

Would you permanently ban a person from their Fourth Amendment rights because a cop happened to find tiny amount of pot on them?

I've got *ZERO* problem with a ban ordered by a court as part of a restraining order, where a particularlized finding shows the person is likely to be a danger (boilerplate legal wording not allowed). I don't even have a problem with a misdemeanor violence conviction being a bar to gun ownership while under court supervision (probation, etc.).

I *DO* have a problem, though, with a lifetime ban, and if you value the protections afforded you by the Bill of Rights, you should too. Because if they can do something like that for one enumerated right, there is no legal reason why they can't do it to the others.
2012-06-29 02:33:32 PM  

jso2897: Treat violent criminals differently than non-violent ones? Don't look now, but you are starting to sound like of of those ...pardon my language...liberals.
Any more of this so-called "reasonable" talk from you, and we'll have to move you to Berkley, and make you grow a ponytail.

LOL. I love how making subtle (or actually any) forms of distinction becomes perfectly acceptable to some types when discussing the 2nd amendment or any of their personal moral issues. Of course, must remain hard-line absolutist and extreme when dealing with anyone else.

/When did "Libertarian" start to mean the same thing as "Hypocrite" anyway?
Displayed 9 of 59 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.