LOS ANGELES (AP) — A former gang member who founded an anti-violence group called No Guns has pleaded no contest to federal weapons charges.
Hector “Big Weasel” Marroquin, 51, and co-defendant Sylvia Arrellano, 25, entered pleas Thursday for three counts of manufacture, distribution and transport for sale of an unlawful assault weapon.
Arrellano also pleaded no contest to machine gun conversion and possessing a silencer and acknowledged that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
She was given until Tuesday to surrender for sentencing and would likely be sentenced to four years in prison, prosecutors said.
Marroquin attorney Patrick Smith did not return a phone message seeking comment Thursday. No phone listing was available for Arrellano.
Marroquin founded No Guns in 1996, ostensibly to reduce gang and gun violence. The group received $1.5 million from the city as a subcontractor on anti-gang efforts but its contract was canceled last year after authorities learned that Marroquin had hired relatives, including his son, Hector “Little Weasel” Marroquin.
The son is an acknowledged 18th Street gang member who pleaded no contest in June 2007 to home-invasion robbery and was sentenced to nine years in state prison.
Full Story Here:
Calif. anti-gun activist pleads no contest to gun charges
The perfect combination of hilarity, hypocrisy, criminal genius and governmental ignorance, all rolled into one delectable story…
The gangs find a way to BS the California system into giving them $1.5M in an anti guns for gangs program and then the gangs turn around and used that money to arm the gangs…
And the L.A. officials didn’t SEE this coming??
I know that some folks feel that the RKBA applies to ALL people, and constitutionally it does, but it shouldn’t, we don’t need MORE gun laws, we need more stringent enforcement of the ones we already have, and we need serious investigation and justification for EVERY gun sale in this nation, and yes, I DO realize what I’m saying, and YES, I do realize it would be a pain in the ass but let me propose the counter-thesis to the blanket assumption that many have of the 2nd amendment…
Chuy and Pepe have never been convicted of anything but they are well known, established members of some wetback street gang and that gang wants guns, they have their ‘clean’ guys BUY, not steal, actually BUY some legal weapons and then those weapons are distributed to said gang members, suppose that waiting period would have made a difference, suppose that waiting period, and a thorough investigation had turned up the information that Pepe and Chuy are suspected gangsters and they were on a NO SALE watch list??
Just some thoughts, I don’t know if that sort of action is even feasible, and much to the chagrin of a few folks, I don’t believe the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own fully automatic assault rifles either but I’d like to hear some reader feedback on guns, use of guns, ownership responsibility and so forth…
Gun ownership, in MY opinion, comes with many responsibilities, but the bad guys don’t assume ANY of those responsibilities, only legal gun owners do, and as much as I DO believe in the 2nd, and the RKBA, I feel that there has to be at least some limit to the broad interpretation OF the 2nd, not everyone walking the streets of America is entitled to gun ownership, would it be a good thing to register ALL gun owners, require that they attend some intense safety classes and put in some hard ‘range time’ to prove their proficiency and sharpen their skills, and during this qualification process, have their backgrounds totally and thoroughly checked out and eliminate those that are unsafe, mentally unsound or otherwise unqualified to own and/or possess a gun??
And after such qualifications have been met, would it be unreasonable to lock up for life anyone that didn’t meet the criteria that was caught brandishing a weapon?? Lock up anyone that used a weapon for an illegal purpose or committed a crime while armed WITH a firearm??
Or would this open up another avenue for the feds to pursue those that DID own and possess firearms legally??
I don’t want to see an America where a LEGAL and qualified citizen can’t be armed and able to protect himself from the criminals that run roughshod over this nation or from invaders from other nations, but I would love to see vigorous prosecution and enforcement against those that ruin gun ownership for the 99.999% of LEGAL gun owners that don’t commit violent gun crimes…
Trackback URL:
http://texasfred.net/archives/940/trackback/
I reckon it all depends on ones view of why we have a second amendment in the first place. The right to bear arms was insisted on by the various states before they would ratify the constitution…and it had nothing to do with hunting Bambi and everything to do with being able to protect property and to protect themselves from government.
I may be wrong..my memory fails me at times..but I think that the fully automatic weapons ban came about back in the 1920′s when machine Gun Kelly and others were shooting up the country. It was a typical government response to a public outcry and did nothing to disarm Machine Gun Kelly nor any of the rest of the bad guys of the era. Fully automatic weapons in the hands of responsible gun owners are no more dangerous to the pubic than a semi-auto weapon and laws against them do not prevent the “bad guys” from getting them.
Part of our problems is with a legal system that has decided that using force to protect property is a violation of civil rights. The criminal has more rights than the honest man and woman and is taking advantage of this. Yes, I fully agree that a ‘gun crime’ should be punished. But is blowing away the sumbitch who is robbing you a gun crime..or blowing the sumbitch away after he has robbed you and is running away a gun crime?
I am convinced that we need to take a different view of guns..gun use and safety should be a mandatory subject in public schools and any person without a criminal background should be allowed to carry. It would be a safer country.
I’m not saying we don’t need the 2nd, I AM saying that some folks are deliberately misinterpreting it to keep ALL guns on the table and to keep ALL persons able to possess a gun, and THAT is MY only gripe, ALL persons do NOT need to own guns, legally or otherwise, BUT, can we disarm the ones that DON’T need to own or possess guns and NOT infringe on those that DO need to and should have every right to own guns??
Is that a possibility??
I see what you are saying, Texas Fred, but if SOME are banned, eventually ALL will be banned by our liberal friends.
Let me make a couple of salient points, if I might:
1. The Second was created PRECISELY for the purpose to giving the populace a means to combat an overreactive or oppressive government. Not against fellow citizens, but GOVERNMENT.
2. There are certain classes of citizens who should NOT have a right to bear arms, such as convicted felons, the mentally deficient, gang members (well, that would include those called “felons”).
3. Concealed carry would result in a more polite society with, likely, fewer mass killings.
4. There should be a NATIONAL “Entry Into Your Domicile” law that allows you to shoot to kill ANYONE who enters your home violently or to commit ANY crime whatsoever, with NO “retreat” rider involved.
BZ
One person ‘gets it’, ONE PERSON, and you just know it was the one that CARRIED for 30 years… BZ, you sir, never disappoint, if a few others had ever had to face these idiots on the street, they might actually understand too…
Thank you BZ…
Top Gun: 2 things I want you to answer,
How many guns has the federal government taken away from you??
Why in the hell do you need a mortar, a cannon, a NUKE or whatever??
It’s people like YOU that I am referring to when I say that MANY abuse the 2nd, no one needs a fully automatic assault rifle, no one NEEDS a mortar or howitzer, for the love of Christ, using YOUR theory, why hell, let’s see how many nukes we can put in the garage…
I am NOT going to respectfully disagree, I am going to tell you, straight up, that theory is pure bullshit…
As I said in addressing BZ, some folks need to spend 20 or 30 years facing these assholes that you fail to speak against…
And what do we do with those that don’t, that is the question, did you miss that part?? I didn’t attack your ‘rights’, I asked WHAT do we do about those that DO cause us to lose rights, and you launch on a goddamned tirade as if I were trying to take your guns away, and THAT is bullshit…
And to say that YOU are denied the ‘right’ to own a fully automatic weapon is PURE BULLSHIT as well, apply to the BATF and get you a Class III, you can own, carry and use ANYTHING you want as far as most conventional weapons are concerned…
Somehow, I knew this thread would bring out the fringe group, the ones that blame the feds for taking their guns and rights away, when in truth, so far, that hasn’t happened…
Show me one instance, just one, where the feds have taken ANYTHING from you?? Show me where they TOOK your guns away or denied you the right to own whatever guns you want…
All they have done is regulate the process:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn’t say a goddamned thing about owning an AK-47 or a mortar, nor does it give you a right to own a Sherman tank, for crying out loud, exhibit a little, at least SOME common sense, and this also poses one more question, are YOU a member of a militia?? Well regulated or otherwise??
Get you a Class III and do as you please, to a point, and within reason, otherwise, NORMAL pistols, shotguns or rifles, that’s it, and please, try to address the actual point of the story next time…
Fred: also, MEXICAN SMUGGLERS who somehow “managed” to FLEE BACK into Mexico killed a USBP agent today, ON U.S. soil, while the agent was trying to lay down spike strips — suspects purposely drove AT him, struck him, killed him.
BZ
If you read the first ten amendments to the Bill of Rights in context, you will see they are designed to protect American Citizens from its own government.
If we look at American History we will see that private citizens have always had superior or comparable small arms as their military. Civilians were shooting repeating rifles long before military personnel were issued them. Civilians had handguns that fired cartridges while the military was still issuing cap and ball handguns to its troops.
When we look at the term “arms” in the Constitution, I believe it’s referring to small arms, the firearms that a man will carry; not a cannon, etc. Small arms will also refer to machine guns which are legal to own if you have the proper licenses. I believe some common sense has to be used in the case of full auto weapons and if you could afford one, you could also afford the license necessary to own one. I’ve shot full auto AK-47′s and they were a blast but in actuality, one shot-one hit is preferable to spray and pray.
When I was stationed in Michigan, I went to a few gun shows in Detroit. It was interesting to watch a “gang-banger” pull out a wad of 100′s and 50′s big enough to choke a horse and purchase a couple AR-15′s. You would wonder where he got the money and what they were going to be used for. Everyone knew the answer but their was nothing the dealer could do but sell him the weapons because not to would invite lawsuits and trouble. I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights but their has to be a way to prevent the wrong person from purchasing weapons. Unfortunately, I don’t have the answer to that.
First I’ll address the Chuy and Pepe theory:
The guns sold at a respectable shop to Chuy and Pepe, are now registered to them, in California the guns have been (or are supposed to have been fired and ballistic record kept) I’m really not sure that this law has been fully enforced. So any shooting using those guns should be traceable back to the buyers, HOWEVER; from my understanding of ballistics, rifles or shotguns are difficult to trace. MOST drive by”s are committed with Handguns.
I am not sure that the clean guns are so much the problem as those that have been stolen, transported from other countries, or just sold by folks with no regard for the damage they do.
I have no need for full automatic weapon yet, but if all hell breaks loose it sure would be nice to have.
BZ, hit it on the head, however #1 “Not against fellow citizens, but GOVERNMENT.”
is dependent upon citizens and not thugs.
I live in an area full of thugs and illegal invaders, which many times are one and the same. I would like it to be easier for good folks to purchase the means to defend themselves and HARDER for those that would use them to do harm.
Good Post there Fred, but please from now on, leave the Peoples Republic of California out of your posts, it is different than America here.
Exactly, I see that YOU and Robert ‘get it’ as well… Damn, I might not should have gone ‘off’ on Top Gun like I did but NOWHERE did he even remotely address the question…
The 2nd amendment is in place for specific reasons, but the framers could have in NO WAY imagined the weaponry of today or the IDIOTS that think the 2nd gives them some specific ‘right’ to own said weaponry…
There has to be some way to reasonably remove not on the guns from the hands of the bad guys but to remove the bad guys as well, but like you, I’ll be damned if I have a clue as to HOW…
There’s always going to be a criminal element, always has been, always will be, all I know s for honest men to arm themselves and fight back, we DO fight back here in Texas, but as witnessed recently when Joe Horn killed the 2 burglars in his yard in Pasadena, TX, burglars that had NOT broken into HIS home, some people ALWAYS push every law to the limit and in some cases, even though they HAVE done something remotely correct, they hurt the gun owners of America even more BY those actions…
I’ve always had a couple of guns around the house, shotgun and a couple of pistols. When my father died he left me all the guns he had collected over his life, Fred knows what I mean, many guns.
I don’t want anyone taking them away from me. I have a CCW and I never carry a gun unless we go for a long drive, should I maybe but I don’t.
I have the right as an American to have my guns and my guns are ones I grew up with. I have my dads 30/30 that he bought when he was 16; it means a lot to me.
What’s my point, I don’t know, I just know that my dad always said that when they come to take our guns we stand right here and now, they don’t get the guns, Holy Shit I thought of as a kid.
I have a pistol that was given to him by Ronald Reagan; they will never take that away from me.