A Roxbury teen who admitted today he brought the handgun into his home that killed his 8-year-old brother Liquarry Jefferson last year has accepted a plea deal that keeps him out of state prison for involuntary manslaughter and lying to police.
Instead, Jayquan McConnico, 16, has agreed to remain in the custody of the Department of Youth Services until he turns 21. A concurrent nine-year probation sentence meted out by Boston Juvenile Court Judge Stephen Limon requires him to earn a high school diploma, then secure full-time employment or attend college.
Let's run down the list of charges this young man should have faced:
- Involuntary manslaughter.
- Possession of a firearm without a license.
- Improper storage of a firearm.
- Possession of ammunition without a license
- Mandatory year in jail under Bartley-Fox
To say nothing of the fact that he was prohibited from possessing the handgun in question on two separate fronts - he's got a criminal record, so he cannot own the handgun legally under Federal law; and he's not 21, so he could not own the handgun legally under MA law.
Someone, please, tell me what gun control law could have prevented this?
And then, to top it all off, he gets a slap on the wrist for contributing to his own brother's death. Probation? Now, granted, he's in DYS custody for the next five years; however the Federal firearms charges alone (felon in possession) should be sufficient to hold him indefinitely. What kind of time should he have served?
Had he been convicted by a jury, McConnico faced up to 30 years in state prison.
He committed crimes serious enough to warrant 30 years in jail, and yet he'll spend 5 in juvenile detention then be set free. Let that sink in. This is in MA, land of "the toughest gun laws in the nation" where "You're more likely to live here" (presumably due to the tough gun laws).
Unless, of course, you're some poor child living with gangsters. Then you're SOL.
Someone, please, tell me why we should EVER listen to those that would pass more gun laws. Why? If they are not going to prosecute obvious and clear-cut cases when those gun laws are broken, what possible reason could they have for wanting more laws? Could it possibly be that the real intent behind the gun control movement has nothing to do with reducing crimes committed with fireams, but rather on disarming those that are not inclined to commit crimes in the first place?
I've got a hunch I know the answer. And I don't like what it portends.
That is all.
1 comment:
Also given that in Mass we have mandatory registration they should find the last legal owner of the gun and either: A: Lock HIM up for selling a handgun to a teenage drug dealer. or B: Give the man back his stolen property (given that a legit report of Theft was given for a peice.
We won't be hearing about that angle either. But god forbid somebody like me gets caught with a gun off the books.....
Post a Comment