It's a big club, and you ain't in it! ~George Carlin

Wrong, Trump could drop a MOAB on the Governors mansion and no one would care.

Ummmm...

My spidy sense tells me there is more to the story.

Now... when faced with the choice of being carried by six or judged by 12... I’ll always pick being judged by 12... and she made the better choice. She choose to LIVE... which was smart. Now she can live in prison and face the consequences for her past felonious activity. Unless you’re a weak overly sensitive SNOWFLAKE, that exuses personal responsibilities, then any conservative minded person would expect this female to pay for her current behaviors as they relate legally with her past criminal record.

What we do in life, ECHOES for eternity. Only liberals think we can wipe history away (remove statues or forgive past arrest records). Dicktard is a snowflake

If there is nothing more to the story then its over reach by the prosecutor. For some reason I think there is more to the story but I could be wrong.

Being a convicted felon could prohibit her from possessing a firearm.

Too bad she doesn't live in Chicago. Oh, they have the same law. They just don't enforce it. Which is why felons carry guns -- and use them -- in Chicago.

If there is nothing more to the story then its over reach by the prosecutor.

I can't see any jury voting to convict her of gun possession, and the prosecutor must realize that.

In December, Krissy Noble shot a man named Dylan Stancoff with her husband's gun

Ah, no. She got married after the shooting. At the time of the shooting she was Krissy Tran and it was her boyfriend's gun in her apartment.

Police also found a .20 gauge shotgun, a .22-caliber pistol and a bolt action rifle in her closet.

Wrong, Trump could drop a MOAB on the Governors mansion and no one would care.

Considering Hutchinson is a Republican you're probably right, if it was an idiot like Bubba the tards would be up in arms screaming for his head.

Her rights were violated when the intruder entered her home and the firearm was discovered as a direct consequence of that violation of her rights. So that evidence of her firearm violation should not be allowed to be used against her.

Otherwise, others in a similar situation will, upon seeing a life endangering threat in the form of a home intruder will be dissuaded from using deadly force to save themselves and others. Their choice will be to suffer either death or serious bodily harm by not shooting, or going to prison if they do shoot. All because someone decided to commit a crime against them.

That ain't right.

Police also found a .20 gauge shotgun, a .22-caliber pistol and a bolt action rifle in her closet.

She needs to get an assault weapon & a pile of standard capacity magazines, in case the gangbangers show up.

[Justified #6] If the weapon is legally owned by her husband then there should be no charges. She has a constitutional right of defense even if she doesn’t own the weapon.

[GrandIsland #7] Her past marijuana arrest was probably a felony. Being a convicted felon could prohibit her from possessing a firearm. Even if she claims the gun was her husbands, and she shares the same household he keeps his guns in, she still possessed it when she physically used it.

Krissy Noble pleaded guilty to felony possession of marijuana with purpose to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. She is still serving her five years probation. She violated the terms of her probation. She faces revocation of her probation and a gun possession charge.

Noble "allegedly brought a .40 caliber handgun from the apartment bedroom and placed it on the TV stand in the living room prior to answering the door."

"Officials during the course of their investigation into the incident found a .20 gauge shotgun, a .22-caliber pistol and a bolt action rifle in Noble and her husband’s closet in addition to the handgun used on Dec. 7. The affidavit for warrant of arrest alleges that between Nov. 7-Dec. 7, 2017, Noble possessed firearms."

She carried the handgun from the bedroom to the living room and staged it there before opening the door. Also three more weapons were found. She ignored the terms of her probation regarding possession of a gun. She is toast.

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www.swtimes.com/news/20180831/fort-smith-homicide-ruled-justified-shooter-arrested-on-gun-charge

Fort Smith homicide ruled justified; shooter arrested on gun charge

By Max Bryan / Times Record / mbryan@swtimes.com
Posted Aug 31, 2018 at 12:01 AM

Although the shooting death of Dylan Stancoff has been ruled justified, the woman who shot him has been arrested for possession of the gun she used to shoot him.

Krissy Lenae Noble of Fort Smith on Thursday was arrested on suspicion of possession of firearms by certain persons. Noble, a convicted felon initially identified by police as Krissy Tran, used a handgun in December 2017 to shoot Stancoff, who attacked her in her apartment.

Stancoff on Dec. 7 visited Noble’s apartment on X Street and asked if her husband was home while identifying himself as Cameron White. He left after she told him he wasn’t home, and her husband told her over the phone he did not know a Cameron White, the release states.

Noble, who was convicted in February 2017 of felony possession of marijuana with purpose to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia, allegedly brought a .40 caliber handgun from the apartment bedroom and placed it on the TV stand in the living room prior to answering the door. Noble’s husband told police he told her to leave the gun alone, the release states.

Noble picked up the gun and opened the door when Stancoff returned to the apartment. She said he physically attacked her, and that she picked up the gun and shot him three times, the release states.

“It is the opinion of this office that Krissy Lenae Noble was justified in her use of force and that this is a justifiable homicide, which does not merit the filing of criminal charges with regard to the homicidal event,” the release states, citing two Arkanstas statutes.

Officials during the course of their investigation into the incident found a .20 gauge shotgun, a .22-caliber pistol and a bolt action rifle in Noble and her husband’s closet in addition to the handgun used on Dec. 7. The affidavit for warrant of arrest alleges that between Nov. 7-Dec. 7, 2017, Noble possessed firearms.

Noble remained in custody Thursday in lieu of a $2,500 bond, according to arrest records.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2015/title-5/subtitle-6/chapter-73/subchapter-1/section-5-73-103/

2015 Arkansas Code
Title 5 - Criminal Offenses
Subtitle 6 - Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, Or Welfare
Chapter 73 - Weapons
Subchapter 1 - Possession and Use Generally
§ 5-73-103 - Possession of firearms by certain persons.

Universal Citation: AR Code § 5-73-103 (2015)

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section or unless authorized by and subject to such conditions as prescribed by the Governor, or his or her designee, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the United States Department of Justice, or other bureau or office designated by the United States Department of Justice, no person shall possess or own any firearm who has been:

(1) Convicted of a felony;

(2) Adjudicated mentally ill; or

(3) Committed involuntarily to any mental institution.

(b) (1) Except as provided in subdivisions (b)(2) and (3) of this section, a determination by a jury or a court that a person committed a felony constitutes a conviction for purposes of subsection (a) of this section even though the court suspended imposition of sentence or placed the defendant on probation.

[snip]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2010/title-5/subtitle-6/chapter-73/subchapter-1/5-73-120/

2010 Arkansas Code
Title 5 - Criminal Offenses
Subtitle 6 - Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, Or Welfare
Chapter 73 - Weapons
Subchapter 1 - Possession and Use Generally
§ 5-73-120 - Carrying a weapon.

5-73-120. Carrying a weapon.

(a) A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person.

[snip]

- - - - - - - - - -

Her rights were violated when the intruder entered her home and the firearm was discovered as a direct consequence of that violation of her rights.

Hmmm. What if there was a fire in the bedroom and a fireman found the weapon?

Krissy Noble pleaded guilty to felony possession of marijuana with purpose to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. She is still serving her five years probation. She violated the terms of her probation. She faces revocation of her probation and a gun possession charge.

That’s what I was trying to tell the Paultards... thank you.

If this criminal cocksucker didn’t wanna be limited to defend herself with a knife, hammer or bat... then maybe the bitch shouldn’t have willingly, intentionally and purposely committed a felony.

I have no sympathy for criminals. I leave that up to the snowflakes.. like MSM and Dicktard.

Roger Stone

The #NeverTrump LEO's refuse to protect her because of her arsehole tattoo.

Hmmm. What if there was a fire in the bedroom and a fireman found the weapon?

A fireman would be considered invited, therefore the weapon's discovery would not be pursuant to a violation of her rights.

Very bad precedent, even given she was prohibited from owning firearms.

Her rights were violated when the intruder entered her home and the firearm was discovered as a direct consequence of that violation of her rights. So that evidence of her firearm violation should not be allowed to be used against her.

She, and other convicted felons in Arkansas, was prohibited from possessing firearms, or having a firearm readily available for her use.

Her constitutional search and seizure rights were not violated by some non-governmental intrusion.

The po-po arrived because there was a dead body in her house and she had made it dead. Their entry and search was lawful and all is legally admissible. They did not discover the handgun, she placed in on a table and, when they got there, she pointed it out to the police.

Whether somebody was shot righteously or not, her possession of the weapon violated AR Code § 5-73-103 (Possession of firearms by certain persons). Her existing suspended sentence of 5 years may kick in, in addition to any prosecution for unlawful possession of firearms.

The po-po arrived because there was a dead body in her house and she had made it dead.

She did not bring the dead body and put it in her house. The dead body walked in by itself, quite uninvited.

While your other technicalities are reasonable, the end result is that a convicted felon was faced with a choice to either shoot a intruder in her home that posed an legally recognized immediate threat to herself and her family and go to jail, OR place herself and her family at the mercy of the intruder.

Unlike the legal points you make, that is NOT a reasonable choice to give even a convicted felon.

Very bad precedent, even given she was prohibited from owning firearms.

Her rights were violated when the intruder entered her home and the firearm was discovered as a direct consequence of that violation of her rights. So that evidence of her firearm violation should not be allowed to be used against her.

Natural law gives any individual the right to protect themselves and their property. And nowhere in the Second Amendment does it state that felons are barred from using firearms for self-defense.

The fact is - the woman was not convicted of a crime using handguns. That in itself should be taken into consideration here.

Natural law gives any individual the right to protect themselves and their property.

Correct. But nowhere does natural law say that individual right includes the use of a .40 cal Glock.

And nowhere in the Second Amendment does it state that felons are barred from using firearms for self-defense.

Correct. But nowhere in the First Amendment does it state that it does not protect libel and slander.

Natural law gives any individual the right to protect themselves and their property.

Under your logic, an American doing a 3-7 year bid in a state correctional institution, should be allowed to have a gun in his cell, because now his cell is home, to protect himself with.... and under Dicktards paultard law, the USSC would agree?

Whether somebody was shot righteously or not, her possession of the weapon violated AR Code § 5-73-103 (Possession of firearms by certain persons). Her existing suspended sentence of 5 years may kick in, in addition to any prosecution for unlawful possession of firearms.

Technically, yes. But if the gun wasn't hers and she only used it to defend herself in her home from harm, the jury may give her a pass.

I say 'may' because there are two felony violations here -- possessing/using a gun and violating the condition of her 5-year suspended sentence.

For example, if she was 15 years old and used a handgun (which is illegal) to shoot an intruder, it's unlikely she would even be charged. But you couple that with another felony ... it could go either way.

an American doing a 3-7 year bid in a state correctional institution, should be allowed to have a gun in his cell,

Well, of course. It's a God-given inalienable right! It's natural law! He has the right to defend himself with the weapon of his choice!

So do little children. And illegals. And the insane. And terrorists. It's a God-given right and protected by the second amendment.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

an American doing a 3-7 year bid in a state correctional institution, should be allowed to have a gun in his cell, because now his cell is home, to protect himself with

Ridiculous.

the end result is that a convicted felon was faced with a choice to either shoot a intruder in her home that posed an legally recognized immediate threat to herself and her family and go to jail, OR place herself and her family at the mercy of the intruder.

False dichotomy. There was a third option -- keep the door locked and call 911. But she didn't use that option because she knew she didn't have to -- she was armed.

She did not bring the dead body and put it in her house. The dead body walked in by itself, quite uninvited.

She completed her parole and weapons violations before the body walked in uninvited and got dead.

While your other technicalities are reasonable, the end result is that a convicted felon was faced with a choice to either shoot a intruder in her home that posed an legally recognized immediate threat to herself and her family and go to jail, OR place herself and her family at the mercy of the intruder.

There is not technicality. When she picked up the gun and transported it to the living room, she violated her parole and AR Code § 5-73-103 (Possession of firearms by certain persons). The parole violation and the unlawful possession had been committed even if the guy had never come back to the door just to find himself dead on the floor.

The investigation indicated that she was in possession of multiple weapons during the previous month. She broke the law, got convicted, got a five year suspended sentence, ignored the terms of her suspension, broke the law again, and got caught again.

Why did she move the gun from the bedroom to the living room? Why did she fear for her life? Why did she open the door for the second time?

Unlike the legal points you make, that is NOT a reasonable choice to give even a convicted felon.

Unlike the points you make, mine are the actual law, cited and quoted. When people present their imaginary law to a court, it does not usually work too well.

The simple fact is that Arkansas law prohibits convicted felons from possessing a gun. The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms only applies to lawful possession. Her possession was unlawful.

Had she no felony conviction, but she had picked up an M-16 machine gun and used it to protect herself, she would have the same problem of being in unlawful possession of a weapon, in this case an unlawful M-16 machine gun, no matter how righteous the shoot. There is no 2nd Amendment right to unlawful possession of a weapon.

Natural law gives any individual the right to protect themselves and their property. And nowhere in the Second Amendment does it state that felons are barred from using firearms for self-defense.

The 2nd Amendment does not protect the non-existent right to unlawful possession of a weapon.

Imagined natural law yields to actual statute law.

Technically, yes. But if the gun wasn't hers and she only used it to defend herself in her home from harm, the jury may give her a pass.

Whether she was the owner of the gun, or not, is irrelevant. She possessed the gun. She retrieved the gun from the bedroom and transported it to the living room, and staged it there before open the door the second time. She had access to the handgun, and the other guns, before the guy showed up the first time, and before she opened the door the second time. Her violation of probation, and AR Code § 5-73-103 (Possession of firearms by certain persons), was complete before the guy who became the dead body ever showed up. Having a dead body in her living room only led to the discovery of the felon in unlawful possession. Her problem is not using the gun to make the guy dead, but being in possession.

A jury cannot give her a pass for parole violation/revocation.

She is not charged with a bad shoot. She was a felon found in unlawful possession of multiple weapons. A jury may always do as they please, but the law and the evidence appear quite clear.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

The part about the right including the right to possess a weapon which is unlawful to possess.

The right that is protected has never included guns unlawful to possess.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Felon and doper possession is also a Federal crime.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-44/sec.-922/

§922. Unlawful acts

[...]

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien—

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) who is subject to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

[...]

There was a third option -- keep the door locked and call 911.

You are obviously not a supporter of the second Amendment.

9 times out of 10 in these situations, calling 911 only guarantees a forensic examination of the crime scene will be expedited.

Unlike the points you make, mine are the actual law, cited and quoted. When people present their imaginary law to a court, it does not usually work too well.

You argue what the law is. Fine.

I argue how that law fails to serve the people. If you don't want to argue about whether a law is beneficial or detrimental to society, then there's nothing for us to debate here.

Natural law gives any individual the right to protect themselves and their property. And nowhere in the Second Amendment does it state that felons are barred from using firearms for self-defense.

Being punished for a crime is by definition a suspension of rights, even natural or God-given rights. That much I understand and endorse.

The fact is - the woman was not convicted of a crime using handguns. That in itself should be taken into consideration here.

I would agree that the blanket barring of convicted felons from possessing handguns after time served, and especially for crimes that are not violent, are unreasonable, and as demonstrated in this case, unnecessarily put the person in danger, depriving them of their right to self defense which they in no way are considered to have forfeited, as again, demonstrated in this case where even the state has agreed the shooting was justified.

By admitting the shooting was justified, the state is making clear the woman, even as a convicted felon, had the right to defend her life with deadly weapons. But at the same time, they are prosecuting her for being in possession of a weapon that she apparently had a full right to use, even while possession was still illegal. It's contradictory on its face.

Your line of reasoning has my vote !!

I argue how that law fails to serve the people. If you don't want to argue about whether a law is beneficial or detrimental to society, then there's nothing for us to debate here.

There is nothing to debate here. I am arguing the actual law as it applies in an actual, specific case.

There is the actual law and a few million personal opinions about whether it is good, bad, beneficial or detrimental. It is still the law and you violate it at your peril.

You are obviously not a supporter of the second Amendment.

I support the second amendment and the rule of law. She could have called 911 and used the gun as backup.

She could have called 911 and used the gun as backup.

You should do stand up comedy. Har, har!

You, on the other hand, would go stumbling around in the dark, armed with your sawed-off 12 ga and a flashlight, not knowing where the bad guy was, and shooting at anything suspicious. You'll either end up dead or spending tens of thousands of dollars in court fighting second-degree murder charges.

And you'll have to explain all the gay porn on your computer. Har har.

Felon and doper possession is also a Federal crime.

100% correct and she is 100% guilty.

But if I'm on the jury I'd be inclined to cut her a little slack given that a) the gun wasn't hers, b) she was young (21) and 11 weeks pregnant, c) was alone in her own home, and d) was defending herself from a stranger who broke in.

That is assuming the story is true and they didn't leave anything out. But since the article lied about the gun belonging to her "husband" (he was her boyfriend at the time) and never mentioned the arsenal in the closet, I'm thinking there may be other surprises.

There is the actual law and a few million personal opinions about whether it is good, bad, beneficial or detrimental. It is still the law and you violate it at your peril.

Paultards, being more liberal than you, won’t ever understand this concept because they are SELF IMPORTANT. Self important people feel their opinions are the most important in the Republic and they know what’s best for everyone. Only a Paultard knows what laws are constitutional or not.

But if I'm on the jury I'd be inclined to cut her a little slack given that a) the gun wasn't hers, b) she was young (21) and 11 weeks pregnant, c) was alone in her own home, and d) was defending herself from a stranger who broke in.

Those outside circumstances should only be weighed at sentencing. To Wit, this convicted FELON did break written law that hasn’t been struck down as non constitutional.

We must start moving back RIGHT, where the populace are held accountable for their actions. Just who’s fault is it that this bitch is a felon?

It’s a LIBERAL TRAIT to pass blame for people’s actions... Dicktard is more left than others. He’s a fucking drug addict loving paultard.

Just who’s fault is it that this bitch is a felon?

Then she should have been sentenced to five years on the drug charge and this never would have happened. But she wasn't and it did. NOW you want to get tough?

"Those outside circumstances should only be weighed at sentencing."

I agree. That's normally when they're considered. But the jury doesn't do sentencing. As a juror, my only power is nullification and I'm simply saying that I'd be inclined to use that power in these circumstances. And I'm against nullification.