Back in January, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner noted that a Washington D.C. resident who shot and killed one of three pit bulls savagely mauling 11-year-old Jayeon Simon could, despite very likely having saved the boys life, face serious legal consequences for violation of D.C.’s oppressive gun laws. As that article noted:
The [Washington Post] article goes on to say that the police have not revealed whether or not the man was in compliance with D.C.’s onerous registration laws, but that even if he was, firing the gun “on a D.C. street” is illegal (even, apparently, to save a child’s life).
As it turns out, the gun was not registered, nor were two other firearms owned by the man, or the ammunition (yep–ammunition is apparently supposed to be registered in D.C.). From the Washington Times:
Possession of an unregistered firearm or ammunition in the District is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, and prosecutors said Mr. Srigley could have faced up to seven criminal charges in the case.
Ouch. Not to fear, though:
“We took it into account that he saved this boy’s life,” [spokesman for the office of the attorney general] Mr. Gest said.
How nice of them. So . . . instead of jail time and a criminal record, Mr. Srigley will “only” be fined $1,000. Good thing it wasn’t an entire Little League team he’d saved–at $1,000 per kid’s life saved, a guy could go bankrupt pretty quickly. Speaking of pit bull attacks and gun laws, the loved ones of a woman in Los Angeles probably wish there had been a “gun criminal” like Mr. Srigley around when she was sentenced by the gun-haters to die in the jaws of vicious dogs.
Actually, and this probably has to be considered shocking generosity by D.C. standards, Mr. Srigley will even get his guns back (or at least the two that he did not use to save the boy’s life)–with the understanding that he will take them out of D.C., because he’s moving to Maryland (can’t help but wonder about Srigley’s choice of places to live, though).
By the way, the owner of the three pit bulls is now in his own legal hot water–facing three counts each (one for each dog) of possession of a dangerous dog, having an unleashed dog and having a dog without a collar. The maximum penalty for those nine counts is very likely less than what Mr. Srigley could have faced for his seven victimless “crimes,” had the prosecutors decided to aggressively make an example of him. That prosecutors are punishing the owner of the dogs seems the height of hypocrisy–by punishing the man who stopped the attack, they’ve already shown that they’re on the side of killer dogs, rather than the people who stop them.
Here’s the thing. A law that has to be broken in order to save the life of a child–to prevent him from being torn apart by vicious dogs–is very likely an evil law. And a “justice” system that punishes a man (even if “only” by fining him) for being a lifesaving hero–is institutionalized evil. Why, as a (theoretically) free citizen, does any American tolerate this?
- Known ‘gun criminal’ David Gregory goes uncharged; life-saving hero may not
- LA pit bull attack shows savage consequences of citizen disarmament