View Full Version : Man running "gun turn-in" in Pueblo is convicted felon, doesn't do BGCs, etc.
HoneyBadger
01-01-2016, 22:01
I'm really not sure what to make of this:
http://www.koaa.com/story/30864448/news-5-investigates-background-checks-ignored-in-pueblo-gun-exchange-run-by-convicted-felon?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KOAA_5
Frank Arteaga parked his blue and white pick up at the corner of East 4th Street and North Glendale Avenue Thursday. It's the same place he's parked all month. US and Mexican flags wave from the bed as framed Denver Broncos and Star Wars memorabilia sit on the ground. Close to the street sits a sandwich board sign with a large picture of a dove and the words "Peace for the Holidays," and "GUNS EXCHANGED FOR FOOD OR $$$, CONFIDENTIAL."
Heart is in the right place but, he's a felon.
It stops or someone is getting charged, beginning with the Sheriff, Mayor, Chief of Police, etc...
I have contacted the State's AG and CBI about this malfeasance.
Zundfolge
01-01-2016, 22:14
Heart is in the right place but, he's a felon.
Tricking poor people into giving up their means of self defense for trinkets and PC points is evil (especially when all you really end up doing is help criminals dispose of crime guns). Its wrong when politicians do it ... its wrong when philanthropists do it. Its just wrong.
Heart's in wrong place ... head's in wrong place ... if he's not careful his backside will end up in the wrong place.
This story needs to go viral and these people involved need to go away.
Great-Kazoo
01-02-2016, 01:17
Where's that damn pen of Obama's ??
Bailey Guns
01-02-2016, 06:46
Well, I guess Pueblo is the place to go for a FtF gun transaction, right? No background checks or other annoying laws to follow. Imagine the number of guns members could "get off the streets". It's for the children.
It stops or someone is getting charged, beginning with the Sheriff, Mayor, Chief of Police, etc...
I have contacted the State's AG and CBI about this malfeasance.
You should have just bypassed these people and gone straight to the top. I'd like to see what Chickenpooper does if he was notified personally that someone was openly and publicly violating his law.
Where's that damn pen of Obama's ??
Welllll, I just read that he signed a law banning microbeads in skin care products, so get off his back! He's busy with IMPORTANT shit!
The Pueblo Police Department is now running a program to destroy all guns used in the commission of a crime. No questions asked. It is an amnesty drop off with no way to connect the gun to a criminal and the city will then destroy the evidence.
Why destroy, hide, or worry about getting rid of your own incriminating evidence? A government service any politician could get behind and support.
[Sarcasm2]
The Pueblo Police Department is now running a program to destroy all guns used in the commission of a crime. No questions asked. It is an amnesty drop off with no way to connect the gun to a criminal and the city will then destroy the evidence.
Why destroy, hide, or worry about getting rid of your own incriminating evidence? A government service any politician could get behind and support.
[Sarcasm2]
[Shock]
You know, there's not a single thing that I can think of to say about this, that doesn't include an entire paragraph of four-letter words. Stupidity should be painful.
kidicarus13
01-02-2016, 10:51
Once again, discretionary enforcement of the law when the crime benefits those at the top.
Bailey Guns
01-02-2016, 16:11
Stupidity should be painful.
Oh, it usually is...to those of us forced to tolerate it. It rarely hurts those it should.
milwaukeeshaker
01-02-2016, 19:28
So he is a past felon, he isn't in jail, he is probably able to vote, drive, leave the state whenever, buy and sell, in short if he has all of his other rights restored intact why can he not own a gun? Where does it say in the 2nd that a felon that is released cannot exercise his gun rights? If he is considered dangerous when with a firearm why is he free? Should he not be incarcerated if he is a danger to the public? Thoughts?
Heart is in the right place but, he's a felon.
HoneyBadger
01-02-2016, 19:44
So he is a past felon, he isn't in jail, he is probably able to vote, drive, leave the state whenever, buy and sell, in short if he has all of his other rights restored intact why can he not own a gun? Where does it say in the 2nd that a felon that is released cannot exercise his gun rights? If he is considered dangerous when with a firearm why is he free? Should he not be incarcerated if he is a danger to the public? Thoughts?
Where does it say in the second "no full auto" or "no magazines bigger than 15 rounds"?
I think I agree with your stance here, but who am I to say which laws another individual should be accountable for? Obviously, that is the government's job.
Bailey Guns
01-02-2016, 21:30
So he is a past felon, he isn't in jail, he is probably able to vote, drive, leave the state whenever, buy and sell, in short if he has all of his other rights restored intact why can he not own a gun? Where does it say in the 2nd that a felon that is released cannot exercise his gun rights? If he is considered dangerous when with a firearm why is he free? Should he not be incarcerated if he is a danger to the public? Thoughts?
For me, that's not the point. The point is the politically correct are looking the other way in spite of the obvious violations because he's getting those awful guns off the street. It's the typical leftist viewpoint...the ends justifies the means. As long as it's something they agree with, to hell with the law.
I'm not a felon and as a citizen (formerly, anyway) of Colorado I couldn't buy/sell guns without background checks or without following the law. What makes this guy so special?
He needs to be prosecuted. Those who allowed this need to be prosecuted.
HoneyBadger
01-02-2016, 22:27
Too bad this guy wasn't hanging out at the Citadel Mall earlier this evening (http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/CSPD-Investigating-Shooting-at-Citadel-Mall-364042381.html)... Could have prevented the needless gun violence there.
milwaukeeshaker
01-03-2016, 11:23
I agree with you, I was just addressing the felon not allowed guns part of it.
For me, that's not the point. The point is the politically correct are looking the other way in spite of the obvious violations because he's getting those awful guns off the street. It's the typical leftist viewpoint...the ends justifies the means. As long as it's something they agree with, to hell with the law.
I'm not a felon and as a citizen (formerly, anyway) of Colorado I couldn't buy/sell guns without background checks or without following the law. What makes this guy so special?
He needs to be prosecuted. Those who allowed this need to be prosecuted.
milwaukeeshaker
01-03-2016, 11:26
As you know, in reality, by the constitution, ALL gun laws made since 1934 are illegal and not enforceable, but they do it.
Where does it say in the second "no full auto" or "no magazines bigger than 15 rounds"?
I think I agree with your stance here, but who am I to say which laws another individual should be accountable for? Obviously, that is the government's job.
So he is a past felon, he isn't in jail, he is probably able to vote, drive, leave the state whenever, buy and sell, in short if he has all of his other rights restored intact why can he not own a gun? Where does it say in the 2nd that a felon that is released cannot exercise his gun rights? If he is considered dangerous when with a firearm why is he free? Should he not be incarcerated if he is a danger to the public? Thoughts?
My thought is that you are oversimplifying. Federal law prohibits felons from purchasing firearms. State law expands further upon that to include domestic violence offenders.
The Bill of Rights doesn't address everything; state and federal laws clarify instances. That's merely one of the reasons that this business in Pueblo is such a slap in the face. Enforcement of these laws is clearly Animal Farm in nature- "some are more equal than others."
XC700116
01-03-2016, 13:32
So he is a past felon, he isn't in jail, he is probably able to vote, drive, leave the state whenever, buy and sell, in short if he has all of his other rights restored intact why can he not own a gun? Where does it say in the 2nd that a felon that is released cannot exercise his gun rights? If he is considered dangerous when with a firearm why is he free? Should he not be incarcerated if he is a danger to the public? Thoughts?
Essentially because he lost those rights via pleading guilty to a felony charge, thus losing them through due process as laid out in the Constitution. Im not sure i agree or disagree with how that element hangs around after the fact, but as things are now that is a condition of pleading guilty and or being convicted by a jury of your peers of a felony. There is also a mechanism to restore 2nd amendment rights after the fact, but I don't see this guy getting that restoration due to his crime demonstrating an inability to control his vengeful impulses. Then consider that in fact he has committed numerous misdemeanors and felonies since and should be arrested and charged with those crimes.
The rest of us have lost rights via commandment from the government in spite of the restrictions of said government laid out in the Constitution.
Point being the admitted turning a blind eye to this felon actively and openly acquiring more firearms, no matter his "good intentions" is absolutely unacceptable and people should be fired, charged and convicted on separate charges.
Detonics
01-03-2016, 13:43
If he is considered dangerous when with a firearm why is he free? Should he not be incarcerated if he is a danger to the public? Thoughts?
Just because he is "free" doesn't mean he's not dangerous. 97% of all convicts will be released. Up until recently they could be released directly from segregated environments (due to being too dangerous or disruptive for general population) to the street.
Ok, I just read the koaa article.
Do you suppose this would be tolerated if he was flying a Confederate battle flag instead of the Mexican flag?
sent from somwhere
Just because he is "free" doesn't mean he's not dangerous. 97% of all convicts will be released. Up until recently they could be released directly from segregated environments (due to being too dangerous or disruptive for general population) to the street.
I think you begged the question here a bit.
If he is dangerous, he shouldn't be released. If sentences need to be extended to protect society so be it. If he's done his time he should be released and have his rights restored.
The idea we have dangerous people who can't legally own a firearm in society, living right next to us, is ridiculous. Same thing with mental illness. Society is now "general population" and some wonder why our rights are being taken away bit-by-bit.
milwaukeeshaker
01-03-2016, 18:42
Yes, thank you.
I think you begged the question here a bit.
If he is dangerous, he shouldn't be released. If sentences need to be extended to protect society so be it. If he's done his time he should be released and have his rights restored.
The idea we have dangerous people who can't legally own a firearm in society, living right next to us, is ridiculous. Same thing with mental illness. Society is now "general population" and some wonder why our rights are being taken away bit-by-bit.
I've been inspired by this. I'm going to offer each of you the chance to turn your firearms over to me for disposal. Since I will be taking them off the "streets" my intentions are good. No need for any silly FFL involvement. Just bring them to me.
milwaukeeshaker
01-04-2016, 09:47
[ROFL2]
Nice try!
I've been inspired by this. I'm going to offer each of you the chance to turn your firearms over to me for disposal. Since I will be taking them off the "streets" my intentions are good. No need for any silly FFL involvement. Just bring them to me.
battle_sight_zero
01-04-2016, 10:31
Essentially because he lost those rights via pleading guilty to a felony charge, thus losing them through due process as laid out in the Constitution. Im not sure i agree or disagree with how that element hangs around after the fact, but as things are now that is a condition of pleading guilty and or being convicted by a jury of your peers of a felony. There is also a mechanism to restore 2nd amendment rights after the fact, but I don't see this guy getting that restoration due to his crime demonstrating an inability to control his vengeful impulses. Then consider that in fact he has committed numerous misdemeanors and felonies since and should be arrested and charged with those crimes.
The rest of us have lost rights via commandment from the government in spite of the restrictions of said government laid out in the Constitution.
Point being the admitted turning a blind eye to this felon actively and openly acquiring more firearms, no matter his "good intentions" is absolutely unacceptable and people should be fired, charged and convicted on separate charges.
In Colorado a felon convicted here cannot get their gun rights restored without a Govenors pardon. Know several good people who have tried to get them restored to no avail. Especially when we have had Ritter and Poopinlicker back to back.
Same thing for the DV charge in Colorado?
In Colorado a felon convicted here cannot get their gun rights restored without a Govenors pardon. Know several good people who have tried to get them restored to no avail. Especially when we have had Ritter and Poopinlicker back to back.
In many states, if you can get the court to reduce your original offense to a misdemeanor, often possible depending on severity and first time offender, then have the misdemeanor expunged, you can fully restore your rights.
milwaukeeshaker
01-04-2016, 18:54
No one is supposed to be able to take, or restore your God given rights. This is just the crap we have allowed due to our apathy.
XC700116
01-04-2016, 19:25
In Colorado a felon convicted here cannot get their gun rights restored without a Govenors pardon. Know several good people who have tried to get them restored to no avail. Especially when we have had Ritter and Poopinlicker back to back.
I know its not easy, and not certain of what it takes here (I grew up in MN) as I honestly find it much easier to keep my own house clean.
Well they updated the story and the DA in Pueblo apparently is fully supporting this illegal behavior. A deferred sentence on a felony conviction is not a disqualifier, so someone needs to clear that up with CBI. None of the elected officials in Pueblo seem to care. Another example of selective enforcement by an elected prosecutor.
No one I've spoken to in any Colorado law enforcement agencies seems to be inclined to do anything about this, so as long as the voters of Pueblo are fine with it, the activity will continue. SMH [facepalm]
http://www.koaa.com/story/30940006/news-5-investigates-da-supports-gun-exchange
68Charger
01-14-2016, 22:58
I'm inclined to go meet him, offer my Hi point JHP (.45) as a trade in for outrageous amounts (like 2-3 cords of firewood for my widowed Mother-in-Law who's deceased husband was a veteran of the Navy... (all true, btw)), then accuse him of "being special privilege" when he wants to do anything without a BGC
"I struggled to do the paperwork to buy theese guns leegaaly, and you just want to throw that away? are yooos some kind of gang baanger?"
Who wants to come with me to film it?
DenverGP
01-15-2016, 11:17
So the Pueblo DA is telling us as long as we COULD pass a background check, we can safely ignore the background check law. Cool, good to know.
So the Pueblo DA is telling us as long as we COULD pass a background check, we can safely ignore the background check law. Cool, good to know.
I think he's pretty much saying that as a buyer you can ignore the law, regardless of if you can pass a BGC or not.
Chostner said he supports the exchange even though it ignores the background check law. He points out that Arteaga isn't personally violating the law. Instead, it's the people selling the guns who could face prosecution.
68Charger
01-15-2016, 15:56
I think he's pretty much saying that as a buyer you can ignore the law, regardless of if you can pass a BGC or not.
Chostner said he supports the exchange even though it ignores the background check law. He points out that Arteaga isn't personally violating the law. Instead, it's the people selling the guns who could face prosecution.
They COULD make a case if they wanted to... it may be the seller that is breaking the law- but demand Arteaga provide the names of those sellers so they can be prosecuted... If he can't produce them, then charge him with accessory, aiding and abetting, or obstruction of justice.
it's obvious the DA doesn't want to make a case- it wins points for his political career?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.