“30-year-old [Jeremy] Meeks was arrested during a gang sweep June 18 for gun possession in Stockton, Calif.,” nypost.com reported back in February 2015. “A felon after serving time in 2002 for grand theft, Meeks had a loaded .45 caliber pistol on him during his latest run-in, a federal crime that could have landed him in prison for up to 10 years.” But didn’t. The so-called “Hot Convict” — whose mug shot melted hearts, inspired modeling offers and may land him a reality TV show — served 27 months. Huh. And now, he’s out . . .
“The married father of three is starting to put the pieces of his modeling career together,” Meeks’ agent Jim Jordan told the Daily News last Wednesday. “We have a lot in store regarding Jeremy’s new career. There are a multitude of offers on the table,” Jordan said. “Jeremy is humbled and grateful and overwhelmed by the outpouring of love, support, and prayers for him and his family.” Good luck with his rehab. Meanwhile, should the felonious heartthrob get his gun rights back?
Out of jail? Guns back
Carnac says, the title of the news article will read;
“And he was just getting his life back together as aspiring model when (fill in the blank happened).”
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. He’ll get his guns back, just not legally.
Not defending the convict released early – but since each person is different – Einstein’s quote on insanity doesn’t apply. IMO it is a much overused statement in areas not applicable. Example: I was in an elevator once with a fellow engineer and he complained that this lady continually kept pressing the elevator button when it didn’t work. In the back of my mind I thought to myself – there are reasons to press the elevator button more than once – and just because one does so – doesn’t make one insane. They could press it again at a different angle or at a different pressure because of a loose connection or corroded contacts etc. Einstein’s quote is for repeating the same activity and expecting different results – but the activity must be exactly the same. Exactly.
Gangbanger, went to prison with 10 year sentence.
Got out and was charged with multiple state offenses plus federal offense of felon in possession.
Pled to the gun charge to get the state charges dismissed.
Now he gets out because someone thinks he looks good and should have some sort of income from a legitimate source. No mention of his personality conversion. Go figure.
Remember the guy (Jack Abbott) years ago that was a murderer, got out with the help of Norman Mailer because he liked the book then killed another guy and went back for life? I don’t see much here to make me expect a different outcome. Maybe a slightly different story. Not a different outcome.
I’d offer the correction: “Off parole? Guns back.”
Being on parole is factually the same as being off parole in terms of committing another crime. A freeman is as deadly as a parolee walking the street, with or without a gun. What you proposed is a punishment, not a further crime deterrant. And said punishment does nothing but unnecessarily endangers his own life (albeit not so valuable perhaps). In order for that to be a crime deterrant, the parolee must be planning something where a gun is an absolute irreplaceable component, which exists but very very rarely happens. Compared to the potential of gobbermint abuse which impacts everyone, i’d say give the parolee his gun. Of course, your subjective judgement has every right to be different from mine.
Guns back? For a convicted felon? No. There is a federal law against that.
He’s a thug and thuggers will keep thuggin. Predict his short lived new career with last less than a year.
There’s more too it.
It is a right not a privilege, so……
And it has been held and decided that all rights are not absolute, based upon ones actions and choices (you can even lose your citizenship and the rights that are granted with it)
What has been held, by the government courts, who of course have no agenda, is that they can decide when and how much your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights my be exercised even though the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to enshrine those specific rights the government was not allowed to infringe upon.
The fact that we have so far not found these infringements sufficiently egregious to punish the fascists who enact and enforce them does NOT make them Constitutional, nor does any pronouncement by 5 or more SCOTUS justices.
True, dat.
What’s decided by some non-elected robe-wearing elites has nothing to do with what’s right or wrong. There’s a lot of bureaucracy going on with any court decision, with varying degrees of power abuse and profit-seeking on all parties involved. Their opinions do decide the laymen’s fate but those are definitely not the truth.
All the “guns outta the wrong hands” BS is just that, BS. If giving a gun to somebody automatically means they’ll begin killing, what makes you think they wont kill with other items? It’s just a piece of feel-good legislation ready for tyrannical abuse by politicians and useful idiots. So if the same bureaucrats decide to let a guy off the jail or the mental home, they should restore his almost-absolute right to weapons.
Rights are never absolute, you are correct on that one. However, what degree of freedom is the most beneficial for the individual citzens? On one extreme is “not even a baseball bat”, which we could certainly regard as the behavior of a draconian regime. On the other extreme, is “free nukes in everyone’s basement”, which is definitely a great check against tyranny, but a bit too risky, yknow, when just one guy goes nuts. When you look at it this way, full-auto guns, balisong knives, suppressors, no more 4473, no more FFL, no more NICS, are just way too puny to be worth any more concern than things currently are.
The same goes to “how can we decide a man’s gun rights should be restored or not?” It’s just plain ludicrous and delusional to bar a released inmate from guns when he has access to fruit knives and taxis.
The 13th, 15th and 19th…what are the acceptable exceptions to these amendments?
Sooo…was he the jailhouse gurrrl?
On a serious note, I think non-violent felons should have all rights restored and their records expunged. Violent felons get to participate in the games.
Gloria Imperium Romanum.
Of course, the Brandenburg Disciplinary Battalion is always an option, but you will have to read The Forgotten Soldier for that one.
That’s a great book.
How is this not incredibly sexist?
Because he’s male. There is no sexism against males, they are not the victims of domestic violence, open discrimination against whites is called affirmative action. Violence and intimidation are perfectly acceptable to shut down a Trump rally, imagine the cries (charges) of domestic terrorism leveled against a crowd that sought to interrupt Hillary.
I have a few Bernie loving friends who were championing the shut down of the Trump rally in Chicago, and my two honest questions to them was, “Do you think they changed any attendees’ minds? And would the same situation, reversed, change their mind?”
There was quite a lot of dancing around the question, but the basic answer was no.
That’s the beauty of this election cycle.
There is going to be a *ton* of dirt dug up on Trump, stuff that would sink most any other politician.
And it will have nearly *zero* effect on those voting for him.
And for that, we can thank the ‘Current Occupant, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.’.
His “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor…” spiel, broadcast loud & proud, has now made it perfectly OK for a pol to bald-face lie to the American electorate, with little repercussions expected…
Very true. If you are a serious Trump opponent, the way to lessen his influence (over the uncommitted anyway) is to not try to pick fights with him. I fear one of these paid agitators is going to get injured or worse, and the bloody shirt will not produce the ‘reaction’ that MoveOn/Bloomberg/BLM is looking for.
I’m not a fan of Trump, I believe there to be better choices. But I do understand the perception that he is an outsider and people are just about pissed off enough to vote for a reality show star, if it only gets something to change. Bernie has a similar appeal to a different group of folks. But has just as worrying a past.
The least we can do is to allow the cycle to play out, and even if the candidates act uncivilized, at least let them have their opportunity at peaceably assembling their constituents. I know that’s impossible for the BLM animals (repeatedly demonstrated behaviors and expectations, not being black), but it would be nice if they didn’t have other protestors around to lend them legitimacy.
It’s sad that having a half-black guy in charge has done nothing to improve race relations. Even if he sucked at everything else, he could have gotten that somewhat right and made some lasting contribution. Or, at least, earned that Nobel. Instead, he has supported black criminals, and thugs. Great use of the bully pulpit.
If the state allow him to be rehabilitated back into society, then yes, restore his rights.
Maybe you could volunteer your family and home as a place to stay for a couple of years and mentor him while he gets his life back together. Just sayin…
Given the choice between getting rid of this dude’s potentially negative influence on my family, and getting rid of the state’s, I’d have to be an idiot of progressive proportions to pick the former.
A fundamental fallacy underpinning the statists ability to harass at will, is this misguided notion that there are all these “reeeealllly baaaaad scaaaariii” people out there, that grown men need some massive police state to keep them safe from. In reality, like all statist and progressive nonsense, it is, who could have thought? Nonsense.
This guy is a 30 year old less than brilliant with a bad start in life. Probably not much of a shot, even with his .45. Even should he fail to shape up, how the heck is that supposed to present some massive threat to “society”, compared to infinitely well funded three letter agencies staffed with thousands upon thousands of trained professionals, with access to anything up to, and possibly in a crisis including, nukes?
Free people have a God given right to the means to protect themselves. This guy, too. And that includes the right to use said means to protect oneself against this guy, should he pose anything more than a temporary threat to your teenage daughter’s ongoing Justin Bieber infatuation.
Just focus on getting rid of the government(s), or at least shrink it/them down to the size it/they was/were under Jefferson. Infinitely more important than a gaggle of fundamentally irrelevant busybodies running around having all manners of childish opinions about other people’s rights.
“The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right…”
The STATE did not give him his right to keep and bear arms. The State cannot take away his right to keep and bear arms. The State cannot RESTORE his right to keep and bear arms. All the State can do is stop attempting to inhibit his right to keep and bear arms, rehabilitated or not.
It is just as easy to forget that the Constitution protects a natural right, not bestows political permission, as it is to forget that the Constitution in the Bill of Rights lists things that the government is PROHIBITED from doing – “…shall not be infringed.”
Called due Process….
“Due process” grants the government the ability in certain circumstances to convict you of a crime and incarcerate you for the terms of penance (penitentiary) specified, during which time they can make their best effort to suppress your natural rights. Due process does not and cannot give the government either the right or the ability to REVOKE any of your natural rights. Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but the Second Amendment was carefully thought out and simply worded for a reason – “…shall not be infringed.”
http://www.themost10.com/terrifying-handmade-prison-weapons/
Sorry, But Ronald Regan said it best. “So much of what they know is simply wrong…”
Ronald was a right wing gun grabber. Quoting him just makes you look foolish.
If he’s on conditional release – parole or probation – no. If the authorities are going to release potentially dangerous thugs early with conditions I don’t have a problem with one of those conditions being they can’t have a gun. But if he has ‘paid his debt to society’ (whatever that means) then he shouldn’t have any of his rights infringed.
Perhaps the answer should be that a condition of parole (the conditional release from prison prior to having served the full sentence) should be the agreement that the parolee will not commit a crime with a gun. Since the other conditions of parole are voluntary agreements more or less stringently monitored, such an agreement would fit the pattern.
The caveat being that if in fact the parolee uses a firearm in the commission of ANY crime while on parole the punishment should be more extreme than just being returned to custody to fulfill the original sentence. Whatever crime was committed with the firearm needs to be added to the end of the original term and should never be plea bargained away.
What should NOT be illegal, nor a prima facie violation of parole, is the mere possession of a firearm nor the use of a firearm in legitimate self defense.
If you’re out on parole, just because you’re allowed to walk the streets doesn’t make you a free man. Any number of violations of the terms of release can put you right back in prison to fulfill the rest of your sentence. Often these provisions include prohibitions from associating with certain people, or for instance if the crime was committed with a computer the parolee is often barred from accessing a computer or the internet. Committing a crime with a firearm is automatically a violation of any parole and you will be back in to complete your sentence anyway. Once you’ve demonstrated your ability to live peaceably among the population your obligations under the conditional release are fulfilled and you don’t have to worry about having to go back and complete your sentence. You are then a free man.
I don’t have a problem with the prohibition of possessing a firearm as a condition of early release. That much seems to make a lot of sense, especially for parolees who committed violent crimes. But once you’re granted full freedom it doesn’t make sense.
In order to prevent parolees from carrying guns, the state needs some means of discerning whether he is or not. It needs laws defining what is a gun, what possessing one entails etc. All of which can, as in will, be used against anyone.
Just chuck the whole institution of parole. It requires another layer of apparatchiks to uphold. Introduces tons of subjectivity (i.e. this “hot thug” boinking his washed up parole officer and getting a pass….), more government stooges fighting for more government to protect “their” pensions, blah blah. Hand the guy his gun on the way out the door, or hang him. Or keep him locked up. Cheap, time proven, effective, and requiring minimal subjectivity. As well as minimal government infrastructure, hence minimizing the risk of creating yet more interest groups clamoring for more government.
“the agreement that the parolee will not commit a crime with a gun”
Why not simplify the wording and just require a promise to “not commit a crime”? Is that too easy? Or just too easy to realize it would mean nothing.
Haha, Stockton. It has regularly competed with Flint Michigan for the worst place in America to live.
Stockton the home of nate diaz the conor McGregor killer. Stockton motherfucker Stockton.
Did anybody but me see the gang tattoos?
In the unlikely event that this guy keeps his nose clean for two years, then give him his guns back.
But that probably ain’t gonna happen.
Well, he’s advertising he served at least a year in the state penitentiary with that ‘teardrop’ tat next to his eye, so that should do wonders for his employability…
See I thought the teardrop meant he had been raped.
If that were the case, you would see a whole lot more teardrop tats.
*Usually*, 1 tear= 1 year…
He’s out of jail, he already HAS his guns back, the question is should he be allowed to?
No, the question is to what ends will you go to try to stop him?
Yep. It’s not complicated. If they are turned out of prison having done their time, they deserve their rights back. If they haven’t been rehabilitated, they will simply go get a gun and continue their predatory ways, if they do choose to be law abiding, then they should have the ability to legally use a gun to defend their lives. But, since we can’t tell ahead of time, the only way is to wait and see what path they choose.
With all the drugs circulating around in hollywood and modeling circles it will probably be a parole violation for him to pursue his new career opportunity. He’ll likely just get his homies new connections to deal to and end up back in jail.
Is there some kind of exception to the law for “Hot Convicts”?
Yes.
One of the radio djs in town pointed out that if you are beautiful enough, certain laws simply do not apply to you.
Well, it worked for that teacher who was banging one of her middle-school students.
I think her lawyer actually said something along the lines of “Too pretty for prison.”…
If you can be too rich (affluenza), too big (GM, AIG, etc.), or too Clinton (do I even have to explain), then I guess you can be too beautiful.
One very successful ex-con. (Who is definitely not pretty…)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001803/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
He’ll get his gun rights back over someone’s dead body.
Didn’t have to serve the full term of a federal mandatory minimum – must not own any land the BLM is interested in.
Roger that Cochise….
No problem from me. If a persons crime fits the sentence, the person has the proper support system in place, has the proper job and residence secured, little reason to rot in the system. Too bad he got those douchy prison tattoos on his face. Tear drops are stupid.
A mere 27 months for a previously convicted felon who should have done a dime? Huh. Curious, that.
#Blackcrimesdon’tmatter
10 years for the non-crime of carrying a firearm? What kind of 2A advocate are you?
What were the “state charges” which were dropped?
The state charges would be the offending of Californian anti-gun politicians. Normally TTAG couldn’t care less about them, but when the offender does not fit their neat little social stereotypes, then suddenly Californian gun laws are just and righteous.
Sad to say, but most of the gun rights activists/slactivists are rabid authoritarians. Having a conversation with them is painful to endure.
TTAG has reached a new low with this autostart video.
Do you really think we are so stupid we can’t run the video ourselves?
When you embed a video from a foreign source the auto-start function is often no under your control. At least it has a manual stop feature.
There is NO MANUAL STOP unless I click the box to allow them to store data on my computer. And, they aren’t telling what kind of data it is!!!
Haha. NY Daily News appears more and more brain dead, every time they put words on parchment. Is there no consternation on their part that a repeat felon is getting a slap on the wrist?
Obviously they care more about disarming law abiding citizens than prosecuting criminals.
These are the same bimbos who reported that the gun used at the Washington Navy Yard was an AR-15. Investigation revealed that it was a common pump action shotgun, a Remington 870.
Do not know if this is propaganda or not. I heard on TV this morn, If and when Hilloraly gets elected pres. She going after guns like no other. They had a big thing about Australia .They said Hilloraly was going to abolish the 2A. …..What are we going to do? The whole systems corrupt.
I don’t know how much of that is the truth and how much of that is hyperbole. Abolishing the 2nd amendment is and would be a very big to do. There is a lot of money in the firearms industry. I mean a lot. Money tends to make its own rules in our country. A president may do a lot of things, but there is a limit to what one person can do. Also remember this, someone has to go out and get those guns from people. We are not Austrailia. They were given their independence, we fought for ours. This country was founded by people who were willing to stand up and fight for what they knew was right. I do agree that Hillolary getting elected would be a disaster and make things very hard for gun owners. I don’t know that it would signal the end of the 2nd amendment but it certainly would change things for the worse for a while. That is why you need to vote and you need to be an advocate for what you believe in. Do not just bend over and take it with the assumption that things are hopeless or it is just someone else’s job to prevent such change from happening.
Thuggers keep on thugging when released into the same circumstances, when jail time provides no curriculum for dealing with emotions or education and job training. It’s too easy to write off segments of people because we think, “they like to live like that.” How much harder it would make our daily life if we had to think any child placed in that environment would likely fail. Yes, even Prince Charles’ son. Even you, even me. Take a pick. Inner city Detroit with crack heads or West Va trailer park with meth heads.
I’m not excusing gang banging. Preparation is paramount. Look what site were are on.
We want their gun rights back? How about right to clean air (you’re on a computer Google where polluting plants are placed), fresh fruits and vegetables, quality teachers and staff in schools, effective law enforcement where you do the crime you do the time. If you have these things then everyone deserves them. If you don’t then who are you voting for in local elections?
It’s a big burden to think that some people don’t have basic things and you do. My point? It’s easier to write them off as “those people.”
Fresh veggies and law enforcement are not rights. The things you talk about are the result of people choosing to do the right thing for their communities, their families, and themselves. Thugs are gonna thug as long as they “choose” to. No sympathy from me.
They don’t need sympathy. They need empathy. That means imagining being in their situation. Fresh food air and water are rights.
If you have children or have taught or spent time with offenders it would be clear.
You can’t make a choice if you don’t have one. Read the book from the lady who tried to live on minimum wage. Don’t get me wrong I’m about personal responsibility. I’m not for raising the minimum wage! Yet privilege makes you think everyone has it. If you have the same start and choose crime then sure. If your blood is tainted with lead and your intelligence is stunted then how are you to maintain a gpa to go to a good school? Lead was a choice?
West Virginia coal miners are trapped in a situation of drug use, disease, & unwed pregnancies. You are 18 yrs old, you just leave and enter Penn State and end up with a good job? You can’t read above a 3rd grade level. You don’t even speak the King’s English.
I told you it’s easier to write them off.
Women are supposed to defend themselves against rapists without guns or even tasers. Yet they should just choose to be in a different situation.
You do realize that you’re on a site where most folks actually believe in personal responsibility, no?
I get it, they gave you a degree in some humanity, and you learned all these great “truths” from your teachers and some studies. I get it. I do. I used to believe stuff like this when I was 13 or 14, still had some lingering when I was 16 or 17.
But it isn’t reality.
You do have some things – air, food, water, a place to live are fundamental human rights. That also means that you might have to go hunting and farming to eat, and live in the woods in a tent. There should never be a charge for collecting rainwater (though Utah thinks differently, I kid you not). Air, they still haven’t figured out how to tax you. Yet.
I’m all for raising the minimum wage. Back in the ’80s you could scrape by on 40 hours at $3.35 per. You lived, not well, but you had an apartment in an ok neighborhood, a car, and food. If it had kept up with inflation, the minimum wage would be about $12 right now. If a job is worth doing, it’s worth paying someone enough to scrape by on. If not, you have no right as an employer to expect anyone to do it. Yes, I’ve had employees, yes they all made way more than minimum. Maybe it cost me a few bucks, I made it up by having happy people, who made decent cash, felt good about coming to work, and provided better service to my customers. I also had turnover around 10% – not 200% like others. I had to work far less to manage them. Even in a low-volume scenario, it’s raising prices a quarter here and there to pay for this ‘massive increase’ in compensation.
More importantly, I’ve known people from very challenged backgrounds, black and white. The good ones always find a way out. Always. May be circuitous, but they make it. The rest are ‘those people’, and they just aren’t very bright. To paraphrase Carlin, you know how dumb the median American is? The bottom half is even dumber.
There are bright kids in the schools of North and East St Louis. They will graduate, and by virtue of the color of their skin be eligible for schools and jobs they could never get were they better educated and white. The rest of their class holds to the “black culture” ethos, where being smart will at best get you ridiculed, and at worst get you killed. Go spend some time with teachers of these “disenfranchised” you feel so deserve our empathy.
Were these poor unfortunate souls so smart, they would all know that they can merely get a degree in something, almost anything, and write their own ticket – the tables are legally turned massively in their favor. The smart ones do, and are all around you in positions of at least above average pay, and often power. The rest? They simply aren’t capable. They shouldn’t lead horrible lives for that, it’s just genetics, they should make a living. But it’s just genetics that I can’t play basketball either, and DNA is not politically correct.
I’m sorry but the ‘road out’ for those deserving is clearly marked and well advertised. If you are capable, and willing you take it. If not, you have no one to blame but yourself. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. That’s it. Everyone isn’t entitled to be a doctor, rocket scientist, or even middle-manager. But everyone has a chance.
YES!!!!!!
Raising the minimum wage would likely only increase the unemployment rate further, especially in the inner cities. It has already been having terrible effects in the cities that have increased it.
Kyle, Obamacare (really Romneycare, but why trifle?) is what has millions cut back to part-time status. Anyone who runs a business and can’t figure out a way to charge an extra $3-$4 per hour per employee, especially spread over a dozen customers per employee hour, or 50 in fast food, is not deserving of being in charge of a frakkin’ hot dog cart. They’re whiny, greedy bastards. Nothing more. Customers aren’t that price sensitive, and even if they are, every other business has to do it to when you raise the bar uniformly. The competitor doesn’t have a magical price advantage.
The Fed minimum should have been indexed to inflation, like everything else seems to be. This shift should have been gradually implemented several times over the last, what, 2 decades? As the raise in minimum has always been. I hear the argument that say McD’s was always supposed to be for PT highschoolers or some such rot. It’s not true. A basic job is not supposed to make you rich, satisfied, or comfortable. But doing one for 40-ish hours a week is supposed to put some sort of roof over your head in a decent neighborhood, pay for your beater car, and have enough food to survive without needing food stamps or the community pantry. Maybe even see a movie occasionally. Many of these people are simply not qualified for anything else. You can train them all you want, but without manufacturing, there’s a whole lot of good, if not very smart people who are entitled to survive if they do some job. Any job. White, black, whatever.
Even if you don’t care about these people, or their lives, you might want to out of your own self interest.
Considering that tens of millions of people die from starvation every year, where the flaming Hell do you get the idea that food is some manner of a “right”? You work for food or you starve. That whole concept is just silliness.
Larry, I think you missed the part where I said you may have to grow your own food and/or hunt.
As I have done both (not of necessity, but still) I can assure you that they are both very much “work”.
He did his time for grand theft. I say restore his rights. If he does more crime he should get more time. I don’t think mere possession of a loaded .45 is a 10 year offense.
Heck in LA we’ve had a DUI driver with no priors kill 2 adults in a crash and serve less than 3 years in prison. That’s flippin’ ridiculous. I almost quit over that incident. Then I realized that my expectations of government were too high, and I enjoy most of my job.
Oh hell no. Homie with the pretty eyes more than likely is a murderer too. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. And stud boy won’t last long anyway…
Rumor has it MDA have made offers.
If he served his relativ short sentence then he should have back all civil rights.
If to dangerous stay in prision ore dead penality , if release full restore so easy in my libertarian world !
Ideally, no, he shouldn’t.
For the simple reason that he shouldn’t be out. Looking at his track record, he is a habitual offender, and dangerous. Fool me twice…
But in deference to due process, since he’s out, and so long as it’s not probation, as a free man, he should.
There’s a big spot of dirt on his face.
Just because this guy chooses to be a model, it does not change his underlying moral and value system that landed him in jail. He will be back in jail in no time.
And talk about destroying his modeling prospects by tattooing up his neck. The truth is, most all marketers of products are not marketing to the ghetto crowd that he represents.
This is what is wrong with gun control……the willingness to do absolutely nothing when someone breaks the laws gun grabbers propose.
its all part of ovomits/satan the ineligible treasonous war crimes racist muslum terrorists in the wh,its his injustice system,along with jarret and the new attn racist general lorretta do nothing lynch.
Comments are closed.