Connecticut gun criminal on probation finds another gun – shoots at mother and kids

But you see, it’s the law-abiding gun owners who need to register their guns and never have more than 10 rounds in a magazine … that’s the real problem right? Does Connecticut get it yet?

Gun owners who are good citizens are being blamed for gun violence. The NRA is being blamed. The gun industry is being blamed. Can we stop this bull crap and blame the criminals for once? In Oct. 2003 Jose “Zeke” Lopez was charged with the three felonies and in June 2004 was found guilty. He was sentenced to two years in jail for the sale of a controlled substance and that conviction was suspended. He was given four years in jail for carrying a pistol without a permit, and sentenced to 10 years for attempt to commit assault on a public safety officer, that was suspended after four years.

Assuming he served all four years, he was released in 2008 and probably has been a continued problem child since then but never caught. Maybe he was just about to get his life straightened out? After they found Lopez the night of the shooting

… police said they found 89 packets that tested positive for heroin and 18 30-mg oxycodone pills.

The Hartford Courant says Lopez is now being held on $1.2 million bail, but on June 25 it looks like he’s only been charged with a violation of probation and held on $200,000 bond so far. I’m certain other charges are pending, but take note the firearm has not been found and there was a beef between the woman who was shot at and Lopez’s sister. The Courant says Lopez was charged with attempted murder, drug charges, weapons charges and reckless endangerment.

Can someone in the legislature please tell us how the legislation passed earlier this year is going to reduce crime and help keep people safe? It’s rare in Connecticut – and every other state – that someone who has a permit and/or can pass a background check is charged with a gun crime.

12 replies
  1. PaulBartomioli
    PaulBartomioli says:

    He is a felon in possession of a firearm. Based on your account, my description precedes the 2003/2004 issues. ?NOTE the gun charge was not FELON in POSSESSION; it was reduced to carrying without a permit. ?Interesting, he is not eligible for a CCW; he is a felon. However, the Supreme Court, in ?1968, rules that FELONS DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ANY REGISTRATION/LICENSE LAWS. ?Haynes v. US. ?Why not, you ask? It would violate their 5th amendment right. ?So, CT charges him with a “crime” then adds another they can sentence him on. ?IF he were charged and sentenced under GCA ’68, he would face 10 years in prison for the gun, PLUS 10 years for each round of ammunition in his possession. ?IF he had any of the current crop of semiautomatic pistols, he is facing more than 100 years just for the bullets. ?We have the laws, however for reasons I cannot fathom, the state chooses to not enforce them.

  2. stinkfoot
    stinkfoot says:

    “that?s the real problem right? Does Connecticut get it yet?”
    Connecticut understands- always has.? Connecticut, like the rest of the “progressive” movement, doesn’t care.? This is all about perception, and if enough feeble unthinking sheep believe that the incremental gun confiscation campaign is about public safety then government will be able to trample the Constitution without any trouble.

  3. Eric
    Eric says:

    One would like to think that a story like this one would open the eyes of any one of these liberal democrats or their willing sycophants in the media, but no! ?These ignoramuses would rather feel safe in their ‘No Gun Zone(‘s)’ and tell each other that their school kids are only going to have to worry now about those crazy NRA folks with just the 10 round magazines. ?There’s no such thing as a sane democrat here in CT. ?They’re all living in a rosy-colored parallel universe, and they enjoy living with their heads stuck in the sand. ?How stupid can these knuckle-draggers be!

  4. Gary J
    Gary J says:

    <———— not in the legislature. But the answer isssssssssssss. ready? the answer to this question and other? perplexing questions is, this is a deep blue state and there are no rules , we make em up as we go along.

  5. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    I would be surprised if this perp obeyed even a single gun law, but we have to presume that anyone with a gun is a potential criminal, i.e. presumed guilty.? How pathetic.
    ?
    Liberals only attack gun owners because they are predominantly conservative; criminals on the other hand (and I include illegal aliens in this) are predominantly liberal.?? Liberals do not eat their own.

  6. bien-pensant
    bien-pensant says:

    This person is a career criminal. Period.
    A violent, drug-addicted, drug abusing, adjudicated criminal should never be let back into society. Period.
    Yes, many gun owners are conservatives. They are the chosen enemies of liberals.These mostly responsible people are easy targets for the gun banners. Gun owners also tend to be stable citizens who work, raise families and pay their taxes. They mostly don’t need what the liberals love — intrusive government, onerous regulations and ever expanding social programs. The worst thing for a liberal is not be needed, to not feel they can make a difference and, have their do-gooder mentality be rejected. Criminals, whose families, friends, etc, probably vote democrat, are fertile ground for the Pollyannas of the world.? Also: Lawyers don’t eat their clients.

      • bien-pensant
        bien-pensant says:

        … get ’em on a payment plan and keep ’em current. A loving family will always pay.
        Meanwhile, the price of a Mercedes, Jag, Rover, etc, keeps going up … and then there are the houses to buy.
        Who says crime doesn’t pay?
        ?

  7. SeeingRed
    SeeingRed says:

    Does Connecticut get it yet?
    I know you ask rhetorically, but the simple answer is yes, they get it fine.? They (liberal Democrats by and large) do not like guns and have no use for them. ?(Unless they’re rich liberal Democrats, in which case they employ people to carry guns?a ‘protect’ them).? They also don’t like the 2A and will do anything in their power (or outside of it) to make sure their wishes are met.? Your rights?? Puhleese.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      I don’t believe the ‘simple answer’ explains the irrationality of their behavior though, SeeingRed. ?Ignorance is a poor excuse for attacking peoples Constitutional rights. ?These people know enough to call a gun-toting cop when the situation calls for it. ?There is no difference between his weapon and the one that I carry. ?It seems like the real problem these folks have is that they happen to like some people more then others? or that they wouldn’t trust themselves with a gun so why should anyone else be allowed to carry one! Neither argument is substantive to any degree. ?Some people are be very comfortable being a little bit crazy. ?They’re more than willing to share their paranoia with anyone who’ll listen to them because they find their safety in numbers! ?These people are never going to witness the removal of the second amendment from our Constitution, nor will their irrationality keep any law abiding citizen from carrying a concealed weapon. ?Their best hope is that they’ll never find themselves in harms way, wishing they had confronted their psychosis before having to deal with that crazy knife-weilding wacko that they’ve just confronted in the living room of their home as they’re returning from an evening…

Comments are closed.