Ibid. bitches that MO has no criminal provisions for possessing a firearm while committing a crime, and obviously wants the General Assembly to enact such a provision. Though since they were already committing a crime, charging them with a criminal offense for what they did shouldn’t be a problem. Also, MO does have various Armed Criminal Action felonies.
Whey does Slay want this? I have two theories, one bad and one good for our side.
First, the bad.
(1) Slay, a CCW opponent, wants to give the Circuit Attorney’s office (i.e. Jennifer “The Truth Squader” Joyce, also anti-CCW) an excuse to charge anyone legally carrying concealed that happens to commit a minor infraction, where the gun had nothing to do with the infraction. For instance, Slay might order the SLPD to check if anyone who they write a jaywalking or spitting-on-the-sidewalk ticket to if they’re carrying concealed (legally), and if they are, the arrest them, and Joyce will charge them with possessing a gun while “committing a crime.” That way, Slay, Joyce and the anti-gun nuts can gloat about “all those criminals” in St. Louis City having CCW permits, in attempt to get MO and other states to repeal CCW.
Now, the good.
(2) Black jury nullification has gotten so bad in St. Louis City, and even getting past that, black or white liberal judges in the St. Louis Circuit hand out such ridiculously lenient punishments for certain violent crimes (20% of first time armed robbers in the city get no prison time), that Slay wants this extra state law so that Joyce’s office will have a bargaining tool against black criminal suspects, i.e. plead guilty to the underlying crime and accept at least some time in state prison and we’ll drop the extra charge of possessing a gun while committing a crime. That at least would get them into state prison and away from the safe hands of black jurors. Though charging someone with both armed robbery and possessing a gun while committing an armed robbery seems redundant.
Maybe it’s a little of both.
