Gun Control & RKBA

There's all these charges related to things that pre-suppose 'ownership' of a firearm ... that make NO SENSE ... if the shooter had simply acquired said firearm from a home invasion suspect, with no other weapons present on the premises prior to their introduction by the invaders.

There's something important to this story CLEARLY being left out, for what I'd guess are political purposes.

I'm supposed to believe the 'victim who JUST shot back after taking a gun from his assailant' is now being charged with unlawful possession of firearm w/intent to traffic firearms?

C'mon ... no.

Maybe this victim was probably something more akin to an arms trafficker, and these home invaders were shot while trying to steal his weapons stash. That makes far more sense, given the set of charges ...

Notice the ambiguity inherent in this statement:
"The two in the home seized a firearm from one of the suspects and several shots were fired as the suspects fled".

Conveniently, nowhere is it said 'nobody already in the house had a weapon', NOR does it say that 'the several shots' were 'fired FROM THE SEIZED WEAPON'.

As a reader, you're CLEARLY being led to BELIEVE that a certain set of circumstances are 'how it was' ... I would argue it's likely you're being cleverly manipulated ...