Imprisoning Pregnant Woman On Mich. Gun Charge ‘Barbaric,’ Says Gun Group

Siwatu-Salama Ra
Siwatu-Salama Ra

BELLEVUE, WA –-(Ammoland.com)- An expectant Michigan mother who was convicted for displaying a handgun during a controversial altercation last summer will likely have her second child in prison, a situation that the Second Amendment Foundation considers “barbaric” just days before Mother’s Day.

“We’re looking into the case of Siwatu-Salama Ra,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and quite honestly, it seems bizarre that the judge in this case could not at least stay her imprisonment long enough for her delivery, to say nothing of an appeal.

“To send a pregnant mother to prison for a mandatory sentence of two years for a conviction in a case with as many disputed questions as this one is barbaric,” he observed. “It’s also been reported that this is a high-risk pregnancy, which compounds the injustice.”

The details of Ra’s case have been widely reported. The 26-year-old environmental activist was at her mother’s home when a dispute erupted with the mother of another girl who was there to visit with Ra’s niece. That woman allegedly rammed Ra’s car, in which her 2-year-old daughter was playing. Also in the car was Ra’s legally-owned, unloaded pistol. She grabbed the gun and allegedly waved it or aimed it at the other woman’s car.

That woman contacted police, while Ra waited to call authorities. That’s where her problems began, according to various published reports. When Detroit police investigated, they automatically considered Ra the suspect and the other woman a victim because the other woman contacted them first. As a result, Michigan’s “Stand Your Ground” law was apparently not considered.

“What is happening to Siwatu-Salama Ra isn’t just questionable, it might even fall under cruel and unusual punishment,” Gottlieb suggested. “This case certainly calls into question the way Michigan’s mandatory sentencing requirement is being enforced.

“This appears to be a case where a law is being strictly enforced,” he said, “but it’s not so certain we’re seeing justice.”

Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

  • 6 thoughts on “Imprisoning Pregnant Woman On Mich. Gun Charge ‘Barbaric,’ Says Gun Group

    1. Once she was being threatened & attacked there should have been only one side to this story, she should have shot & killed the attacker.

    2. Libtards do not like anyone that defends themselves .
      To them it’s better to call 911 and show up to
      Outline your corpse with white chalk. This is the correct response to a threat, only to libtards
      And honest law abiding citizens pay the price

    3. What is an “environmental activist”, what is their job description, what is their pay scale? Sad situation, regardless

      1. An environmental activist is basically someone who cares enough about the planet to stand up to big corporations and corrupt governments, you know, the ones that are poisoning the air we breath, the water we drink?
        I know some here in Australia and most of them are actually good people, fair minded, peaceful and very protective of their children and the world that we are leaving them.

    4. Michigan has long had a law against brandishing a firearm. When I took my first CPL class, the instructor explained that Michigan’s “Stand Your Ground” law did not nullify that law. Judicial discretion is another matter.

      1. This is confusing. I do know all of the details of the incident yet, do not know how Michigan’s brandishing law is worded exactly, actually I don’t know what at all, but if you’re in a situation where you have to defend yourself against deadly force, which ramming somebody with your car is, how can you actually use a firearm without “brandishing” it? Aside from the fact that trying to use firearm to defend yourself with no ammunition is not wise, using it in a way that ends the confrontation without actually shooting and hurting or killing somebody was thought to be preferable. Deadly force is a last resort. Would the lawmakers in Michigan have preferred that she had simply killed the offender? Do they not understand the concept of escalation of force or the continuum of force?
        This is another of a plethora of reasons I no longer live in Michigan and will probably never set foot in the state again let alone live there.

    Leave a Comment 6 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *