Friend of Dayton Killer Sentenced To 32-months In Federal Prison

4473 prohibited persons.jpg
4473 prohibited persons

Dayton, OH-(Ammoland.com)- A judge has sentenced the man who ordered gun parts and body armor to the Dayton killer to 32 months in federal prison on federal gun charges.

Last November, Ethan Kollie, a friend of the Dayton mass shooter, pleaded guilty in federal court to two felony counts. The first charge was possessing a firearm while under the influence and addiction of a controlled substance. The second charge was lying on the federal 4473 form.

Police initially interviewed Kollie in connection to the mass shooting in Dayton by a far left-wing Satanist. Kollie bought the shooter body armor and gun parts, including an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 upper receiver and a 100-round drum magazine. Police determined that Kollie was not involved in the shooting and did not know the killer's plan.

The killer had Kollie order parts for him to avoid his parents from finding out that he owned guns. Kollie also helped the murderer build his firearm and went to the shooting range with him to practice marksmanship.

During the interview, Kollie admitted to owning several guns, including a Century Arms Micro Draco pistol, a 9mm handgun, and an AR-15. Kollie explained to the investigators that he liked guns and would buy firearm parts for various builds. Police asked him if he would wave his rights and consent to a search of his property. He agreed to the police request.

During the search, police found marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, psychedelic mushrooms grow equipment, a bong, and other drug paraphernalia. They also alleged that Kollie also used other hard drugs such as LSD. Kollie admitted that he smoked marijuana daily since he was 14 years old. Police initially took Kollie into custody on drugs and weapon charges. None of the filed charges were related to the Dayton mass killing.

Federal authorities filed charges against the admitted habitual drug user for possessing firearms under the influence and addition of a control substance. Kollie could have faced up to ten years in jail for the charge. His attorney asked for leniency because of Kollie's clean record except for one misdemeanor.

Prosecutors also charged Kollie with lying on the federal 4473 form. He marked “no” to the question, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” Making a false statement regarding firearms on a federal form has a maximum sentence of five years.

Kollie was on house arrest since pleading guilty to the two charges in November. He has been clean and sober since his arrest and has passed all drug tests. He says he has cut ties to the group of people that were bad influences on his life.

Kollie's attorney asked for mercy for his client, stating that his client has learned his lesson. He asked the courts to sentence Kollie to supervised release. His attorney said that prosecutors ignored that Kollie was fully cooperating with their investigation.

Federal prosecutors asked the court to sentence Kollie to 34 to 41 months in federal prison.

Prosecutors said: “When society needed a responsible, clear-thinking person in the room, it got a regular drug user, with resulting impaired judgment.”

The judge eventually settled on 32-months in prison, followed by a three-year probation period. The court also stripped Kollie of his right to buy or own firearms after he pays his debt to society.

Kollie has not faced charges for the drugs and paraphernalia.


About John CrumpJohn Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.

55
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
49 Thread replies
2 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
16 Comment authors
TheRevelatorRoyDConsiderthisLinkDeplorable Bill Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Deplorable Bill
Member
Deplorable Bill

The 2A is clear enough. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” People have the right to be armed, people have the right to defend themselves. GOD gave us those rights. The ONLY outs to that would be those in prison or the loony farm. But the 2A does not say this. In days of old there were leapers. When found, they were banned from society and some were placed on islands to keep them that way. Maybe there should be a place for drunks and druggies? Right now, it’s prison. D.U.I. is… Read more »

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

It’s not about restoring gun ownership rights to this person. It is instead, about giving a yea or a nay to someone who’s clearly so high, and has a propensity to stay that way because he likes growing his own mushrooms, a hallucinogenic drug, the right to dig his hole deeper. It’s only a matter of time before he’s back on the street, naked and armed, because Ninjas are chasing after him. He has already demonstrated himself as unfit as a menace to society. There is no amount of time he could serve, or agreements he could fulfill, that would… Read more »

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

Everything about this guy spells “S-T-U-P-I-D.” The way I see it, he got what he deserved. The only question is should his right to keep and bear arms be infringed upon for the rest of his life, or be restored after he serves his time? To predict a person’s future, one need only look at their past. It is therefore safe money to say that this guy will go back to doing what he loves: hallucinogenics. Question is, do you want him armed and dangerous and out of his head while running the streets naked because now, Ninjas are after… Read more »

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

Don’t just vote me down without telling me why. Be a man, and lets discuss it. Who knows: we might just be able to enlighten one another.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@StW, I could not help but vote you up, but for the life of me, I can tell you why!

RoyD
Member
RoyD

Whenever I get a “down vote” I just realize the mentality of a person who would do that and know that there is nothing that they have that is worthy of my time. I have asked the powers that be here to do away with the up/down vote feature as it does little to further intelligent discussion. I am loath to give a down vote and will generally only do so in the face of total retardedness.

Considerthis
Member
Considerthis

RoyD, I like the up&down votes. I look upon it as just a shorthand approval or disapproval. You don’t have to waste any time letting me know that you do not like or support what I said. Or even a way of sayin’,you just don’t like me ! While I also would like further intelligent discussion, from my experience ,further comments are no guarantee of that. As a newbie I came here with what I thought was a pretty solid past as a pro-gun activist. I have been called everything but. I was accused of being ” not even close… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Considerthis
Poor guy. lol

If you can’t handle quotes directly from the constitution, what is printed in scripture, or what our founders wrote and said when it disproves a comment you make then you might want to re-evaluate your own outlook. The truth is the truth, whether it upsets you or not.

Personally it says a lot that you didn’t have the courage to write this to me directly the other day, and have instead chosen to vent it to someone else.

Perhaps you just didn’t like the responses I gave to you here.

Below the Radar: The Tiahrt Restrictions Repeal Act

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

Or here, which is where your troubles started with me back in December

We Will Not Comply RALLY in Denver CO Saturday, Dec 7th, 2019

Will Flatt
Member

I can’t feature why someone would be butthurt over facts, quotes, the law exactly as it’s written, butthurt over downvotes, and bent out of shape over being set straight as to facts, quotes and the law. If you’re not going to bring reason to the table, then the only other thing you could possibly bring is emotion. And we already get enough emoting from the triggered snowflake Left. It’s bad enough that people won’t bring solid reasoning to a conversation, but these NPC lefties let their emotions rule them. That’s why they’ve got more triggers than Springfield Armory. We don’t… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Will Flatt
It may not be needed here, but they do have a right to be here.

As it is, that is why I reply in the hopes of setting them straight instead of trying excommunicate and unperson them.

Will Flatt
Member

@The Revelator – just so I’m clear, what I said we don’t need here is needless emoting without reason.

If snowflakes wanna jump into the pool here and swim with us regular commenters, they’re perfectly welcome as long as they “bring their floaties”, because it’s sink or swim in here and you’ve pointed out some great examples of people who aren’t making it because they’re running on feels instead of facts.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Will Flatt I understood you perfectly. It’s what I wrote back in December. They have a right to disagree with the truth, to speak about it, even rant and rave demanding that the truth change to make them happy, but it does not change the truth no matter how much they try and it never will. Even when they attack me personally, I’ll still defend their right to do so and then proceed to factually destroy their argument and offer to let them try again. Whether they have their floaties or not they do have the right to be here,… Read more »

Will Flatt
Member

@TheRevelator – Pretty much what I was getting at, said differently. Catch you on the bounce!

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

Well said.

grifhunter
Member
grifhunter

Uh oh, somebody is living in someone’s head rent free.

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

Hey Considerthis — I’m sorry to have seen you go through this. No indeed, you have come to the right place for fellowship and brotherhood. I extend that to you in every way possible. No one should be shut out or put away hard for having expressed their thoughts. I do it all the time in the hope that I can learn something. If all you do is mistreat me, then like RoyD said, I take it on queue that you’re just a retard out for trouble. As for me, I would much rather someone explain to me why they… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@StWayne That would be applicable if what ConsiderThis was opining was his being shut out. What had happened was that he got offended back in December, and then off and on again, when what he posted wasn’t agreed with outright. When put to debate, he let emotions get the better of him and he lashed out at others. I will admit though that after I got involved most of his ire turned to me. As such, I posted the articles where the discussions took place, and if anyone wants to go back and read what was written and why they… Read more »

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

I’m not judging, I wasn’t there. From what I have seen with our discussions, you are a straight shooter. You don’t strike me as someone who would deliberately go out of their way just to be mean. I, on the other hand, will continue to extend my hand to anyone who wants to be a part of the discussion. So long as you’re partaking, and not just being disruptive for the sake of disruption, you are good to go in my book. All I know is that we can only get there if we work together. United we stand, divided… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@StWayne “I, on the other hand, will continue to extend my hand to anyone who wants to be a part of the discussion.” 🙂 My friend… I was one of the few willing to extend that hand to what was our resident liberal author, Mr. Greg Camp. So I fully encourage you to keep doing so. The one thing I don’t do is yield on the truth. My uniting position is the constitution. If people stick to facts proven by evidence, and their actions match their words on the constitution, then I state what they got right. When they violate… Read more »

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

There are people on here much more learned than I, and I depend on them to guide me to where I need to be. I’m not always right about everything, and Lord knows I will never be. All I ask is that when someone takes me by the hand to that effect, is that they don’t drag me down to make an example of me. There’s an old Chinese proverb that I’m very found of. “Tell me and I’ll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I’ll understand.”

Considerthis
Member
Considerthis

Thanks for that comment StWayne, Do not sell yourself short.No one knows everything although some attempt to position themselves like that in your mind. They will condemn and convict in an effort to be seen as an ultimate authority, because that’s what they want to be. Keeping an open mind and giving someone else the the benefit of a doubt allows for people being treated fairly. You have that wisdom. Words are like weapons, which are selected, and how they are wielded ,can and does make a difference. There is a difference between sympathy and understanding, not just in meaning… Read more »

Tionico
Member
Tionico

I voted you down and here’s why: on WHAT BASIS do FedGov have any authority to determine what we do/do not put into our bodies? Thus that questioin on the 4473 is one that should not even be there. The assumption is made, with no basis in fact, that this guy was ALWAYS strung out and non-functional because of the substances he ingests. Any proof of that? Take away the unconstitutional prohibition on the “controlled substances” and there IS no crime… not the possession/use of them, or of “lying” on the 4473, because if the Constitutoin was TRULY followed there… Read more »

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s called enlightenment, and I get it. As a staunch supporter of the 2A, like you, I have in the past agreed that those who serve their time should have ALL their rights restored. Where we seem to part company, is in “having faith” that a known drug user who has a history of making bad choices will drop his bad habit when all indicators say that he won’t. Is there where we have to wait and see, when his past is already speaking volumes to that? It’s a slippery slope I know, but when… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@StWayne Risk is one of the prices that comes with Liberty. For that reason I would like to pose a thought. I happen to know there are many here who partake in drugs while still keeping their firearms. It is a very particular drug that alters perception and thought processes so that the user may not be able to accurately assess information and make smart choices, not only can it cloud the mind, it also affects motor skills which can be a danger to bystanders. In other cases it has been shown that many individuals exhibit a rise in aggression… Read more »

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

You are oh so correct! With liberty comes risk. Just being here expressing ourselves in this manner is posing a risk, when one day, it might be used against us because someone “changed their mind.” As for me, I don’t drink, do drugs, or smoke. For me to go off the rails would require a massive break in my psyche. My only hope then is that I would only be a threat to myself. As for the drug alcohol, you cannot be in possession of it when in public while CCW. This will see you arrested, your firearm confiscated, and… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@StWayne I’m like you, no alcohol, or any other kind of drug. I’m glad you understood what I was getting at, even if I may trigger some people here with that previous comment as already evidenced. The problem with the argument comes in under the idea of Possession. Alcohol is a legal substance according to the law, and our Rights protected by the Constitution say that it is not only possession(Keep) but use(Bear, for the purpose of self preservation) is off limits. So why has the argument become one in which Government is trying to mandate that you cede your… Read more »

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

Separately, there is no issue with the ingestion of alcohol. Separately, there is no issue with the right to keep and bear arms. Nowadays, there is no issue with weed, either. You can even do all in the privacy of your own home (so far, anyway!) It’s only when you try to co-mingle these very separate rights do things start to get testy. You can only imagine that if no ever did any wrong on either, would there be no issue. Problem is, combing the two is like giving the Devil not only his gasoline, but the matches to strike… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@StWayne No apologies necessary. Iron sharpens iron my friend. The problem that comes with the public safety argument being used to restrict or remove a right prior to an action of infringement against another individual based on “fear” is what our founders were trying to protect against. “Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary safety often receive, and deserve neither.” The idea that preemptive restriction of rights to make everyone feel safe is in large part one of the reasons we are at where we are today. The tools tyrants make use of in the destruction of rights has… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Will
lol
Why, because he’s willing to actually have a reasonable discussion back and forth with me?

USA and I don’t always agree, but we also don’t hold it against each other. And whatever anyone else wants to say about him, he is one of the few who was unafraid to post citation for some of his comments when I asked, knowing full well that I would go through and pick them apart for any mistakes.

He gets full credit and kudos for that.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Will And to that end you do have the right to do so, but remember that it is opinion. I’ve said this to you before Will. I’ll never demand you to be silent. When you say something right I will back you up on it, and when you say something wrong I will call you out on it and show evidence of why it was wrong(Not just because I say so). If you want to keep a one sided grudge going, that’s your choice. It’s never going to affect what I do here though. And on that note, It’s time… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@USA
Fully Agree with you there, and that is a picture perfect use of Juxtaposition for an argument.

Of the five rights listed in the first amendment all are protections against what may be called as “Sensibilities”, or in other words when peoples feelings are upset over the actions of others practicing their rights.

Where the 2nd Amendment differs in its level of protection is that it is the amendment which specifically forbids any type of interference at all, in contrast to others which specifically list such qualifications.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@StWayne – Perhaps in your state. I know of no such prohibition in Texas. You can be in possession of all the alcohol you want while armed – just not “under the influence”. Last bit is not legally defined, so while many may assume that legal driving limit of 0.08% BAC is cutoff – charge is actually at discretion of arresting officer. Point is, you can load up your OWB holster and drive on down to Specs – buying any amount of of beer, wine and spirits with absolutely no legal complications. Just be sure to store said firearm before… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@USA Exactly.. I commented to @Considerthis when he tried to ask a question of me concerning the courts, even though I did not feed into what he was looking for at the time. The courts are not the final say on rights or the law. They are under the Constitution in the same restrictions as placed upon the legislative and executive branches. One of the first Arguments I had here ended with me quoting a letter from Thomas Jefferson warning that Robes do not separate a judge from the afflictions and fallibility inherent to human nature. There is nothing new… Read more »

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@USA – Christianity is no guarantee of purity, nor does lack of Christianity make anyone evil.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Finnky, One who is truly a Christian will strive to love his neighbor as himself and God above himself. You are using the wrong terms. This indicates an unfamiliarity with the subject.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@WB – You are of course correct. Followed @Will’s comment with clarification. Got no argument with those who strive to follow appropriate moral guidance, just with those who believe that attaching a label to themselves makes them morally superior to all others. Morals and “goodness” are reflected in deeds and how one treats others, rather than in claims of piety.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@Will – Perhaps I should have said “avowed Christianity?” Much evil has been, and continues to be, done in the name of deities and religions of all flavors.
As a strict apathist I will not attempt to define christinity or judge the purity of it’s many variations.
From what little I’ve observed, anyone actually keeping to recordings of Christ’s teachings is a good person. Maybe a bit biases as I have been told I follow “his words” better than many who claim to and who study them. Barring of course an occasional bout of hubris such as this.

Deplorable Bill
Member
Deplorable Bill

Finnky, most of us have had the honor of raising children. I promise, you don’t have to teach kids/people to be evil. It’s in their nature. From at least the time when they can speak, you can easily find them lying, stealing, being mean to their siblings/neighbors, throwing fits and so on. While the world may or may not go along with this, unless you are Christian, your going to hell. We are bourn evil, it’s our nature and you can’t do enough of any good thing to change that. Religions would that you can work your way to heaven.… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Deplorable Bill “By grace are you saved, through faith, not of works so no man can boast.” Though we also learn in James, who was referencing Christ’s lessons, that faith by itself is not enough but rather a starting point. One of the Parables Jesus taught this to his disciples with was the parable of the gold given out to the servants in matthew 25. “18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Finnky You are correct on what you said concerning purity. Christ stated that on the day of Judgement, “Many will cry out to me” professing to be devout followers and that he would look at them and say “Away from me you evildoers, I never knew you.” Justifying evil actions with any type of belief does not legitimize those actions. Case in point, The Westborough Baptist church does not follow Christ. How do we know that? Because their actions do not match the commands Jesus laid down. “You will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matthew Ch 7) We have someone… Read more »

RoyD
Member
RoyD

Tionico: The trouble with your view on this matter is that you are woefully ignorant about that which you speak. Though you did try to couch it a bit. “After being “lean” for the number of years he’ll have to be (in prison, though that does not guarantee no access to “substances”) he may well have broken his dependency.” Another thing about those who find themselves incarcerated in prisons; many times they have mental illness which is partly the reason they are there in the first place. But, you go ahead and advocate for your position, just don’t expect me… Read more »

jack mac
Member
jack mac

StWayne: For those of us not in a popularity contest, down votes have little meaning. I do agree that down voters should reply with their reason.
P.S. I did not down vote you.

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

All I ask is that you tell me why. We may disagree, but this is how I learn: from my mistakes.

StWayne
Guest
StWayne

As just posted, I’m open for discussion on the subject. I expressed my thoughts when replying to Tionico. I can see both sides of the coin very clear, and can even understand them. The only way I see to resolve it is for every individual to give account of himself. Own your actions, and by that measure, you will have proven yourself repented. Only when we face our demons, can we ever come to terms with them. Until then, I don’t think it wise to give the Devil his gasoline and hope he doesn’t come up with a book matches.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@StWayne “The only way I see to resolve it is for every individual to give account of himself. Own your actions” That statement is spot on. “Until then, I don’t think it wise to give the Devil his gasoline and hope he doesn’t come up with a book matches.” And that is the price of Liberty. We either cast liberty aside and take preemptive action before a transgression of the law has occurred for an idea of safety which will not guarantee security, or we accept the risk which comes with freedom and hold people accountable to the law only… Read more »

Old Scout
Member
Old Scout

Waive. He WAIVED his rights. (Unless he was waving at them while he did it).

Bill
Member
Bill

In other words his ” debt” to society will NEVER be paid in full or part because his right to own or purchase a firearm will never be restored, which is their main concern.

jukk0u
Member
jukk0u

If his debt will never be paid, should he then never be released? This shows our ambivalence about reform and restoration of rights. (I don’t claim to have the answer). Seems as if a person is released and is “safe” to be back in society, they should then be able to work to get their rights restored. Otherwise, why release them?

Link
Member
Link

He can still ask to get his rights restored AFTER he serves his time and shows he can be a good member of society.

But at this time he got what he deserved

Tionico
Member
Tionico

the article said the judge PERMANENTLY removed his right to arms.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@USA, hey, what is the citation to that case?

Link
Member
Link

Derp, guess another judge or higher court can not reverse that if he proves he is a good citizen after he serves his time.
Wrong, they can restore his rights.
That’s why we have appeals and higher courts.

RoyD
Member
RoyD

Play stupid games………

Matt in Oklahoma
Member
Matt in Oklahoma

Yup