Allegedly pulling a gun during an argument earns man a felony charge
May 29—A 22-year-old accused of pulling a gun on an acquaintance during an argument in Kalispell in early May is now facing a felony charge in Flathead County District Court.
Prosecutors brought Jay Ryan Kaufman up on one count of assault with a weapon following the alleged May 9 confrontation on Fourth Avenue West. He is expected to appear before Judge Paul Sullivan on Thursday for his arraignment.
Neighbors reporting a disturbance possibly involving a gun summoned Kalispell Police officers to the Fourth Avenue West home about 11 p.m., according to court documents. The victim told investigators that Kaufman had driven him home that night and, on the way, the two began arguing. As the victim got out, Kaufman fetched a handgun and leveled it at him, court documents said.
Seeing the firearm pointed at him, the victim began apologizing before begging and pleading for his life, according to court documents.
Another individual at the home told officers that they spotted the two arguing near Kaufman's truck. They reported trying to intervene when they saw Kaufman pull out the weapon, according to court documents.
When authorities later tracked down Kaufman, he acknowledged getting into an argument while driving around with the victim. But he disputed assertions he wielded a gun in the disagreement, according to court documents.
Kaufman allegedly told officers he owned a Taurus 9 mm handgun, and said it was stored in a safe in his home during the alleged confrontation. Investigators, though, found a black Taurus 9 mm handgun in Kaufman's truck, court documents said.
Kaufman was convicted in 2022 of misdemeanor negligent endangerment in Flathead County District Court for pulling a knife on a parking attendant working a lot for patrons of the Northwest Montana Fair and Rodeo that same year. Initially charged with felony assault with a weapon, Kaufman later took a plea deal.
Judge Amy Eddy, who presided over that case, sentenced him to the county jail for 180 days, all suspended. She also ordered Kaufman to undergo an anger management assessment, participate in any recommended counseling, and pay court fines and fees totaling $325.
If convicted of assault with a weapon, Kaufman faces up to 20 years in Montana State Prison and a $50,000 fine.
News Editor Derrick Perkins can be reached at 758-4430 or dperkins@dailyinterlake.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
3 days ago
- CNBC
Mahmoud Khalil ordered released by federal judge
A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to release pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil from immigration custody. Khalil, whose plight has been center stage of Trump's vow to crack down on opponents of Israel's incursion into Gaza, has been in the custody of immigration agents since March 8. Government attorney Dhruman Sampat had argued that Congress has given the executive branch sweeping powers to determine who could be removed from the county. The courts should not have the authority to interfere, Sampat said. "I don't think any of that is right," U.S. District Court Judge Michael Farbiarz said during the remote hearing. The judge added that there's "very strong and uncontested record" that Khalil is not a flight risk and poses no danger to the public. "I'm going to exercise the discretion that I have to order the release of the petitioner in this case," added Farbiarz, who is based in New Jersey. Farbiarz declined a government request to put a seven-day stay on his order to give the government more time to possibly fight it. But it wasn't immediately clear in the minutes after Farbiarz's ruling when Khalil could be set free, from his current hold at a detention center in Jena, Louisiana. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cited an obscure provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify Khalil's removal, arguing he poses a national security risk. The Cold War-era statute gives the secretary of state authority to "personally determine" whether Khalil should remain in the country, the administration has argued. But Khalil's backers have insisted that the government's actions are meant to stifle free speech on college campuses and silence opponents of Israel's ongoing military action in Gaza.
CNN
5 days ago
- CNN
Judge says government can't limit passport sex markers for many transgender, nonbinary people
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans. Tuesday's ruling from US District Judge Julia Kobick means that transgender or nonbinary people who are without a passport or need to apply for a new one can request a male, female or 'X' identification marker rather than being limited to the marker that matches their gender assigned at birth. In an executive order signed in January, President Donald Trump used a narrow definition of the sexes instead of a broader conception of gender. The order said a person is male or female and rejected the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender. Kobick first issued a preliminary injunction against the policy earlier this year, but that ruling applied only to six people who joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit over the passport policy. In Tuesday's ruling, she agreed to expand the injunction to include transgender or nonbinary people who are currently without a valid passport, those whose passport is expiring within a year, and those who need to apply for a passport because theirs was lost or stolen or because they need to change their name or sex designation. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The government failed to show that blocking its policy would cause it any constitutional injury, Kobick wrote, or harm the executive branch's relations with other countries. The transgender and nonbinary people covered by the preliminary injunction, meanwhile, have shown that the passport policy violates their constitutional rights to equal protection, Kobick said. 'Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department's adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans,' Kobick wrote. Kobick, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, sided with the ACLU's motion for a preliminary injunction, which stays the action while the lawsuit plays out. 'The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,' Kobick wrote in the preliminary injunction issued earlier this year. 'That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.' In its lawsuit, the ACLU described how one woman had her passport returned with a male designation while others are too scared to submit their passports because they fear their applications might be suspended and their passports held by the State Department. Another mailed in their passport January 9 and requested to change their name and their sex designation from male to female. That person was still waiting for their passport, the ACLU said in the lawsuit, and feared missing a family wedding and a botany conference this year. In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration argued that the passport policy change 'does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.' It also contended that the president has broad discretion in setting passport policy and that plaintiffs would not be harmed since they are still free to travel abroad.
CNN
5 days ago
- CNN
Judge says government can't limit passport sex markers for many transgender, nonbinary people
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans. Tuesday's ruling from US District Judge Julia Kobick means that transgender or nonbinary people who are without a passport or need to apply for a new one can request a male, female or 'X' identification marker rather than being limited to the marker that matches their gender assigned at birth. In an executive order signed in January, President Donald Trump used a narrow definition of the sexes instead of a broader conception of gender. The order said a person is male or female and rejected the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender. Kobick first issued a preliminary injunction against the policy earlier this year, but that ruling applied only to six people who joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit over the passport policy. In Tuesday's ruling, she agreed to expand the injunction to include transgender or nonbinary people who are currently without a valid passport, those whose passport is expiring within a year, and those who need to apply for a passport because theirs was lost or stolen or because they need to change their name or sex designation. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The government failed to show that blocking its policy would cause it any constitutional injury, Kobick wrote, or harm the executive branch's relations with other countries. The transgender and nonbinary people covered by the preliminary injunction, meanwhile, have shown that the passport policy violates their constitutional rights to equal protection, Kobick said. 'Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department's adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans,' Kobick wrote. Kobick, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, sided with the ACLU's motion for a preliminary injunction, which stays the action while the lawsuit plays out. 'The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,' Kobick wrote in the preliminary injunction issued earlier this year. 'That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.' In its lawsuit, the ACLU described how one woman had her passport returned with a male designation while others are too scared to submit their passports because they fear their applications might be suspended and their passports held by the State Department. Another mailed in their passport January 9 and requested to change their name and their sex designation from male to female. That person was still waiting for their passport, the ACLU said in the lawsuit, and feared missing a family wedding and a botany conference this year. In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration argued that the passport policy change 'does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.' It also contended that the president has broad discretion in setting passport policy and that plaintiffs would not be harmed since they are still free to travel abroad.
