Let me say that I am very pro second amendment. I also think a great many current regulations are both ineffective and punish the wrong people.

That being said, I do not want violent criminals having/using firearms and I think we can all agree on that.

So my thoughts are why not make firearm law center around criminal activity? You commit a crime (any “real” crime) and you are in possession of a firearm you get an extra X years. Large capacity feeding device X more years, SBR/SBS x more years. Etc.

Now by “real” crime I don’t mean some arbitrary intrusion like you parked over the line at the grocery store or you called your neighbor an asshole etc.

So remove the “item” as the crime and put the onus on the crime, while making the item less attractive to the criminal so to speak.

Now a couple of caveats.

I realize this does nothing to curtail the batshit crazy or radical fanatic.
I realize this ASSUMES a desire for actual criminal mitigation vs CONTROL.
I realize this puts a burden on the criminal justice system.

My thoughts are basically you can have pretty much whatever you want as long as you show you are a law abiding citizen. Step out of line, beat your wife, carjack a car, rob a convenience store etc. then any weapons you have add to your sentence. If you are a “good doobie” then you rock on with your SBR/MG/Supressor/eleventy billion round drum etc. basically if it’s not an explosive/bio/chemical weapon (basically anything that require care/knowledge and mistakes take out the block kind of thing) then you are good UNLESS you show yourself to be a danger at any level to society.

Stupid thought??? I am thinking out loud so please don’t make me a pariah for asking the question. I am not campaigning or writing my senators here.

Possession doesn't matter. If you *use* a gun during commission of a crime then there's a penalty. Just having one or owning one isn't a crime.

quote:

I do not want violent criminals having/using firearms and I think we can all agree on that.

I don't want violent criminals sharing my air.

At the very least, if you can't give them a lethal injection, try actually locking them up.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

I do not want violent criminals having/using firearms and I think we can all agree on that.

I don't want violent criminals sharing my air.

At the very least, if you can't give them a lethal injection, try actually locking them up.

That is what I am getting at. We let so many violent criminals walk or evade. What can we do to rid them of society.

Again I don’t mean that fight that happened in 12th grade where the other guy fell and cracked his head open I mean the dude who knocks over a liquor store etc.

As counter as it may seem, I support absolutely 'no' new firearms laws whatsoever. We've passed the point where we can trust the government to act ethically on this topic.

This comes under “Let’s enforce the gun laws we have.”

What happens after an arrest for a gun crime?

From 2014
“prosecutors — Democrat and Republican alike — dismissed 3,059 gun charges, including 1,508 felony counts. Among those dismissals were 371 charges for possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon...

• More than half of felony gun charges were dismissed, usually in plea agreements.

• Possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon — the charge specifically aimed at getting violent criminals off the streets — was dismissed in 41 percent of cases.

• A change in the state's criminal code that began July 1 reduced the jail time for possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
https://www.indystar.com/story...ion-county/16760997/

“ From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.”
https://www.chicagoreporter.co...nty-criminal-courts/

What’s going on? Were it not for plea bargains, the courts would be clogged with jury trials. Were more convicted, the jails would be more overcrowded then they are now. Many prisoners have extra time taken off their stenches due to overcrowding and lawsuits. Last are charges of racism. Activists take the percent of a race in the population, then compare it to the racial percent in a jail. “Too many” means lawsuits and no doubt strong hints to back off convicting “too many” of a race.

There is no easy answer.

In the early 1970's Michigan enacted a Firearm Enhancement law. Commission of a felony with a firearm increased the sentence by two years. At the time there was a campaign "One with a gun gets you two" and that part of the sentence was the whole two years, no good time credit.

A penalty enhancement occurs when someone is charged with another felony and during that commission of that felony, they have a weapon in their possession whether they use the weapon or not. When they have the weapon in their possession, they are subject to a felony firearm charge. A person who is found guilty of felony firearm can be put in prison for an additional 2 years. Upon a second conviction the person will get 5 years and for a third or subsequent conviction, the person will get an additional 10 years in prison. It must run consecutive to it, so it can significantly enhance or lengthen the amount of time the individual spends in prison or in jail.

As time went on, the enhancement part was used as a bargaining chip, the "We won't use enhancement if you......"

Many states have enhancement laws also. Do they work?

It very much is under current federal law, and likely under most, if not all states.

I have no problem with this being very strictly enforced. All cases of felons in possession of a firearm must be referred to the local US Attorney. All cases going to the US Attorney, if they're valid and provable MUST go trial. If convicted the US Attorney MUST seek the maximum penalty.

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:
Possession doesn't matter. If you *use* a gun during commission of a crime then there's a penalty. Just having one or owning one isn't a crime.

How about pansy was prosecutors, judges, and juries actually give harsh sentences to convicted criminals? How about we actually make them serve the time instead of parole after 20 percent? How about we tar and feather asshat defense attorneys? How about we refuse to reelect the soft on crime judges? How about we tell all the idiot snowflake pansies to deal with the fact that criminals suck and will be punished?

Let's ACTUALLY try to be tough on crime first.

When these types of academic discussions take place I tend to break my positions into two categories: the theoretical concept vs. the practical real world implementation of a law or policy.

For example, in theory I support so-called Red Flag laws and the idea of temporarily removing firearms from those gun owners in crisis IF TIMELY CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED DUE PROCESS IS AFFORDED TO THE RESPONDENT in the crafting and wording of any such law. To be more specific, I would want Red Flag laws to temporarily remove ANY weapon from a person in crisis. Knives, baseball bats, crow bars, hand tools, both prescription and recreational drugs, cars...anything that can be used as a weapon.

But, to date, such laws have been crafted by legislators who pass such laws, purportedly to protect the public, but in reality, as one more tool to be used to restrict gun ownership...one more tool to further their not-so-hidden agenda of increased gun control.

So, in practice, I oppose Red Flag laws, and instead would support stronger laws designed to take people in crisis into custody for mental evaluations.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
Let me say that I am very pro second amendment. I also think a great many current regulations are both ineffective and punish the wrong people.

That being said, I do not want violent criminals having/using firearms and I think we can all agree on that.

So my thoughts are why not make firearm law center around criminal activity? You commit a crime (any “real” crime) and you are in possession of a firearm you get an extra X years. Large capacity feeding device X more years, SBR/SBS x more years. Etc.

Now by “real” crime I don’t mean some arbitrary intrusion like you parked over the line at the grocery store or you called your neighbor an asshole etc.

So remove the “item” as the crime and put the onus on the crime, while making the item less attractive to the criminal so to speak.

Now a couple of caveats.

I realize this does nothing to curtail the batshit crazy or radical fanatic.
I realize this ASSUMES a desire for actual criminal mitigation vs CONTROL.
I realize this puts a burden on the criminal justice system.

My thoughts are basically you can have pretty much whatever you want as long as you show you are a law abiding citizen. Step out of line, beat your wife, carjack a car, rob a convenience store etc. then any weapons you have add to your sentence. If you are a “good doobie” then you rock on with your SBR/MG/Supressor/eleventy billion round drum etc. basically if it’s not an explosive/bio/chemical weapon (basically anything that require care/knowledge and mistakes take out the block kind of thing) then you are good UNLESS you show yourself to be a danger at any level to society.

Stupid thought??? I am thinking out loud so please don’t make me a pariah for asking the question. I am not campaigning or writing my senators here.

Sentence enhancements, along the lines of what you suggest, have been in use for many years in various jurisdictions. The problem is that one crop of legislators, district attorneys, judges, and juries act in ways to get get tough on crime and punish criminals...then, over time, a new crop of legislators, district attorneys, judges, and juries, act in sympathetic ways toward criminals, sometimes finding them Not Guilty despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, or reducing the charges against them or issuing lighter sentences, and often acting to correct some perceived previous injustice.

Assuming, for a moment, that laws such as what you suggest were passed with the intent of getting tough on crime...what is to prevent the selective enforcement of such laws? And what is to prevent such laws from being further augmented by a future body of legislators from abusing such laws and using them to further an agenda of gun control restrictions?

Furthermore, I disagree with the concept of passing a law, any law, that punishes a criminal differently depending on which weapon is used in the crime.

If a crime results in the deaths of three people why should it matter whether they were killed with a gun, a knife, a crow bar, a baseball bat, or a Buick?

Hypothetically, when you punish a criminal for shooting 3 people and the family of the victims has the satisfaction of knowing that the murderer was sentenced to 30 years + 2 years sentence enhancement for using a gun, what do you say to the family who lost 3 loved ones because they were murdered with a crow bar? "Sorry, your loved ones had the misfortune of being murdered with a lesser weapon, and therefore no sentence enhancement?

Your very argument suggests that you believe in gun violence and gun crime. I don't believe in such things, for me there is only violence and crime and it really shouldn't matter what weapon, accessory, or configuration is used.

If it were in my power I would eliminate all sentence enhancement laws for guns, simply add an all-inclusive one for any weapon used.

I would be in support of paying (marginally) higher taxes to implement more courts, hire more judges, and build WAY more prisons, designed to hold many more prisoners for much longer periods of time. I would also look towards implementing the death penalty for many more crimes than it is currently reserved for and far more often than it is currently used.

Given your signature line, there is some irony to be found in your suggestion.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
As counter as it may seem, I support absolutely 'no' new firearms laws whatsoever. We've passed the point where we can trust the government to act ethically on this topic.

While our government isn't as tyrannical as some, sadly I have to agree.

When the citizens of a Constitutional Republic can't depend on its government to act within the constraints and adherence to its Constitution we have crossed into dangerous territory.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

They don't want more of their constituants in jail. They want YOUR guns.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:

So my thoughts are why not make firearm law center around criminal activity?

Wouldn't matter. There's life sentences and/or capital punishment on the books but the inherently motivated are not deterred.

Florida already does. With robberies it's 10/20/life. 10 years for a robbery, 20 years if you have a firearm on you, life if you use it during the robbery (fire it).

A person can have good intentions in supporting some kind of reasonable gun control or another.

Trouble is, the other side will always be working towards "total removal" and your ideas will always be viewed a "one more step". Always.

......shall not be infringed.

V.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
Florida already does. With robberies it's 10/20/life. 10 years for a robbery, 20 years if you have a firearm on you, life if you use it during the robbery (fire it).

Sort of.

10 years for possessing a firearm during the commission of an enumerated offence (practically any felony), 20 years if during the crime the gun goes "bang", Life (25 and up) if someone is shot/killed. It is pretty automatic and non-negotiable, only way around it is to have the SAO delete the firearm from the charge.

This law has been on the books for years. Where this law gets "interesting" is when you have a person with a legal concealed permit commits a "crime". There is at least 18 enumerated offenses, and the firearm does not need to be part of the "crime".

In Federal court a firearm is also an enhancer (at a minimum) if used in a crime.

Points taken. I guess it really does come down to judges and prosecutors actually taking a hardline on any violent/potentially violent crime.

Many of us are convinced that harsh penalties are the key to reducing crime, but are they really?

As pointed out, there are many enhancement provisions for crimes involving guns already on the books and it’s true that the overall crime rate is reduced by locking criminals up for longer periods of time because in jail they’re not committing additional crimes (or at least not the ones we disapprove of).

The fundamental problem, though, is that criminals don’t commit crimes with the thought that they’re going to get caught. Once someone decides to commit a crime, I’m reminded of the comment by a member here that we shouldn’t pick a defensive gun on the basis of which one is best to miss with. Similarly, criminals don’t always choose their crimes on the basis of what’s the best to be caught at. As someone pointed out long ago about the death penalty, when picking pockets was a hanging offense in England, people picked pockets in the crowds watching pick pockets being hanged.

In addition, very many habitual criminals aren’t really deterred by the thought of going to jail. Not only do they expect to not get caught, often because they’ve not gotten caught so many times before, the consequences of being caught aren’t that big a deal for them in the same ways they would be to the vast majority of law-abiding people.

Making more laws does nothing to stop/slow crime. Where I live, 9 times out of 10, one of the first things the Prosecutor does is to "Drop" the gun charges to get the Gang member/crook to plead guilty to the original crime. Thus, less time sentenced to the pokey.

Believe me, I have seen it on mine and others cases.

quote:

That being said, I do not want violent criminals having/using firearms and I think we can all agree on that.

I do not want violent criminals having/using gasoline.

Shall not be infringed. We are responsible for our actions.