[Fletchette]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146309,00.html

"Triggerlock," (search) as the federal law is known, allows police to arrest suspected violent criminals on lesser charges. After an arrest is made, police search the suspect for guns. If they find even one, the suspect can be sentenced to 10 years in prison, effectively keeping him or her off the street.


So let me get this straight. The Feds are now allowed to throw suspected violent criminals in prison for a decade?

[Destructo6]

My understanding is that in this program, felons in possession of a firearm are prosecuted in Federal court. Those targeted for such prosecution are suspected ringleaders of gangs and/or suspects in violent acts.

They're suspected of committing acts A,B, and C, but are prosecuted for act D because there exists evidence for that crime. Analogy is the prosecution of Al Capone for tax evasion when it's almost certain that he killed or ordered the murder of many folks.

[Spot77]

Not much info there, and the writer is a poor writer at that.....


Sounds similar to "Project Exile" which I find to be a much more acceptable alternative to more gun control laws that affect me.

[Jeff White]

Triggerlock, Project Exile, Project (or is it Operation I can't keep all the PR names straight)Safe Streets are all similar programs that fast track convicted felons in possession of firearms into federal court to do federal time on the felon in possession of a firearm charge. They usually provide additional funds to the local US Attorney's office to hire extra prosecutors.

There is nothing nefarious or unconstitutional about it.

Jeff

[Preacherman]

“The ultimate sentence that is imposed tends to be much higher and the question is, ‘is that appropriate?’” said Public Defender Ron Tyler.
At the prison where I work, there are fairly large numbers of these @#$%&'s. They're doing 5-to-10 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and all seem to consider it grossly unfair. Speaking as one who has to work with them every day, I couldn't be happier in knowing that they're not on the streets, but behind walls, wire and (armed) guard towers. Yes, it is appropriate, Counselor!

:fire:

[Coronach]

Two thoughts:

1. It is perfectly on the up and up. These are people who are arrested with probable cause for unrelated offenses and, in a search incident to arrest, cops discover a firearm on their person that it is illicit, under federal law, for them to have. They get fast-tracked to federal court for ajudication, and get sent away for long periods of time. Seeing as how this is at least their second bite of the apple, I'm not particularly upset that they're being incarcerated for years at a stretch.

2. This could all be handled at the state and local level, and without the anti-gun spin, by simply putting people in jail for a long perior of time when you catch them committing a criminal act...the first time. Gun or no gun. Oh, you're a burglar? See you in 20 years.

The federalist in me kinda wishes we just did it that way, rather than bootstrapping together some system where the feds do the second time what the locals should have done the first.

Mike

[Preacherman]

A lot of it has to do with budgets. Most State corrections agencies are rather strapped for cash, so there's pressure to avoid sentences for too long a period. On the other hand, Federally convicted inmates do time in the Federal prison system, which comes out of the Federal budget - so the States win, financially speaking.

[Coronach]

Oh, I agree.

The sad fact is that politicians love to be tough on crime...until the time comes to actually pony up the money for housing the criminals.

Mike

[Wildalaska]

Where does Troika come from?

WildcuriousAlaska

[nick89302]

Troika is what Russian Bears poop.

Actually, troi·ka ( P ) Pronunciation Key (troik)
n.

1. A Russian carriage drawn by a team of three horses abreast.
2. A team of three horses abreast.


Maybe I missed something?

[Sindawe]

I think it comes from this:

September 15, 1938
P64/22
Decision to permit replacement of court trial with "special troika"; procedures and their formation.

Source: http://psi.ece.jhu.edu/~kaplan/IRUSS/BUK/GBARC/pdfs/sovter74/sovter74-e.html

triumvirate: a group of three men responsible for public administration or civil authority

Government by triumvirs.
1. The office or term of a triumvir.
2. A body or group of triumvirs.
3. An association or a group of three. Also called troika.

[Wildalaska]

I know what a troika is, I just wonder who that found its way into the title of this thread?

Wildhyperbole?Alaska

[Standing Wolf]

They're doing 5-to-10 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and all seem to consider it grossly unfair.

It was racism. The cops were out to get them. It was unfair. They were just standing around minding their own business, when...

[AZRickD]

I know what a troika is, I just wonder who that found its way into the title of this thread?I'm guessing that he was using "troika" because it has a negative conotation from the Stalinist-Soviet days. Or was that Trotski? ;)

Rick

[carebear]

Trotski,

It's a Revolution, Red/White War thing.

[Fletchette]

Troika reference - to the Stalinist era practice of dispatching "Troika Squads", three KGB Agents, to capture, assess the guilt, and execute on the spot, anyone suspected of a crime against the State. Two guilty votes were all that was required to commence immediate execution.

Which leads me to my question: many here said that this "Triggerlock" law was OK in their view because possession of a gun by a convicted felon was a Federal offense. But I didn't see anything in the article that mentioned a prior felony conviction, just that they were suspected of other felonies.

That is why I called it "Troika Squads, American Style"

[carebear]

Triggerlock II (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/html/triggerlock_ii.html)

"Triggerlock II incorporates the objectives of Project Triggerlock initiated by DOJ in April 1991, to prosecute federally the most violent and dangerous offenders who commit federal firearm offenses. Triggerlock II expands the focus of federal firearm enforcement in Northern California to include offenders who are "Level 20" convicted felons with a firearm on their person or in their possession in a vehicle, narcotics dealers with a gun, convicted sex offenders, persons convicted of domestic violence, persons subject to restraining orders, straw purchasers/sellers of firearms, and Brady Act violations such as ignoring the statutory waiting period on purchase of firearms, sales to known felons, and similar violations at gun shows. Level 20 refers to those felons identified by the Federal Sentencing Guideline as the most serious offenders worthy of the stiffest sentences."

[Fletchette]

...straw purchasers/sellers of firearms, and Brady Act violations such as ignoring the statutory waiting period on purchase of firearms,...

You mean, like Sarah Brady?

[DMF]

Which leads me to my question: many here said that this "Triggerlock" law was OK in their view because possession of a gun by a convicted felon was a Federal offense. But I didn't see anything in the article that mentioned a prior felony conviction, just that they were suspected of other felonies. It is very poorly written, but the video clip does mention prior convictions if you pay attention. However, this program is nothing more than Project Safe Neighborhoods by a different name, and they are going after people who are convicted felons. There is no federal law that makes someone a "prohibited person" merely for being a suspect .

However, it should be noted that someone under felony indictment (not filing of information), or a fugitive from justice IS a prohibited person. However, at least at the federal level, pre-trial services will inform anyone who is indicted that they are not allowed to possess guns until they are no longer under indictment. So there is no pleading ignorance on that one.

Now before people start crying about how unfair that is while the defendant awaits trial, you need to be aware that when the G seeks a GJ indictment they are prepared to take the case to trial. The defense is the cause of delays. I'm sure some don't believe me, but Congress put the government on a tight clock with Speedy Trial laws, delays must be agreed to (most often requested by) the defense.

[whm1974]

However, it should be noted that someone under felony indictment (not filing of information), or a fugitive from justice IS a prohibited person. However, at least at the federal level, pre-trial services will inform anyone who is indicted that they are not allowed to possess guns until they are no longer under indictment. So there is no pleading ignorance on that one.

I thought that under felony indictment a person couldn't buy another gun but could keep the ones he already has.

-Bill

[hammer4nc]

Extended sentences (sometimes amounting to life in prison) for passive gun possession infractions, under Project Safe Neighborhoods, sets a very, very dangerous precedent. To those who have voiced support or neutrality of this scheme, please consider the following:

Is the general trend of shifting what were state violations to the federal level more, or less respecting of individual freedoms? More, or less easy to reverse (via the ballot box; or by an official) if an error is made? Consider all the buck-passing associated with mandatory minimum sentencing...judges outright stating that the sentence is wrong, "but my hands are tied". Look at the hypocrisy now practiced concerning restoration of gun rights through the ATF...yeah, baby the system's working great (according to some of the myrmidons who post on the subject); but; but theres no funding to process applications!!!

Getting real comfortable with throwing away the key on gun violations? Chew on this scenario: President Hillary pushes through AWB 2.0, with no grandfather clause, and a retroactive provision declared totally constitutional by supreme justice Lautenberg in a 5-4 decision. Attorney general Chuck Schumer reinstates former solicitor general Waxman's opinion that gun ownership only applies to the National Guard, anyway; wins humanitarian award from UN Secretary general Bill Klinton (Soros hand puppet).

All the crew will cite our great experience in Project Safe neighborhoods as the template for enforcing the new 21st century paradigm. Erect smarmy billboards saying: got a gun? Meet Luther!

All fed agents will log on to Glocktalk/Coptalk, comparing cyber orgasms over the day's raids. Promotions within the ranks reaches record levels.

Folks, we're squaredancing on the edge of the abyss with this one, completely oblivious to the implications, because the percieved "other guy" on the receiving end ain't us. The damage will be very difficult to undo.

[Clean97GTI]

if you do the crime, you should do the time.

or...
STOP BREAKING THE LAW A-HOLE!!!

[Third_Rail]

I love "Liar Liar". :D


And that is such an appropriate line.

[Fletchette]

if you do the crime, you should do the time.

or...
STOP BREAKING THE LAW A-HOLE!!!

Hmmm. Let me guess. You are a cop.

What I do not understand, is how some people fail to grasp the simple premise that some laws are simply WRONG.

[DMF]

What will happen with this law is they will also use it against non violent felons, That stupid trick your buddy pulled stealing a car when he was 16. Dude you obviously have never tried to present a felon in possession case to an AUSA. The mythical "non-violent" felon case won't ever get prosecuted, because the AUSA is too busy with guys like this:
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy03press/field/060903kc_mcallsen.pdf

"Gregory L. McCall, 44, of Kansas City, was sentenced by U.S. District Chief Judge Dean Whipple this morning to 10 years in federal prison without parole. McCall was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearms by a federal jury in the U.S. District Court on Jan. 22, 2003.

The jury found McCall guilty of being in possession of a Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver, a Maverick 12 gauge shotgun, a Ruger 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, a Stevens .22 caliber rifle and a J.C. Higgins .22 caliber rifle on Feb. 15, 2002. Under federal law, Graves explained, it is illegal for any felon to be in possession of any firearm or ammunition. McCall has three prior criminal felony convictions for robbery, manslaughter and drug possession."

These are the cases that get an AUSA's attention. Not some kid that committed non-violent crimes as a 16 year old. BTW, when is the last time you heard of a 16 year old getting tried as an adult for boosing a car and going joy riding? Doesn't happen that I'm aware of.

Can we at least try and have a genuine debate rather than throwing out unrealistic hypotheticals?

[DMF]

Sonoma, I can't say I know what is going on in Denver, since I don't work there, or more importantly what was going on there in March 02 when this article was written.

However, I do know what the prosecution guidelines are in where I work. As a stand alone charge if it's not a violent felon they don't meet the guidelines. If they are getting indicted on other felony charges violent or not they may also be indicted for the gun.

EDIT TO ADD: This article is obviously full of bias, so I question how they have manipulated their numbers. Hell the subtitle alone is BS.

Let's take this example:
"One of the first individuals prosecuted under Project Exile was Cameron Joseph, who will turn 28 later this month inside the Federal Correctional Institute in Phoenix, Arizona. Before he became a Project Exile case, Joseph had a single felony on his record, having pleaded guilty in 1997 to attempted distribution of a controlled substance. Joseph served a little over a year in state prison before entering a supervised release program.

On November 6, 1999, Joseph had just come home from his job at a Starbucks in Colorado Springs when he answered a knock on the front door of his girlfriend's apartment, where he was staying. It was Joseph's probation officer, come to pay a surprise visit. During a search of the apartment, the probation officer saw the handle of an unloaded 9mm pistol protruding from a box on a shelf in a spare bedroom. Joseph was arrested on the spot. He later pleaded guilty to illegal possession of a firearm and was sentenced to four years in federal prison. Like any federal prisoner convicted since Congress passed the Federal Sentencing Act in 1987, he has no chance for parole. And once he gets out, he will have a second felony on his record, ensuring that even a misdemeanor charge in the future could land him back in prison. "

Knowing what it takes to actually serving 12 months of time on a drug charge in most states (hint: simple possession alone won't do it, I've seen dealers that do less time) I don't feel sorry for this guy. Conditions of his probation, let alone 18USC922, would have made possessing that gun illegal. I don't have any sympathy for him. He was let out of prison early and yet he couldn't even comply with the conditions of his supervised release.

Anyone that is trying to get me to be sympathetic to Mr. Joseph loses credibility with me.

[DMF]

DMF said

Quote:
Not some kid that committed non-violent crimes as a 16 year old. BTW, when is the last time you heard of a 16 year old getting tried as an adult for boosing a car and going joy riding? Doesn't happen that I'm aware of.



http://www.post-gazette.com/regions...atheticreg3.asp
Though Pennsylvania sends to adult criminal court only youths charged with serious felonies, other states are much more liberal. As a result, nationwide, of the juveniles tried as adults and incarcerated, nearly 40 percent went for nonviolent offenses such as burglary, car theft and drug possession in 1997.Uh the first example from that article is about an armed robbery trial. Talk about making disingenuous arguments.

"Because he was accused of a serious crime -- armed robbery -- Christopher had became one of the 129 Allegheny County teen-agers charged as adults during the first year of Pennsylvania's "adult time for adult crime" law."

That article is about blaming the system, blaming society, blaming the parents for the bad acts committed by teens. Sorry I'm not buying that argument either.

BTW, you consider burglary a non-violent offense? I guess that means if you find a burglar in your house you wouldn't be justified to pull your gun? I mean if it's non-violent why use deadly force to protect yourself. :rolleyes:

[DMF]

And so what part of the second amendmant do you not support?Ridiculous comments like this do nothing for your argument. I support and defend the WHOLE Constitution.

I tried to have a rational discussion, but I'm done.

[captlid]

I only got one question, since when is the mere posession of an object such as a firearm become a crime?

Indeed a very slippery slope.

[Wildalaska]

What I do not understand, is how some people fail to grasp the simple premise that some laws are simply WRONG.

What I fail to understand is how some people fail to grasp the simple concept that violating a law carries with it certain consequences.

If you think the law is wrong, then by all means try to change it, but be man enough to accept the consequences if you violate it

Obviously you dont support the infringed part. Prosecute crimes. Even felons have a right to protect themselves.

See above...felons have the right not to commit felonies in the first place....

WildsameoldtiredargumentsAlaska

[Wildalaska]

I do find that bitching about current laws is as productive as trying to change them.

An attitude that once noted, makes many of us less likely to view your posts on the subject seriously

WildandsoitgoesAlaska

[hammer4nc]

Its fairly apparent that Sonoma's researched and coherent arguments remain essentially unchallenged. Loser withdraws. Good presentation, Sonoma.

WA's post illustrates well the concept of "legal positivism" that Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses in his recent book "Constitutional Chaos - When the Govt. Breaks its Own Laws". Recommended reading. Maybe we should have a separate thread on this book sometime?

Here's a brief review excerpt, with attribution (highlights mine).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Customer Reviews

The Theory and Practice of Tyranny, December 1, 2004
Reviewer: Bob Meyer (Kirkland, WA United States)

Many authors have produced compendia of modern legalized atrocities but Judge Andrew P. Napolitano's "Constitutional Chaos" is much more than a list of complaints, it shows the philosophy behind the growth of tyranny.

The Theory:

The judge begins by describing the two competing legal theories of individual rights. The first asserts that man's rights are inherent within man's nature which, in Napolitano's view, comes from God. Rights are not an arbitrary gift from the state to be withdrawn at the caprice of the rulers but are objective requirements for human beings if they are to live to their full potential. Legislated laws are subordinate to rights and can only be justified in terms of man's nature, hence the name "Natural Law". Man-made laws are attempts to codify the natural law and laws that are inconsistent with natural law may rightfully be struck down by judges.

The second theory holds that rights are creations of the state and are no more natural than speed limits or bans on pornography. Rights are simply expedient grants of free action conferred upon individuals by a government representing a democratic majority. Rights may be increased, decreased, revised or removed at any time for any reason. All laws that are democratically passed are, ipso facto, proper laws and no law may be challenged on any but procedural grounds. This theory goes by the name "Legal Positivism".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Link: http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/lawless.html

Sure seems like many of the arguments advanced by .gov apologists fall into the second category, eh?

[Wildalaska]

Methingks the reviewer either doesnt understand the law, or the author doesnt....

And my posts surely arent an Illustration of "legal positvism", assuming we can figure out what legal positivism is......

WildherewegoagainAlaska

[Fletchette]

What I fail to understand is how some people fail to grasp the simple concept that violating a law carries with it certain consequences.

If you think the law is wrong, then by all means try to change it, but be man enough to accept the consequences if you violate it

1) I do understand the consequences of breaking this particular law. I just do not agree with them.

2) I am not advocating breaking the law, I am in fact trying to change it. This is a Republic, and convincing one's peers to change the law is an integral part of forming a consensus amongst the population as to what the law should be.

3) With regards to sitting back, doing nothing other than telling people to "accept the consequences if you violate (bad) laws", I refer you to a quote:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
(Edmund Burke).

[Wildalaska]

With regards to sitting back, doing nothing other than telling people to "accept the consequences if you violate (bad) laws", I refer you to a quote:

Whos doing nothing about bad or stupid laws.? But in the interim, ya got to deal with it.

And by the way, I think that the law precluding felons and traitors from owning firearms is a good one.

WildyoudontlikeitgochangeitAlaska

[carebear]

Right or wrong, if you CHOOSE to break even a stupid law, you have to accept the consequences. If those consequences mean you get debarred from firearms ownership too bad. You made your bed.

I'm all for trying to change bad law but integrity means that, bad or not, you do the crime you do the time. If you can't handle the consequences of your actions , you shouldn't have been stupid enough to a) do the crime in the first place or b) be incompetent enough to get caught.

Whining about it after the fact is useless and ignoble.

[Wildalaska]

Its in the US Code, need a cite?

WildsarcasmmodeAlaska

[carebear]

Sonoma,

So by reducing your strict interpretation consistently, I guess you'd support the idea that the natural right of "liberty" precludes incarceration of violent felons as punishment?

Heck the only "Constitutional" impediment on pursuit of property/money(original intent of "happiness") we have is on the Government taking from you without compensation.

So, in theory, if I can get the drop on you, I can not only not be incarcerated for your death but I can also take all your stuff as my own and there is no legal stricture possible against me, per the Bill of Rights anyway. Me being a protected individual, not the fed. gov.

We live under the rule of law, not just the Constitution and we have a system designed to ensure that the corpus of those laws are in line with the Constitution. That's the reality extant at the time of the FF and it remains the reality now.

[Art Eatman]

Sonoma, have you ever read the Anti-Federalist Papers?

Those involved in the writing of the Second Amendment made a point of reassuring those whom it made nervous that firearms ownership or "bearing" should be denied to those "...of ill repute or unsound mind..." or similar language and order of appearance. (Been some ten years since I last did any reading therein.)

My own interpretation of "ill repute" in the context of the A-FP is that the reference was to what today we call felons.

Anyway, the very people who wrote the Second Amendment did not see it as unlimited.

Art

[carebear]

The social contract can and should be understood (IMHO) to imply a "law-abiding" anywhere you see "people".

To back that up we have a presumption of innocence, no matter how self-evident the guilt of a party may be. We demand a certain level of "above and beyond" proof before we start abrogating rights.

My big problem is with the denial of arms to those who have not yet been arrested for, much less convicted of, felonious acts, such as the accused of domestic violence stuff of late.

And never forget that procedures are in place for those who have been convicted, but have served their time, to appeal for their revoked rights back. To reenter the realm of the "law-abiding citizenry" as it were.

[Fletchette]

you do the crime you do the time. If you can't handle the consequences of your actions , you shouldn't have been stupid enough to a) do the crime in the first place or b) be incompetent enough to get caught.

Ahh, this sounds like Clean97GTI's quote.

I guess it is just curiosity, but I just wonder why people can blindly accept obvious injustice just because it is "The Law". Yes, yes, I understand the consequences of breaking "The Law", I just don't agree with the consequences of this particular "Law" (imprisonment for a decade for mere possesion of a gun and suspicion of some other felony that there is not enough proof for a conviction). I wonder just what goes through a police officer's brain when they arrest someone on a ridicoulously unjust law.

For example, Rosa Parks violated "The Law" when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. Some police officer out there arrested her. Just what went through his mind when he arrested this innocuous, non-violent lady. Since I am not telepathic, I do not know for certain, but I can garner a guess. Probably something like this:

if you do the crime, you should do the time.

or...
STOP BREAKING THE LAW A-HOLE!!!

[carebear]

imprisonment for a decade for mere possesion of a gun and suspicion of some other felony that there is not enough proof for a conviction

Where do you get "suspicion"? This law is aimed at convicted felons. They've put themselves in a position to be arrested for a crime with enough evidence to convince a GJ to indict, put on trial and convicted beyond a reasonable doubt and then, after getting the terms of their punishment, CHOSE to knowingly violate those terms by being in arguable possession of a firearm. If they want to have their guns again after doing their time, appeal to the courts.

In the "mere suspicion" cases I have a problem with, the DV accusations, their warning to divest themselves of guns came when they were informed of the action of their SO. They need to start correcting the situation through legal channels immediately, not defying the law and then whining when it comes to bite them.

[hammer4nc]

And never forget that procedures are in place for those who have been convicted, but have served their time, to appeal for their revoked rights back. To reenter the realm of the "law-abiding citizenry" as it were.

Outright lie. The federal program for rights reinstatement has been cancelled for "lack of funds"; for some years. See Thomas Bean case. Another miscarriage of justice that the statists always seem to forget. Yeah, right.

[Art Eatman]

For cryin' out loud, people!!!

Separate the ideal from the world we actually live in!

I've seen almost no posts since TFL and then THR began where folks were in favor of "dumb laws" regarding firearms, other than from those who've lost a lot of the debates on the subject.

But the laws are on the books. They exist, and all your disgust won't change that.

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." is a fact of life. Acknowledge that fact and then work to elect people who will work to remove dumb laws.

What made Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King notable and important was their willingness to break dumb laws and proudly accept the consequences. They shamed TPTB into changing the laws. That's the primary difference between them and these later generations of protestors. These later groups wants to break the law and escape the punishment and whine a lot.

Note: Pointing out facts does NOT mean approval of the way things are. Explanations are NOT necessarily signs of support. It should not be necessary to begin with some obligatory rant against something before talking about the realities of a situation.

And my own rant-mode switch is now off.

:D, Art

Art

[carebear]

hammer,

Not a lie at all. The Federal program may be ineffective right now but most original felonies are state offenses and most states have expungement on the books. Once an offender (yes, typically restricted to non-violent) completes their sentence they can get their rights back and they no longer fall under the sway of the Federal "get tough" programs.

From Google Answers (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=106208)

As you have already noted, with a few limitations, Title 18 of the
United States Code Section 922(a)(20) restores the right to transport
firearms in interstate commerce for those who have received
expungements in state court. That clause states in pertinent part:

Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a
person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be
considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such
pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides
that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

[Fletchette]

What made Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King notable and important was their willingness to break dumb laws and proudly accept the consequences. They shamed TPTB into changing the laws. That's the primary difference between them and these later generations of protestors. These later groups wants to break the law and escape the punishment and whine a lot.

Art, I'll agree with you on this on - to a point. Yes, Rosa Parks and MLK were brave people and proved so by calmly getting arrested and accepting an unjust punishment. But...they certainly made a lot of noise about it (and justly so)!!! Prior to their arrests, they vehimently voiced their opposition to those laws, much like we are doing here. They did not blithley accept their sentences as "just" and by doing so forced the powers at hand to get rid of most of the unjust laws.

Our ranting about unjust gun laws definitely have their place, as if enough people are made aware that these laws, whether passed with good intentions or not, are dangerously unfair, then there might be a snowball's chance that they will get undone.

Unfortunately, if I cannot even convince pro-gunnies on this site that throwing someone who is merely suspected of a crime into prison for a decade for a much less significant "crime" (that is not worthy of a ten-year sentence, and that shouldn't be a crime at all), then I have no chance with the left-wingnuts that love Big Govenrment.

[carebear]

Where do you keep getting "suspected" from? :confused:

Arguably G. Gordon Liddy is setting himself up for a fall as a convicted felon due to living in a home with firearms handy.

Be a felon, no be around guns. Not fun, but, then, not being a felon in the first place was the time to make the call.

[Jeff White]

flechette said;

Unfortunately, if I cannot even convince pro-gunnies on this site that throwing someone who is merely suspected of a crime into prison for a decade for a much less significant "crime" (that is not worthy of a ten-year sentence, and that shouldn't be a crime at all), then I have no chance with the left-wingnuts that love Big Govenrment.

What part of the fact that the people run through Triggerlock, Project Exile and Operation Safe Neighborhoods are not locked up because they are suspected of a crime, but because they committed one, are you having such a problem understanding?

It is a crime to be a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. It's that plain and simple. If you think the law is unjust, get it changed. In fact why don't you show the same moral courage that Rosa Parks and Dr King and the other civil rights leaders showed in the 1950s and 60s? Find a nice safe white collar felony crime and commit it. Then trot on down to the local PD and turn yourself in. Tell the states attorney you'll plead guilty to it. Then plead guilty. Once you have a felony conviction on your record, get your guns out of hiding and publically go hunting or to the range. Invite the local media along so they can witness your arrest. (Don't forget to invite the police) After you're arrested for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, call up the United States Attorney for the district you're in and demand he take your case under one of these programs...Then while you're out on bond, start building public support for your cause. Get people to say Flechette is a good guy, he wouldn't hurt a fly and he loves to target shoot, hunt etc. and this unfair law is about to lock him up for 10-15 in club fed because he just went back to enjoying his hobby. Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?

The real reason these programs exist has already been touched on in this thread. It's money. It costs a lot of money to go to trial. There is a good possibility that your local courts are so overloaded now that many cases are never filed or they are disposed of in plea agreements just to get rid of them.

Here is an example from my own personal experience. Several years ago I heard a broadcast about a car on the interstate driving erratically and that the driver was possibly DUI. The last known location of the car was just a few miutes from town, so I went up on the interstate to see if I could spot it. A few minutes later it drove by. I got in behind it and followed it long enough to develop PC for a DUI stop. I stopped the car. As soon as I ran his name I got about 3 different caution alerts back on the radio. After conducting field sobriety tests, it was determined that there was probable cause to arrest him for DUI. I placed the driver under arrest (by this time there were 4 officers on the scene because of all the caution alerts when I ran his name) and asked the passenger (his girlfriend) if she had a valid license so she could drive the car. It turned out she was revoked. Called for a duty wreaker to tow the car. One of the other officers transported the suspect for me while Ianother officer and myself conducted an inventory search of the car for the tow sheet. In the trunk I discovered a toolbox full of marijuana, a couple 35mm film cannisters that had a few rocks of meth and a Raven .22 auto.

Got back to the PD and ran a criminal history on the subject. It was 9 pages long. I took it out of the printer and held it out at eye level and I had two pages on the floor. Wrote up all the reports. Went home feeling pretty good about things.

About 3 weeks later my phone rings one morning. It's the state's attorney;

"Jeff, do you remember back about 3 or 4 weeks ago when you arrested (insert criminal's name here) up on the interstate?"

"Yes Jim" I replied.

"Can you put him in possession of the gun?" he asked.

"Well, Jim, it was in his tool box, with his dope, in his trunk, just like the report says."

"His brother is prepared to come to court to swear that he put the gun in the tool box and (insert criminal's name here) didn't know anything about it." the state's attorney said.

At this point I'm starting to get a little frustrated; "So you mean to tell me that you don't think you can convince a jury that (insert criminal's name here) who has a 9 page criminal history including assaults and weapons charges really didn't have a gun with his dope to protect it? For heavens sake, look at all the outlaw motorcycle gang affilliations..." I said.

"The fact is, he's willing to plead to the DUI and the drugs, but he knows the gun will send him up for about 15 years. He's not local to the community, so we won't have to deal with him in the county, and I really can't afford another jury trial. So I'm going drop the gun charge unless you or someone else can put it in his hands."

That my friend is why those programs exist. To transfer the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating bad people from the underfunded local courts to a somewhat better funded federal system. In my example the BG was cut a deal because he wasn't local. In many other areas, like our inner cities, the offenders are local, but there are so many that the courts and prisons are overwhelmed. And just like the motorcycle gang member in my example, they will fight the gun charges with everything their court appointed attorney has, because that means going to prison for serious time. So the gun charges are often dropped to dispose of the case in a plea bargain. Triggerlock, Project Exile, Operation Safe Streets are all designed to go after that type of offender.

Now if you want to look at the law of unintended consequences, look at how many domestic violence incidents are never prosecuted as domestic violence any more because of the Lautenberg Amendment. The same thing is happening in areas where hunting is part of the local culture. Domestic violence is often prosecuted as simple battery because the offender will get a lawyer and fight tooth and nail to keep his/her RKBA.

Jeff

[hammer4nc]

So, the assertion has been made that these federal programs are good, because they will lock up dangerous criminals, that the underfunded states can't. Primarily a funding issue? Example was given.

For every good example of a thug (by virtue of past rap sheet, not necessarily current actions) put away because he was merely in possession of a firearm; I could cite an example of "feds gone wild"...prosecuting a person becuase of an overriding political agenda or some other factor rather than the person's "potential" threat to society.

I don't have time right now to search, but the case of Tommy Chong comes to mind. Operation Pipe dream. He went to jail because his son had a business selling glass bongs. Listen to the interview on NPR. LInk: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4488902 Then, make the case that this was a good use of tax dollars.

Jeff and others, have admonished those who disagree with project exile, et al, that if they don't like the laws, work to get them changed, rather than whine about it. Next sentence, they themselves proceed to whine about the lack of funding/sentencing at the state level. Well, if you don't agree with the poor funding of courts at the state level, why don't you work to get that chnged? Huh?

Perhaps its the case, that the level of funding at the state or local levels for law enforcement, is appropriate according to the community's priorities?

Rather than take the easy route, (federal funding where money comes out of the sky, completely unaccountable and unresponsive) why don't you work to make state or local funding prorities more in line with your personal wishes?

See, the trend of pushing LE to the federal level is a double-edged sword. I posted a hypothetical scenario of a Hilary Clinton admnistration getting control of project exile, for effect. Stranger things have happened.

Pushing things to the federal level as a panacea for funding problems has more than a few "Unintended Consequences". The cure can be worse than the disease. Think about that.

[Fletchette]

What part of the fact that the people run through Triggerlock, Project Exile and Operation Safe Neighborhoods are not locked up because they are suspected of a crime, but because they committed one, are you having such a problem understanding?

I get it. Since someone has been convicted of a felony in the past (not very hard to do with all the new felony infractions on the books - see "overcriminalization of America") said felon is now a second-class citizen. If a new felony crime happens in the community, and the police do not have enough evidence to convict someone of that crime, they can always pick up a local ex-con, charge him/her for a broken taillight, and send him/her to prison for a decade, just because they are "suspected" of the second crime. Yes, I get it. :barf:

U.S. Bill of Rights, Fifth Amendment: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;..."

Putting someone in prison for a decade because of a prior conviction, where the defendant has already fullfilled his/her sentence, is double jeapordy.

It is a crime to be a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. It's that plain and simple. If you think the law is unjust, get it changed.

I do think it is unjust. I do not believe merely possesing a firearm should be a crime.


In fact why don't you show the same moral courage that Rosa Parks and Dr King and the other civil rights leaders showed in the 1950s and 60s?Find a nice safe white collar felony crime and commit it. Then trot on down to the local PD and turn yourself in. Tell the states attorney you'll plead guilty to it. Then plead guilty. Once you have a felony conviction on your record, get your guns out of hiding and publically go hunting or to the range. Invite the local media along so they can witness your arrest. (Don't forget to invite the police) After you're arrested for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, call up the United States Attorney for the district you're in and demand he take your case under one of these programs...Then while you're out on bond, start building public support for your cause.

Because The Law, how it is written and how it is enforced, is defined by politics. I wouldn't stand a chance in today's political environment (see Denver v. Rick Stanley). How did politics affect Mr. Stanley's case? Well, the judge did not allow him to cite the Constitution of Colorado for one! (Colorado Constitution - "Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.") Mr. Stanley is in prison for open carry, nothing else.

Yes, Rosa Parks and MLK were indeed courageous, but one must remember the countless African-Americans that got railroaded through the legal system before the political climate changed enough for Parks and MLK to have a chance politically.

Get people to say Flechette is a good guy, he wouldn't hurt a fly and he loves to target shoot, hunt etc. and this unfair law is about to lock him up for 10-15 in club fed because he just went back to enjoying his hobby. Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?

Keeping and Bearing an Arm is not "a hobby". :fire:

[carebear]

flechette,

They aren't going away for a broken taillight, they are going away because possessing a firearm as an unexpunged convicted felon is against the law.

It constitutes a new crime, a violation of the sentence they were given when convicted. They KNOW that, cause it is explained to them at sentencing. If they know it is a punishable offense, and do it anyway, they have to accept the consequences.

I do think it is unjust. I do not believe merely possesing a firearm should be a crime.

I happen to think it is, at root, unjust also, that said, what we "believe" only matters when we put it into practice, in this case the "practice" would be to get your legislators to change the law.

[Fletchette]

The real reason these programs exist has already been touched on in this thread. It's money. It costs a lot of money to go to trial. There is a good possibility that your local courts are so overloaded now that many cases are never filed or they are disposed of in plea agreements just to get rid of them.

So why not just continue along this train of thought and get rid of jury trial altogether - it is just too expensive!

My opinion - perhaps we have too many laws if we are running out of money enforcing them all. Repeal 90% of these laws, keep the "real" crimes, and spend the county's money prosecuting real threats to society.

In response to your example of prosecuting a DUI/Meth/gun criminal you arrested, ending in this:
"The fact is, he's willing to plead to the DUI and the drugs, but he knows the gun will send him up for about 15 years. He's not local to the community, so we won't have to deal with him in the county, and I really can't afford another jury trial. So I'm going drop the gun charge unless you or someone else can put it in his hands."

That my friend is why those programs exist.

My opinion: the only real crime this man commited was driving under the influence. Drug use and gun possession should not in itself be illegal. I know most police officers will go nuts on the legalization of drugs, so I will not address that here. Gun possession however, is explicitly listed as an individual right in the Bill of Rights.

My question: why did it matter if he was "local" or not? If he is truly a threat to society doesn't the DA have a duty to prosecute? Letting him off on a lighter sentence (plea bargin) just makes another problem for another district. Unless, of course, this man really isn't a problem at all and the DA just wants a conviction to increase his conviction rate?.........nah.

[Fletchette]

I happen to think it is, at root, unjust also, that said, what we "believe" only matters when we put it into practice, in this case the "practice" would be to get your legislators to change the law.

This is why I like THR; people can respectfully debate and eventually come to some agreement. :)

I do try. I am not a politician, but I have volunteered for those that are RKBA friendly and am trying to make more time to go to the next level (not be a politician, but spend more time helping). It is a long struggle. I am grateful that I live in a country where I can do something.

[carebear]

Amen to that flechette, amen to that!

I also happen to agree with you on the fact that possession while intoxicated may show poor judgement, but until you start messing with the thing it is as inanimate as when you were sober.

[Art Eatman]

Fletchette, I agree with your "Our ranting about unjust gun laws definitely have their place, as if enough people are made aware that these laws, whether passed with good intentions or not, are dangerously unfair, then there might be a snowball's chance that they will get undone."

My problem is that it seems to me that a lot of the ranting here at THR stems as much from lack of knowledge about some law as it does about "dumbness". Too much spouting, and not enough asking for clarification about what various laws actually say.

One thing about these "felon in possession" laws: The felon has not done his time and re-entered society with full rights and privileges. A part of his actual punishment was that he could no longer possess certain items. From a legal philosophy standpoint, it is no different from an injunction against some business practice, or a restraining order against being in proximity to a person.

IOW, "You are sentenced to ten years in prison AND you will not again possess firearms or ammunition."

Art

[Jeff White]

hammer4nc asked;
Jeff and others, have admonished those who disagree with project exile, et al, that if they don't like the laws, work to get them changed, rather than whine about it. Next sentence, they themselves proceed to whine about the lack of funding/sentencing at the state level. Well, if you don't agree with the poor funding of courts at the state level, why don't you work to get that chnged? Huh?

I am as politically active as my job allows. That includes being precinct commitee chair where I live. I would love to see public service adequately funded and have done everything I can to see that that happens. My activism and involvement consists of much more then venting my frustrations on an internet forum.

Perhaps its the case, that the level of funding at the state or local levels for law enforcement, is appropriate according to the community's priorities?

If the level of funding was appropriate according to the communities priorities, they wouldn't clamour for solutions to the crime problem like Porject Exile. The American public gets what it wants. Unfortunately, like spoilt children, they great majority of the American poeple have no idea that the money the government spends to provide them with all of their demands for services comes out of their own pocket. Project Exile and the other programs are not an attempt by the evil federal government to take power away from the state and local governments. They are a response to the demands of the people to have violent criminals removed from their communities. These programs are nothing more then an attempt by the politicians to let the American people have their cake and eat it too.

See, the trend of pushing LE to the federal level is a double-edged sword. I posted a hypothetical scenario of a Hilary Clinton admnistration getting control of project exile, for effect. Stranger things have happened.

I don't see how this is pushing the actual enforcement to the federal level. All it is is another tool in your local police/prosecutors toolbox to remove dangerous criminals from the community. We decide what cases get referred to the US Attorney. I'm not aware of any instances where the US Attorney in a given district stepped in and took over a case on his own. Your hypothetical scenario that a Hillary Clinton administration would use these programs to lock up law abiding gunownwers for paperwork type violations of federal gunlaws is a little too paranoid. Any attempt to do that on any scale would quickly overwhelm the federal government's resources. How many federal prison beds do you think there are? How many federal agents?

Pushing things to the federal level as a panacea for funding problems has more than a few "Unintended Consequences". The cure can be worse than the disease. Think about that.

I agree. I don't agree that these programs in their present form are any danger to our freedoms. IMHO you should be more worried about the stings attached to the federal grant money that is the lifeblood of local LE these days. That's the big danger with local and state governments underfunding their public services. And it's the way federalization will end up happening. It's much more insidious and out of the public eye then Project Exile.

flechette said;

I get it. Since someone has been convicted of a felony in the past (not very hard to do with all the new felony infractions on the books - see "overcriminalization of America") said felon is now a second-class citizen. If a new felony crime happens in the community, and the police do not have enough evidence to convict someone of that crime, they can always pick up a local ex-con, charge him/her for a broken taillight, and send him/her to prison for a decade, just because they are "suspected" of the second crime. Yes, I get it.

No, you still don't get it. Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a crime in and of itself. Not only at the federal level but in also almost every state. It's not about having enough evidence to convict someone of another crime. It's about them being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. That is the crime that is prosecuted on the federal level. Often the other charges aren't federal crimes.

U.S. Bill of Rights, Fifth Amendment: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;..."

Putting someone in prison for a decade because of a prior conviction, where the defendant has already fullfilled his/her sentence, is double jeapordy.


How is being charged for being a felon in possession of a firearm double jeapordy? The law says it's a separate offense to be a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.

I do think it is unjust. I do not believe merely possesing a firearm should be a crime.

FWIW, I think the law is unjust too. I think that after a person has completed their entire sentence (to include conditional release, parole etc.) they should have all their rights restored. For the first offense. Upon the second conviction the offender should lose all constituional rights forever.

Because The Law, how it is written and how it is enforced, is defined by politics. I wouldn't stand a chance in today's political environment (see Denver v. Rick Stanley). How did politics affect Mr. Stanley's case? Well, the judge did not allow him to cite the Constitution of Colorado for one! (Colorado Constitution - "Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.") Mr. Stanley is in prison for open carry, nothing else.

Poltics have always played a part in how laws are interpreted and enforced. They always will. As long as men run the system it will be imperfect.

Rick Stanley is in prison for threatening the judge. Open carry is what brought him before the judge in the first place. Judges are men too and they make mistakes all the time. That's why the founders saw fit to provide appeals courts. That's how the system works, you lose over a mistake in the law, you appeal. I don't see anything in my copy of the constitution that guarantees that the trial judge will never make a mistake. There would be no need for appeals courts if that was so. When Rick Stanley has exhausted all the remdies available to him through the courts to correct this error, then you may say that the system is totally corrupted by politics.

Keeping and Bearing an Arm is not "a hobby".

Does your profession require you to be armed? If not then your shooting activites are a hobby or avocation. Like it or not, the general public sees pirvate ownership of firearms as a hobby. Those of us who post here at THR may see keeping and bearing arms as an important part of being a free man, but I promise you while you are being the RKBA Rosa Parks those arguments won't fly with the public. Not in this day and age. Please take my comment about it being a hobby in the context of the imaginary public appeal to get the law changed after you had yourself arrested to bring public attention on the law. That's how it was meant.

So why not just continue along this train of thought and get rid of jury trial altogether - it is just too expensive!

Why not just stop funding all kinds of things the Constitution doesn't say the governemnt should be involved in and start funding things the government is charged to do, like the courts?

My opinion - perhaps we have too many laws if we are running out of money enforcing them all. Repeal 90% of these laws, keep the "real" crimes, and spend the county's money prosecuting real threats to society.

Do you have any idea what crimes are prosecuted and what crimes aren't in my county? It might be that we are already only prosecuting the most serious of crimes. Ask any merchant who's tried to get someone prosecuted for writing bad checks. And I don't live in some inner city. I live and work in a rual county in South Central Illinois. It would be nice to have the money to prosecute all the real threats to society.

My opinion: the only real crime this man commited was driving under the influence. Drug use and gun possession should not in itself be illegal. I know most police officers will go nuts on the legalization of drugs, so I will not address that here. Gun possession however, is explicitly listed as an individual right in the Bill of Rights.

You won't get any arguments from me about legalizing drugs. In fact Art and I had a long discussion about that very subject in the early days of TFL. Go look up the thread, you might find a cops view interesting. We already talked about the gun possession.

My question: why did it matter if he was "local" or not? If he is truly a threat to society doesn't the DA have a duty to prosecute? Letting him off on a lighter sentence (plea bargin) just makes another problem for another district. Unless, of course, this man really isn't a problem at all and the DA just wants a conviction to increase his conviction rate?.........nah.

The DA (State's Attorney here) has a duty to protect the people of the county that he serves. People who live in other jurisdictions are given deals all the time, all over the country to dispose of cases as cheaply as possible. The man I arrested would be a problem in any jurisdiction he was in. But as long as he was just passing through, the state's attorney made the decision to expend his limited resources on prosecuting someone who lived here and would continue to be a threat to the people of this county after the case was over. I never said I agreed with that decision, but it's the one that was made and a good example of how Project Exile. had it been in exstance then, would have removed a dangerous criminal from society.

I'm not saying that the system is perfect. I'm just pointing out why those federal projects came into existance. And why I think they are worthwhile.

Jeff

[brian roberts]

yeah, but i just liked the story about the 27-year old tennessee hottie who was sleeping with the 13-year old boy. WOWWWWWWW!!!!! WHY didn't that happen when I was 13????? :fire: you can BET NObody would have found out about THAT!!! :cool:

[Art Eatman]

Lemme interject a bit about courts and tax dollars.\

I ran across an article a few years back about plea bargaining. We might have been going around and around about it at TFL...

Anyway, in one of the Boroughs in NYC, some 4,400 felony indictments are returned each year. There are courtroom facilities and personnel for--ready?--some 480 cases to be tried. So: Either raise taxes to fund ten times as many courtrooms and judges and staff, or plea bargain down and avoid trials.

My memory doesn't recall any other crime-creating law other than the AWB which was taken off the books. Lawmakers just don't do that.

So: If we want a "more perfect" criminal justice system, we gotta urp up more tax money. More cops, more cop cars, more cop-shops, more DAs, more judges, more courtrooms, more court reporters, more lawyers. Oh, and more of those oh-so-cheap prisons at $30K/yr/prisoner.

We get what we pay for, right?

Art

[Fletchette]

My memory doesn't recall any other crime-creating law other than the AWB which was taken off the books. Lawmakers just don't do that.

I would consider the Brady Law to be a crime-creating law. I bought a Webley .455 a few years ago at a gun show from an edlerly rancher (about 80). I had to inform him that we both needed to go over to an FFL and file the transfer - he was completly oblivious. I suspect he had sold several old guns off his table that day with no idea he was breaking "The Law".

Under the ridiculously un-Constitutional Brady Law, this old gentleman would be a "gun-felon" :eek:

Why not just stop funding all kinds of things the Constitution doesn't say the governemnt should be involved in and start funding things the government is charged to do, like the courts?

I'd agree with that...

[carebear]

I bought a Webley .455 a few years ago at a gun show from an edlerly rancher (about 80). I had to inform him that we both needed to go over to an FFL and file the transfer - he was completly oblivious.

What part of Brady regulated private party transactions? IIRC the fact that they remained lawful was the infamous "gunshow loophole".

Maybe a state code but non-FFL to non-FFL was kosher then and now.