Use a Gun and You’re Done. (Nov 2001)


PDA






armedpolak
October 16, 2006, 12:55 PM
What is this "Use a Gun and You’re Done. (Nov 2001)" under "GUN CONTROL" for Jeb Bush ???

Here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Jeb_Bush.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "Use a Gun and You’re Done. (Nov 2001)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
orangelo
October 16, 2006, 12:57 PM
Sounds good to me. Use a gun during a violent crime or any other deadly weapon for that matter and you should be put away until you need a walker to get around.

That's exactly what crime ridden, gun-control 'utopias' like San Francisco and Philadelphia and Boston fail to do. Criminals go out and get 10 page long rap sheets full of violent offenses and they get put back out on the street. Then when they eventually kill someone the bloodsucking politicians all come out and act weepy and talk about the need for more laws. :barf:

Derby FALs
October 16, 2006, 01:02 PM
A hammer is still okay?

Gunfire
October 16, 2006, 01:28 PM
It's his mandatory 10-20-life feel good law. Possess a firearm while commiting a felony receive a "Mandatory 10 years prison without exceptions". I've already posted an example here where a 19 y/o was stopped while driving with friends and searched but not because of any other violent crimes that were APB. PD found 2 grams of cocaine, a felony in Florida. His dad's pistol was found under the seat. His dad is a high ranking sherriff and he reported that he did lend it to him. Because of this "Mandatory" law he should go to prison for 10 years but he wasn't even charged for a month and he probably won't go to prison for 10 years because of who his dad is.

The law continues to advance mandatory prison based on firing the weapon(20 years) and injuring anyone (life). I could agree that these can't be misused unfairly as easily as possession but it looks good on paper but every situation is different and the Judges should retain the right to review extenuating circumstances.

Similar to the unfair 3 strikes laws. Life in prison for bad check writers or possession of cannabus is cruel and unusual punishment but it's happening right now in America. But politicians won't address or repeal these, like the unfair lautenburg act, because they will be deemed as soft on crime due to dirty partisan politics even though they are trying to correct an unfair system. They would rather 10 guilty men serve unfair and cruel sentences than risk their political career for a 'convicted felon'. The new throw away citizens since 1968. It's a sad box they've painted themselves and us into.

Axman
October 16, 2006, 02:14 PM
I feel that even if the gun isn't fired (or knife used, or bat swung), the terror factor is still there. Mandatory jail time in either case but more time for firing a round (slashing with the knife, contact with bat).

WayneConrad
October 16, 2006, 02:29 PM
It is an article of faith among those who desire draconian punishment that the punishment will never apply to them. They, after all, are not criminals.

It takes but a vote and a stroke of the pen, or the mistake of a policeman and the zealousness of a DA, to make any man into a criminal.

Those who advocate draconian punishments should reflect upon what power they are giving to government, and ask themselves what evidence they have for their faith that government will not, sooner or later, abuse that power.

They might also ask if there is evidence that the increased punishment will treat the problem.

Autolycus
October 17, 2006, 07:50 AM
All this will do is demonize guns. People will think that if you have a gun and commit a crime your even worse then someone who uses a knife. Basically enforce the rules we have on the books and make them serve the punishment for each criminal offense. Example murder with a stolen handgun. Charge them for the gun, for illegally carrying the gun, for the theft of the gun, for the murder, etc.

This way you dont demonize guns. All they are doing with this use a gun serve 10 is demonizing guns.

Kentak
October 17, 2006, 08:09 AM
It is an article of faith among those who desire draconian punishment that the punishment will never apply to them.

Excellent point. We assume these zero tolerance "crime with a gun" type laws are going to be used only against people committing clear cut acts of criminal violence, e.g., armed robbery. They could just as easily be used by a zealous prosecutor against someone who uses a firearm in a self-defense situation where the justification might be in a legally gray area--enough to bring charges. The devil is in the details of how these laws are worded.

K

Standing Wolf
October 17, 2006, 08:14 AM
Instead of specifying long prison sentences for criminals who commit crimes with guns, I think we should specify them for criminals who commit crimes with lethal weapons. The rapist who shows up with a knife is no different from the one who shows up with a gun.

Lonestar
October 17, 2006, 08:19 AM
Sounds good to me. Criminals would avoid using guns to avoid stiff jail time. Now they got to loosen the carry laws for honestly citizens so that we finally have the upper hand.

armedpolak
October 17, 2006, 09:39 AM
Putting everything that was said in this thread aside...

Since when legislature dictates punishments? Wasn't it the job of the judiciary? If that was a federal law, it would (should) be unconstitutional, since congres, in theory, has the power to pass laws dealing with state comerce and foreign policy, aka 10th amendment grants all other powers to states and the people, not feds.

Seams like not much faith is put in judges' rullings anymore. Mandatory sentencing is a horrible thing in my opinion, BUT so are lenient judges!

Gunfire
October 17, 2006, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Standing Wolf
Instead of specifying long prison sentences for criminals who commit crimes with guns, I think we should specify them for criminals who commit crimes with lethal weapons. The rapist who shows up with a knife is no different from the one who shows up with a gun.

Don't get me wrong but I'm all for punishing criminals but how can you justify sending a 18 y/o first time offender to prison for a mandatory 10 years? These laws don't specify that there had to be intent to use the firearms. In your scenerio, it could be a shoplifter (over $300 is a felony?) or a bad check writer that has always carried his grandaddy's pocket knife. or the kid busted with drugs (1 ounce of cannabus or any amount of any other drug is a felony). Go ahead send them to prison for 10 years because you're frustrated and don't want to deal with it anymore. What are you going to have when they get out after living 10 years with more criminals, real bad criminals? You're going to have a big circle jerk. A insatiable prison industrial complex that will steal any that were salvagible and throw them to the dogs.

Btw, I have a beautiful tropical island that I will sell cheap to whoever thinks that the rich, famous or politically connected sons and daughters will even see a day in prison from these bs laws just like the military draft works.

Gunfire
October 17, 2006, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by armedpolak
Question Violation of check's and balances ?!?!?

Good point. It's state law though so would that be applicable?

Lonestar
October 17, 2006, 09:52 AM
Gunfire...I agree it should only apply to violent crime. I think this is why the sheriff's kid was let off easy. If I commit some white collar crime or some other non violent felony and when they pick me up I'm legally carrying a firearm, I should not have to do 10 years.

armedpolak
October 17, 2006, 09:54 AM
depending on how the state's constitution is drafted, which provides the framework for state branches etc. unfortunatelly states' constitutions don't have to resamble US constitution, as long as they are not in violation (in theory)... US constitution is an umbrela of god given rights, among other things, so it still amazes me how some states (NY) have nothing in their constitution as far as guns go, YET at the same time have strict gun control. 10th amendments gives powers to states and people (if those powers are not given to congres or EXPLICITLY stated as obvious and present in ALL states, aka 2A and the bill of rights). to put it another way, in every state a citizen MUST have a fair and speedy trial, because it is in the bill or rights, or in any state unreasonable search and seasure MAY NOT occur, so how in the hell some states can impose stricter gun laws, as in stripped down version of "keep and bear arms". does that mean that a state has the right to search you, seaze your property, or hold you without trial for months/years?

Zen21Tao
October 17, 2006, 10:22 AM
I agree with the 10-20-Life law. A major argument of the pro-gun side is that the criminal should be prossecuted not the gun. We complain that libs let criminals out early and off easy enabling them to offend again. Then when they use a gun to offend again, the same libs cry out for more gun laws. Well, 10-20-Life accomplishes what we pro-gunners say we want. It puts the criminals away without penalizing law abiding citizes. Yes, there will be some mistakes with the application of law but that is to excpected with ANY law. Weak laws are going to let some really bad guys out too early and strict laws are going to over punish some that we feel don't deserve it. However, if we use these mistakes as an excuse to argue against sticter sentencing guidelines, then we need to find a new pro-gun argument and stop calling for stricter sentences for criminals.

NoPhilly
October 17, 2006, 10:26 AM
orangelo: Philadelphia is not a "gun control utopia"

We have every right that the rest of the state of Pennsylvania does, except for the Philly PD's involvement in issuing CCW permits.

hammer4nc
October 17, 2006, 11:10 AM
I'm suspicious of any law that comes with a marketing slogan attached. Esp. those laws that mandate long sentences, with no discretion. Many of these criminalize guns in some way ("don't lie for the other guy" sound familiar?) Anyone care to do a cost/benefit analysis on that one?

For those who complain about criminals with long rap sheets being set free for garden variety crimes like theft and assault, why do you think that is? Not because of liberal judges. Incarceration rates are at an all-time high because of these no-discretion laws. Jails can't be built fast enough. Not a few are under restrictions for overcrowding and one must be released if another one is to be sentenced.

Here's a suggestion, how about we roll back the criminal statutes to about ca. 1900?

JohnBT
October 17, 2006, 11:54 AM
"Because of this "Mandatory" law he should go to prison for 10 years but he wasn't even charged for a month and he probably won't go to prison for 10 years because of who his dad is."

But does the law say any felony or does it have to be a specific felony? The following statement on the Department of Corrections site says "a felon who used a gun to commit a crime like armed robbery would face at least 10 years"

_____________________________________________________________

"During his campaign for Governor in 1998, Jeb Bush proposed the toughest gun-crime law in the nation: 10-20-Life. Under 10-20-Life, a felon who used a gun to commit a crime like armed robbery would face at least 10 years in state prison. If he shot the gun, 10-20-Life increased the mandatory prison penalty to 20 years. If the armed robber shot someone, the Governor's proposed 10-20-Life law increased the mandatory prison sentence to 25 years-to-life. In addition, the Governor's proposal created a new mandatory 3-year prison term for any felon who even possessed a gun, regardless whether the felon used the gun during a crime.

In 1999, Governor Bush and the Legislature enacted Florida's 10-20-Life law. In addition, the Governor's office began a continuing public-service announcement campaign to warn would-be criminals of the severe penalties for using a gun in Florida: "Use a gun, and you're done.""

- www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/10-20-life

MechAg94
October 17, 2006, 12:02 PM
Discretion is why many of these type laws are inacted. Judges, lawyers, and parole boards always find some reason for not making a violent criminal serve a proper term. Same with 3 strikes laws. People got sick of repeat criminals so they told the judiciary that they had to put them in prison. If prosecutors and judges get their job done properly a lot of that stuff is unnecessary.

I don't have a problem looking at why some crimes are felonies and changing them. That is another issue though and I don't see anyone talking about that except for the legalize drugs crowd.
There are also problems in some areas of prosecutors being understaffed and underfunded and plea bargaining too many cases.

Gunfire
October 17, 2006, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by JohnBT

But does the law say any felony or does it have to be a specific felony?

You're right. I thought it was any felony but it specifically says which ones apply and they are the bad ones. It also specifies trafficking drugs not just felony drug possession. I thought it was similar to the 3 strikes laws where they don't have to be violent felonies. Sorry.

I cook my crow well done so eating it is at least tolerable. I shall go stand in the corner. :D

ceetee
October 17, 2006, 01:57 PM
The only problem I have with the 10-20-Life law is one that I have no way of proving... It seems to me that since that law was passed, criminals have a lot less reservations about killing their victims. It's as if the risks of allowing a witness to survive outweigh the punishments for shooting the victim.

I could be wrong.

If you enjoyed reading about "Use a Gun and You’re Done. (Nov 2001)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!