blackcash88
member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 885
Nah, that will never work in Massacrapsetts.
Coming from a neighbor in Connecticut, I like Massapoosh^tts.
Nah, that will never work in Massacrapsetts.
Crimes created to punish the item rather than an offense that an item is used in do not make good sense.
It is already a federal felony for a felon to possess a weapon. Everyday hundreds of felons are arrested with a firearm in their possession. Very few of them ever get prosecuted in federal court. Why not keep violent felons locked away for an extra 5 years?
Maybe they will not use a firearm next time. Maybe they will but if they do then they get an extra 5 years in fed prison (on top of their existing charge).
I don't agree. The Fourth Amendment specifically protects "houses, papers and effects". That's pretty specific. Technically, the Constitution includes the right to "bear arms", the reference is not quite so specifically "firearms" as you would suggest.The only item specificly protected in the entire Bill of Rights by name is in reference to firearms.
Yet the arms referenced in the discussions are predominantly firearms, and every terrible instrument of the soldier. That is what is meant when speaking of arms.I don't agree. The Fourth Amendment specifically protects "houses, papers and effects". That's pretty specific. Technically, the Constitution includes the right to "bear arms", the reference is not quite so specifically "firearms" as you would suggest.
I certainly believe violent individuals commiting violent crimes should be punished harshly for the criminal predatory behavior.Violent persons using deadly weapons (not just guns, ALL deadly weapons) should be dealt with more harshly than others, as long as due process has been fully applied
bigjohnson said:Jake & Zoogster... So you think it's okay for a convicted gang-banger or armed robber to walk around with a pistol in his pocket?
Again, we have here some people who think the muzzle will always be pointed safely away from them. It's sad to see when basically good people have the law all of a sudden pointing directly at them with ferocity and indiscriminately.
I'll have to agree with Zoogster, there's no reason to make special enhancements specifically for firearms. There are already enhancements in the books for use when a criminal uses a weapon generally.
WRONG. The scope is very limited. It is not a NEW LAW. It enforces an existing law that has been on the books for 40+ years. The programs has been around 10+ years. The scope hasn't changed in the slightest since day one.They are about giving more tools to government to combat guns, and anything labeled an offense that involves firearms in aboslutely any way
WRONG AGAIN. There is no discretion involved. The statutes are EXISTING FEDERAL statutes. All VA does is hand you off to the feds.They may use thier discretion to target certain things predominantly, but that is what it is, thier discretion.
Do you really believe giving discretion to government to deliver harsh penalties for anything deemed an offense involving a firearm is a good idea?
It should correctly read "by severely punishing all gun crimes, including those as minor as illegal possession by a VIOLENT FELON".Like they say "by severely punishing all gun crimes, including those as minor as illegal possession."
The federal statutes have been around (but rarely enforced) for 40+ years.What new types of firearm offenses do you think will exist in the future, perhaps even simple possession of some increasing types of firearms? Well guess under what statutes enhancements can be added? The very type naive gun owners support now to be 'tough on crime' involving firearms.
THIS IS NOT A NEW LAW.
Well, actually - it sort of is, at least relatively.
Before 1968, released felons could own/possess guns. I can't see that the last 40 years has been all that safer for the average person than all those years before.
Of course option C is in jest but until federal statute is changed VA is not making a new law they are simply enforcing it.
This could sort of be likened to some states that have voted to allow "medical marijuana" but the feds still prosecute for possession. Would you expect that state to turn its citizens over to the feds for somthing that is legal under state law? Virginia has made its choice and can't claim innocence in the matter.
"Virginia Exile is the Commonwealth's tough program which carries bail restrictions and imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in a Virginia prison for those who:
- have a prior conviction for a violent felony and are convicted of possessing a firearm;
- are convicted of possessing a firearm on school property with the intent to use it, or displaying it in a threatening manner;
- are convicted of possessing a firearm and Schedule I or II drugs such as cocaine or heroin, or convicted of possessing more than a pound of marijuana with the intent to sell."