I'm still pre-coffee this morning, so please bear with me.
HammsBeer said:
1) Convicted of a violent felony? No plea deals.
This sounds good as a campaign promise, but it's awful in practice. First of all, plea deals typically result in conviction, not after a trial. "In exchange for a plea of guilty, the State recommends . . . " From the prosecutor's perspective, there's no reason to bargain on sentencing if the defendant makes you go to trial and you beat him.
Second, as a practical matter, "no plea deals" means:
1) Every violent felony MUST go to trial, even when the defendant WANTS to plead out; and
2) Some cases that would otherwise plead out will result in acquittals.
Please bear with me through a hypothetical example: Police are called to a domestic disturbance. Mildred Methhead has called the police and said that her husband, Mike, is beating her again. Mike is a convicted felon. By the time police get there, Mike is gone. Mildred says that he's driving an El Camino he borrowed from his brother. Mildred describes the pistol that she says he threatened her with. Police run ol' Mike through NCIC & discover that he's got a suspended license, like always. They locate the El Camino, and make a traffic stop, where they find Mike and his brother. A search of the car turns up the pistol in the console. Mike ends up with the following charges
- Felony Assault;
- Felony, 1st Degree;
- Felon in Possession of a firearm; and
- Driving on a Suspended License, 19th offense.
The prosecutor gets the file and reviews it. Mildred chooses to stand by her man and refuses to cooperate (which is surprisingly common). The odds of winning at trial on Counts 1 and 2 drop dramatically. Count 3 is in trouble because it's the brother's car and the handgun was in the console. So the prosecutor is left with Driving on a Suspended DL. Mike might, MIGHT get 6 months in jail. The practical reality is that he'll get 3 months and the jail will give him 2 for 1, and he'll get credit for time served in 6 weeks. If overcrowding at the jail is really bad, he'll be home before the prosecutor will.
Alternatively, if the prosecutor is allowed to deal, he (or she) might be able to make some hay with having ol' Mikey plead to the FIP in exchange for dropping the Counts 1 and 2. In terms of the "long view," getting Mike to plead to the FIP (or perhaps Count 2, in exchange for dropping Count 1), sets Mike up to take him off the streets for a longer term down the road. It sets him up so that a prosecutor can argue, "Judge, he's been convicted or plead on dates X, Y, and Z. Clearly, the last sentences didn't keep him from beating up poor Mildred. Please max him out this time."
I've allowed a DWI #3 to plead out as a DWI #2 for a similar reason: DWI #4 in a 5-year period is a felony here. I know that for charging purposes, the prosecutor's office doesn't care whether the prior convictions are called "DWI 1, 2 and 3," or "DWI 1, 2, and 2." The defendant took the deal and less than 3 months later, was charged with DWI #4, a felony.
HammsBeer said:
Mandatory sentence to hard labor doing something useful instead of sitting around in prison all day. Make it so absolutely miserable to be locked up instead of a temporary inconvenience.
I don't disagree with you on this one.
HammsBeer said:
2) Crack down and convict falsifying a 4473, felon gun possession, and straw buyers that are used by gangs to acquire guns.
Or this one.
HammsBeer said:
3) Toll free line to voluntarily perform an instant felony/domestic abuse/mental health risk/restraining order check for private sales. No gun information required and probably more reliable than your "gut instinct" about a total stranger.
This has huge potential to become an instant background check for everything: employers, neighbors, my daughter's potential suitors, her teachers, etc. That's problematic.
I have some concerns about the felony/domestic/restraining order part, but those are public records. I'm very concerned about opening up mental health records to a toll-free line. I'm also concerned about the cost, staffing, reporting, etc. Reporting to NICS isn't very consistent now, so maybe we should work on that before opening records to the public.
HammsBeer said:
4) Make a real effort to improve the schools and job opportunities in poor neighborhoods and emphasize good father role models. Too many poor young men today are brought up by gang father figures.
While I don't disagree with you in principle, there are already TONS of these kinds of programs in place. In spite of them, we're seeing 2nd generation gangs in our city. We've got real problems in poor neighborhoods, and we do need these programs, but it's not like we (as a society) aren't already working on those.
HammsBeer said:
5) Encourage more elementary schools to have neutral education about gun safety and what children should do if they find a gun. No political or "demonizing the gun" slant, just safety focused.
No argument here.
HammsBeer said:
6) Open a path to retain gun rights if a person seeks help for depression or other mental health issues and is cleared and no longer at risk. A gun owner fighting depression may get the help he needs instead of fearing losing his rights for life and ignores his inner issues.
I agree with you, in principle, but . . . The law currently requires "adjudication" before 2A rights are removed. Even voluntary commitment doesn't strip one of 2A rights, at least under federal law. State law, obviously, varies.
HammsBeer said:
7) Pressure media to stop glorifying mass shooters. It just encourages more disenfranchised individuals to lash out.
Agreed, and absolutely.
HammsBeer said:
8) Encourage families or relatives to guide an unstable family member to professional affordable help without judgement. Many don't want to think of their loved one as unstable and the associated stigma that comes with it.
I'd agree that nobody wants to think of a loved one as unstable, but the problem may be "professional, affordable help."
HammsBeer said:
9) Push all states to have shall issue carry rights and better reciprocity between states.
Eight words for ya: Interstate Compact on the Carrying of Concealed Handguns. As much as I like this idea, I don't see how it addresses the concerns you raised in the OP.
HammsBeer said:
10) Enact and enforce state gun law preemption; no local city ordinances nullifying state law.
I like it, but I don't see how it addresses any of the concerns you raised in the OP.
HammsBeer said:
11) Roll out an enhanced nationally recognized carry permit valid in sensitive areas for those who have completed an advanced standardized situational training and marksmanship course.
Nationally recognized enhanced carry permit . . . . this sure does sound federal. I don't want the federal gov't any more involved in concealed handguns and licensing than it absolutely HAS to be. That's a whole other discussion that I'm more than happy to have, but it's off-topic for this thread.
HammsBeer said:
12) Ban gun free zones in all public and government buildings. Private institutions can retain the right to ban guns if so desired, but encourage them not to.
No, there's a few government buildings where firearms really should be banned. The Varner Supermax prison unit comes to mind.
HammsBeer said:
13) Severe punishment for both gun owner and minor if a minor gains uncontrolled access to a gun. Teens don't exactly make smart choices, some parents aren't much better.
I'm going to assume that you actually mean "gains uncontrolled access to a gun
and does something bad with it."
Effectively mandating "safe storage?" How do you plan to enforce this? Random home searches? I've got a small (A4) problem with that. Besides, the gun community has consistently argued against making one person responsible for the actions of another. Why change this? The parents aren't liable if the teen drives a car into a crowd and kills a few people (absent negligent entrustment or some such).
HammsBeer said:
14) Legislators charged with making public policy concerning firearms must have mandatory education about firearms and ammunition ballistics.
Education = good. Mandating it, I'm not so sure about. Next thing you know, the broccoli industry will be clamoring to make every legislator who wants to legislate on broccoli have mandatory education about it. Nobody has time to be an expert on everything and that's why legislators have committees and hire experts to tell them about things.