A gun law that actually makes sense
- Thread starter JDoe
- Start date
- Status
El Tejon
Member
Mopes! Good to see some cop terms are universal.
musher
Member
If by illegal possession one means simple possession without the blessing of the law and in conjunction with no other crime, then NO, I would not like to see this in more places.
I think it is mostly felon in possession kind of stuff. A good idea IMHO. Locking up criminals is always a good thing. Its pretty easy to prove a felon had a gun in his possession. Not always so easy to prove he committed some other crime.
Drgong
Member
It is a good idea, of course some will feel that its wrong that felons are not allowed to legally own a gun.
And they are entitled to ask congress and the 50 states to change that. Maybe a nice online petition. Or perhaps they can go around their neighborhood seeking signatures on a regular petition asking that felons be allowed to have guns.
bogie
Member
A lot of times, I think the "felon in possession" gets ignored when they prosecute (and plea...) other charges...
We've got over 20,000 gun laws on the books. More isn't the answer. Common sense enforcement is.
We've got over 20,000 gun laws on the books. More isn't the answer. Common sense enforcement is.
ZeSpectre
Member
Why, shouldn't breaking the law be reason enough for punishment in the first place? Do we plan to make things "double illegal"?
this simply leads to more "worry about the tools not the criminals".
Obviously a bunch of people don't agree with me on this. Let me provide two items to tickle the intellect.
First, logic would dictate the only rights the government can deny to any person are those it grants. The second amendment, I believe, is not a grant by the government of the right, but an acknowledgment of the right.
Second, the same logic we regularly use to decry gun control for citizens in good standing applies to felons as well. Those up to no good don't obey laws. Therefore restricting a felon from owning a gun will only server to endanger those who are trying to live a better life.
Let's not continue to criminalize actions without a victim.
First, logic would dictate the only rights the government can deny to any person are those it grants. The second amendment, I believe, is not a grant by the government of the right, but an acknowledgment of the right.
Second, the same logic we regularly use to decry gun control for citizens in good standing applies to felons as well. Those up to no good don't obey laws. Therefore restricting a felon from owning a gun will only server to endanger those who are trying to live a better life.
Let's not continue to criminalize actions without a victim.
it's a great thing. They are treating felonies as actual felonies -- something rarely seen nowadays if the perp gets a lawyer and a nice haircut. I'll leave the felons with guns part for a different thread, but the point is that they are cracking down on the 'mopes' who keep robbing and pointing guns at people.
TallPine
Member
Oh, well ....
I was hoping to see a gun law that required all adults to carry a gun to protect themselves when out in public.
I was hoping to see a gun law that required all adults to carry a gun to protect themselves when out in public.
El Tejon
Member
Gee, sorry to get you overstimulated Boston T. Party.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
part of the effectiveness of exile is that you go to federal court then the federal pen . hard for mom to visit outa state. its funny they had a case where they got a car full of dope with a gun in it. one of the guys in car was adamant in his ple. he would cop to the dope but the gun wasn't his. also costs them more to go to federal court. i've noy known of anyone charged in exile that wasn't alsoguilty of a related offense
pbearperry
Member
Nah, that will never work in Massacrapsetts.
32winspl
Member
Zespectre, we already have "Double Illegal" on the books. The "Hate-Crimes" enhancer, for example. "Murder" is already illegal. But have 2 "Straight-Haters" kill a gay and it becomes even more illegal... or a white kill a black (and supposedly vice-versa). "More illegal" already exists.
TexKettering
Member
Would be a pretty crappy law, IMO.
CountGlockula
Member
This article should be forwarded to everyone in the state!
jakemccoy
Member
I whole-heartedly disagree with the gun law. Gun problems in the USA stem from lack of gun education and lack of enforcement of current gun laws. We do not need anymore gun laws anywhere, unless they provide more freedom.
Be careful what you wish for. As one of many examples, realize that your self-defense shooting may interpreted as a "gun crime" by an overzealous DA with an agenda. I'm sure this law will swiftly apply to anybody who gets caught using their firearm for anything other than shooting at the range - your concealed gun that is briefly not concealed; your handgun that you accidentally stored the wrong way in your car; etc.
Provide a link please.
Be careful what you wish for. As one of many examples, realize that your self-defense shooting may interpreted as a "gun crime" by an overzealous DA with an agenda. I'm sure this law will swiftly apply to anybody who gets caught using their firearm for anything other than shooting at the range - your concealed gun that is briefly not concealed; your handgun that you accidentally stored the wrong way in your car; etc.
ilbob said:
Provide a link please.
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Member
Just a clarification.
This is NOT a new law. Felons are ALREADY prohibited from possessing a firearms anywhere in the US. The "project exile" is simple a program where VA in 100% of cases will turn over the possession charge to the feds.
Since federal law has a minimum sentence of 5 years it acts as a sentence modifier. It also results in a lot of felons getting locked up in federal prison even when they beat their current charge.
Example: Bill Gangbanger gets (with prior violent felony) gets busted for robbery. In his possession is a firearm (illegal under federal law since he is prior felon). VA prosecutes him on the robbery. Lets say the case tanks and he walks. He still faces trial, conviction, and 5 years in federal pen for illegal possession.
Just to be 100% clear. This is no a new law. It is simply a program, and understanding between local DA and the feds that every single felon with an illegal possession charge will be handed over to the feds. Local DA can plea down any other charges but the gun possession is out of their hands and will 100% of the time go to federal court.
Why they don't do this everywhere in the country I have no idea. We don't need to write more laws just use the existing ones.
To those worried about a local DA hitting a homeowner in a SD situation with project exile I think it is unlikely. The program is limited to:
* person with a prior conviction for a violent felony and are convicted of possessing a firearm;
* person convicted of possessing a firearm on school property with the intent to use it, or displaying it in a threatening manner;
* person 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.
This is NOT a new law. Felons are ALREADY prohibited from possessing a firearms anywhere in the US. The "project exile" is simple a program where VA in 100% of cases will turn over the possession charge to the feds.
Since federal law has a minimum sentence of 5 years it acts as a sentence modifier. It also results in a lot of felons getting locked up in federal prison even when they beat their current charge.
Example: Bill Gangbanger gets (with prior violent felony) gets busted for robbery. In his possession is a firearm (illegal under federal law since he is prior felon). VA prosecutes him on the robbery. Lets say the case tanks and he walks. He still faces trial, conviction, and 5 years in federal pen for illegal possession.
Just to be 100% clear. This is no a new law. It is simply a program, and understanding between local DA and the feds that every single felon with an illegal possession charge will be handed over to the feds. Local DA can plea down any other charges but the gun possession is out of their hands and will 100% of the time go to federal court.
Why they don't do this everywhere in the country I have no idea. We don't need to write more laws just use the existing ones.
To those worried about a local DA hitting a homeowner in a SD situation with project exile I think it is unlikely. The program is limited to:
* person with a prior conviction for a violent felony and are convicted of possessing a firearm;
* person convicted of possessing a firearm on school property with the intent to use it, or displaying it in a threatening manner;
* person 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.
jakemccoy
Member
Everybody thinks the muzzle is always pointed safely in the other direction.
Think about the problem with that one. I'll explain if necessary.
Anyway, please provide a link to your information.
Happiness said:
Think about the problem with that one. I'll explain if necessary.
Anyway, please provide a link to your information.
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Member
The scope of project exile (which is now Virginia Exile because it is statewide) is limited to the bullets I posted above.
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/exile/index.cfm
You do understand this in VA right? A state with rather liberal gun laws (no registration, no license, no restrictions on weapon types or magazines, no waiting periods, shall issue CHP, etc). I do not recall a single instance of someone in the dire scenarios you listed above being prosecuted under Virgina Exile. It has however put away couple hundred violent felons away for an extra 5 years. If there was an instance of it being misused I am sure the VCDL would have said something in their newsletter.
Of course I find it somewhat ironic that someone living in CA with its oppressive gun restrictions believes letting law abiding citizens have access to weapons while locking up violent felons who illegally posses guns is a bad idea.
jakemccoy
Member
Even the bullets have problems.
By that comment, you discredited just about everything you're saying. Well, it could have been a good conversation.
Happiness said:
By that comment, you discredited just about everything you're saying. Well, it could have been a good conversation.
Crimes created to punish the item rather than an offense that an item is used in do not make good sense.
Supporting people being treated more harshly for minor offenses if related to firearms is not good.
Someone makes a mistake transporting, serious punishment? Someone carries without a government pre approved license and tax payment, serious punishment?
Someone even having a firearm in a state that requires registration, annualy renewed license just to legal possess who doesn't have that license or lets it lapse, serious punishment?
Someone keeps thier firearm actualy assembled in a place that by law requires they are disassembled, serious punishment?
Someone brandishes a firearm to stop a threat, and the authorities feel the brandishing was unnecessary, extra punishment because a firearm was involved?
I am all for punishing the crime, as long as the offense and the crime are the same for all items. Any time it is a special 'gun crime' or has an enhancement that relates to a firearm then it is demonizing and targeting firearms.
If the offense or the sentence is different because it was a firearm rather than something else used, then it only encourages the mindset that guns are a bigger problem, and that guns are bad.
Imagine you defend yourself from an attack with a firearm. Now imagine things do not work out perfectly for you in court, whether shots were fired or not, whether someone was injured or a death occured or not. Just imagine you don't get the ideal outcome. Should you face multiple enhancements and additional charges because a firearm was involved instead of another item?
Should someone like Bernhard Goetz have faced multiple additional enhancements and charges because he used an illegaly possessed firearm? Should have have ended up with a 20+ year sentence because he technicaly commited a crime involving a firearm, and individuals were injured as a result?
Why do you think the Brady individuals support such things?
They want any violation of any possible law they are able to lobby for passage to carry hefty punishments.
It looks like the Democrats are going to be in power in the house, the senate, and maybe the president soon.
So you support serious punishments for violation any legislation the Bradys are able to pass in that environment?
Gun owners are often thier own worst enemy.
Supporting people being treated more harshly for minor offenses if related to firearms is not good.
Someone makes a mistake transporting, serious punishment? Someone carries without a government pre approved license and tax payment, serious punishment?
Someone even having a firearm in a state that requires registration, annualy renewed license just to legal possess who doesn't have that license or lets it lapse, serious punishment?
Someone keeps thier firearm actualy assembled in a place that by law requires they are disassembled, serious punishment?
Someone brandishes a firearm to stop a threat, and the authorities feel the brandishing was unnecessary, extra punishment because a firearm was involved?
I am all for punishing the crime, as long as the offense and the crime are the same for all items. Any time it is a special 'gun crime' or has an enhancement that relates to a firearm then it is demonizing and targeting firearms.
If the offense or the sentence is different because it was a firearm rather than something else used, then it only encourages the mindset that guns are a bigger problem, and that guns are bad.
Imagine you defend yourself from an attack with a firearm. Now imagine things do not work out perfectly for you in court, whether shots were fired or not, whether someone was injured or a death occured or not. Just imagine you don't get the ideal outcome. Should you face multiple enhancements and additional charges because a firearm was involved instead of another item?
Should someone like Bernhard Goetz have faced multiple additional enhancements and charges because he used an illegaly possessed firearm? Should have have ended up with a 20+ year sentence because he technicaly commited a crime involving a firearm, and individuals were injured as a result?
Why do you think the Brady individuals support such things?
They want any violation of any possible law they are able to lobby for passage to carry hefty punishments.
It looks like the Democrats are going to be in power in the house, the senate, and maybe the president soon.
So you support serious punishments for violation any legislation the Bradys are able to pass in that environment?
Gun owners are often thier own worst enemy.
SCKimberFan
Member
"It has done so not by making gun purchases more difficult -- Virginia is one of the easiest places to legally buy a handgun -- but by severely punishing all gun crimes, including those as minor as illegal possession."
This was the best line in the article.
This was the best line in the article.
- Status
