Do you support a penalty enhancement for people that steal guns?

[Jim March]

Folks: let's say a bill comes along that adds a 2 year penalty enhancement for anybody caught doing burglary who also steals a gun.

Are you for or against?

This is NOT a theoretical discussion - I'm now a paid lobbyist for CCRKBA, remember? This concept is part of a bill in Calif right now. Before supporting it we'd need some really bad bits stripped out but I want to know what y'all think of penalty enhancements if it wasn't connected to any other issue (good or bad).

NOTE: the question might come down to "do this, or have to face nastier in-home locks/safes requirements", esp. here in California. Keep that in mind.

That said, I really want to know any DOWNSIDES to a gun theft penalty enhancement law, as you guys see it. OR if there's massive support, I need to know that too.

 

[rich2u]

If I'm not mistaken doesn't Alaska do that. I think its 5 yrs if you use a weapon in the commision of a crime.

But yeah I would be all for it. As long as it was a felony & not some chickensh_t misdeameanor.

 

[Reno]

I can see an issue if they aren't very, very explicit about what would cause this penalty to be tacked on.

Say someone is forced to defend themselves, and shoots an attacker. He or she then picks up the gun that the thug was carrying. Some anti-rights DA decides to prosecute that person for "stealing" the gun from the thug.

You are talking about CA afterall.

 

[Jim March]

Rich2u: this isn't about "using" guns in crime. It's specifically about STEALING guns. It would even affect cases where the gun theft was committed by an unarmed thief.

The point here is to allow politicians to be seen as "doing something" about the theft of guns (which then flow into street crime, etc.).

The alternative they'll come up with is to require us gunnies to lock 'em away where they'll be damned difficult to get to when needed RIGHT NOW.

Reno: GOOD point. A quick clause like "this will not be invoked in cases where somebody takes a gun away from a criminal assailant" should do. Thank you, that's exactly the kind of extra detail I was hoping for.

All: assume for now that we get such a clause put in, base your vote on that.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Theft is theft is theft.

Additional convolutions of the law like this do nothing to decrease crime, and only add to the already huge morass of laws.

Treating guns as something especially dangerous when stolen also undercuts our argument that knives, cars and five-gallon buckets are deadly, too.

 

[artherd]

Sure, I support it. BUT: We already have enhancements for commiting a felony in which a gun was used, or even on the person.

Isn't breaking and entering, and commiting grand theft, already a felony?

What then exactly does this new bill do?




Could we add guns to a list of 'potential weapons' or the like? (To include chainsaws, baseball bats, cars, corwbars, scisors, knives, etc?)


I would only want to trade this for adopting the federal AWB however. Let's use it as some leverage.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

PUNISH THE CRIME!!! IF I STEAL, THEN I STOLE.

 

[Jim March]

Hmmm.

Trouble is, guns ARE being stolen. And then used for ill.

It'll always happen, and such issues don't negatively counter-act the positives from private gun ownership, indivdually or for society as a whole. Y'all know that, I know that.

The California legislature doesn't.

Maybe we can trade it for something though. Need to think about that. Mixing it in with AB2218 (La Suer's AW improvement bill) has merit, depending of course on what the next draft looks like.

For now, comments and voting on the core concept welcome.

 

[gunsmith]

better then

some kind of dumb DC law where it has to be stored disassembled,or more permits like NY.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

I guess I still don't get it. Is a crook going to take the silver, but leave the Glock because two more years puts him over the line into a sentence he can't handle?

Since it only affects criminals, I see no direct harm from using this somewhat silly proposition as a bargaining chip, but I don't think it has any real merit in its own right.

Also, I have a nonspecific niggling worry that somehow it can be used against us...

 

[artherd]

I still don't see anything indicating we don't already have this. So putting it in again with wording more specifically focused on theft shouldn't be anything really.

Definately like the idea of using it as a bargianing chip. On another note, anything new in AB2218? (this likely needs it's own thread.)

 

[Hal]

Trouble is, guns ARE being stolen. And then used for ill.

Then punish them for the crime (ill) they commit if and when they commit it.
Assuming someone that steals a gun is going to use it to commit a crime, is really nothing short of charging and convicting them of a crime they haven't committed.

 

[Wiley]

No.

As with all 'mandatory sentencing' or 'zero tollerance' the human element of justice is removed. I am against all such laws.

 

[SapperLeader]

No, Im usually against anything with mandatory sentencing. A crime is is still a crime, if they stole a butchers knife or a handgun. If the criminal is already planning on killing someone, why will they care if two years gets tacked onto thier sentence.

 

[RealGun]

As long as it's a trade off for banning guns or their manufacture and distribution as a means of keeping them out of the hands of criminals. If it's just one more regulation, to hell with it. I would rather focus on basics, like where is the 2A when you need it?

 

[mercedesrules]

No. A gun is just a tool - like a hammer. Merely a piece of property. Keeping them "out of the wrong hands" is a utopian goal and will only lead to more oppression.

Eventually, when every infraction is a felony, only the state will be armed.

MR

 

[Soap]

I would say no. That just plays into the anti's hands because it further demonizes firearms. That somehow stealing a firearm is more vile than stealing a truck full of fertilizer. I would agree that people don't steal firearms to do some peaceful shooting at the range. But punish the crime of thievery as the crime of thievery. The object being stolen should not matter.

 

[joab]

I always thought that one of the main premises of our argument was that a gun is just an inanimate object.
I would fully support any law that substanially raised the penalty for using a gun or any weapon in the commision of a premeditated violent crime

A few months ago my father's house was burglerized they stole his stereo, computer and a CZ70 that I had given him. As soon as they stole his gun the crime was upgraded to armed burglery (or something like that) I fully support that kind of legislation.

 

[Art Eatman]

As an added punishment, I don't see any utility. I'm in accord with Matt Payne.

Since it's California and its legislature, I see it as a possible bargaining chip against some really-foolish proposed law. A psychology thing: "Look, penalizing extra for using a gun helps, so penalizing extra for stealing a gun would help." When you're dealing with slimy Doofi, anything that helps our side is moral.

Pardon my cynicism...

Art

 

[RealGun]

It does kind of underline the argument that guns should be banned, because thieves might steal them. Any angle they can think of, they'll try. Every new inroad must give something back in return.

 

[labgrade]

Work Kali politics as you see fit, but nope.

Stealing a gun, using a gun in a criminal enterprise shouldn't have any extra added penalities over & above the actual crime committed.

Tacking on The Gun-thing! only furthers the thought that somehow guns are worse than being kicked to death.

We strive to imply that firearms are merely tools, but still somehow fail to reflect that when considering punishing others for how they misuse them.

Dead is dead, & theft is theft, be it your credit identity, or your Glock.

I see no reason to add an extra penalty because a firearm was used. The crime itself should be dealt with.

 

[The_Antibubba]

What if?

What are the parameters of the definition of "stolen"?

Let's say I'm out of state, and I purchase a weapon from a private owner (NOTE TO NON-PRK READERS: Private sales are illiegal in PRK ), and when I come back and register(if it's a handgun ), it turns out to be stolen? Will someone try to prosecute me? Or worse, it is a long gun, which isn't registered, and I used it to defend my home. Will the fact that a previous possessor stole it be added to the charges?

 

[jnojr]

Maybe we can trade it for something though. Need to think about that. Mixing it in with AB2218 (La Suer's AW improvement bill) has merit, depending of course on what the next draft looks like.

Heh... that's exactly what I thought when I saw this thread... That, and something about "further regulating high-capacity assault weapons" (yeah, I know, makes me wanna puke) might make it tough for the liberals to vote against 2218. If, like Jim says, it stays "clean". And we can keep other, bad attachments away from it.

 

[romulus]

I guess I'm old fashioned enough to believe the law has more than just deterrent value or punitive value, it also has pedagogic value. A law that tacks on extra time for the stealing of a gun teaches the importance we place on firearms as instruments of survival, of defense of self, family, community, and nation. By stealing a firearm you are committing more than property theft. You are depriving a person of the means to execute a sacred obligation. You deserve more time.

Kinda like hanging horse thieves in an era when horses were as essential property as the roof over your head.

 

[Jim March]

Artherd: I dunno why this is unclear yet, but this is NOT another "USE a gun in a crime to threaten somebody, go byebye". Those statutes don't apply when you STEAL a gun and there's nobody around to threaten.

This is about stealing the gun.

The_Antibubba: As the current version is written, it's NOT about having a stolen gun in possession. THAT is a whole 'nuther can o' worms. Law enforcement records on such are so bad that it's possible to buy a previously stolen gun at a dealer, in a situation where it's not his fault either.

Any attempt to steer it that way, and we'd make sure that "proving intent" is a requirement to the charge.

(Sidenote: generally, "intent" is a factor in criminal law. In *California*, if we're talking gun laws, the courts have been ruling that because guns are so "inherently dangerous", a very "strict" level of legal responsibility to know gun laws is required, and "intent" as a required element of the crime has basically vanished . So ALL new gun laws of any sort (good OR bad) must, at a minimum, have the "intent issue" sorted out ahead of time.)