1. Bikerdoc's passing and how you can help

    As many of you know, bikerdoc- AKA Al Spiniello- is no longer with us. There are always extra expenses when someone passes. If you would like to contribute to support his family, please do so here: Bikerdoc GoFundMe page.

    (Note - this notice can be dismissed by clicking on the X in the upper right corner.)
    Dismiss Notice

Project "Grip". Study in regards to firearm violence/suicide. Your input please.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Ralph III, Jan 14, 2021.

  1. illinoisburt

    illinoisburt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,580
    Location:
    Central Alabama -- recently relocated from Chicago
    It's more likely the latter than the former. There is more than just a stigma associated with homicides and suicides, there is also a great deal of religious, financial, and legal ramifications. Unless a specific reason exists to make those classifications such as a criminal trial or garnering a specific benefit, it is usually in both the public and private best interest to leave the cause of death more or less innocuous. Lately I've seen more death certificates listing cause of death as natural and 'failure to thrive' when the family confides otherwise whereas in the past it would be accidental or misadventure.
     
    stillquietvoice and BigBore44 like this.
  2. Ralph III

    Ralph III Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2019
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    Ms/Al Gulf Coast
    Thank you Ohen Cepel, wiscoaster and I6turbo. Guys, I've been shooting for over 50 years and I've witnessed the anti bias sentiment spewed by the left in regards to both guns and hunting as a sport. I'm not naive to what these studies typically attempt to accomplish! This is at least an opportunity to represent legal gun owners and the benefits of such as both recreation and in reducing crime. Consequently, I have some criteria that will have to be met to insure we are represented properly. That is why I am here. I am trying to get you to help me do just that.

    **Ohen Cepel, I agree with everything you stated and that is exactly the type of input that I am looking for!!!! I have the same attitude and I want to insure that I am not alone in this. To much emphasis is placed on the fact someone killed themselves with a firearm and not enough emphasis seems placed on why they chose to kill themselves. So the question is, IS OUR VIEW THE CONSENSUS VIEW HERE?

    I did however come across one website that says international studies have shown that when common lethal means of suicide are removed that the "overall" suicide rate decreases. Because some people may commit suicide on an impulse who otherwise are truly not suicidal. So, if firearms were temporarily removed or locked in your safe in case you have a relative who experienced some traumatic experience; then upon getting over the trauma all is fine so you can go back to your normal routine. I haven't read the entire article or know if it is from a biased stance against guns but the point seems valid? That is what I am asking. Is this a valid study and if so then we should put away our firearms temporarily in such cases. The article can be found HERE under "Evidence-Based Strategies to Address the Problem".

    With exception of focusing on guns as possibly being pointless, the rest of your statement is idiocy, with due respect. How do you or I know the research is "pointless" especially since legal gun owners are being asked to set the agenda in helping form the opinions and findings. If by doing such, we are able to demonstrate that legal gun ownership is a positive toward society and not a negative (as liberals wish to portray) then we and the rest of society benefit. If you don't have anything to contribute then stop posting. Otherwise, if you care to explain WHY focusing most of the attention on the firearm is pointless, which I agree with btw; THEN please explain why and exactly WHAT should be the focus. That is why I am asking. I am not looking for pointless statements.

    **I6turbo. I don't have a problem with people being skeptical. I am skeptical as well because most such studies are typically anti gun biased. However, how many studies have you seen in which gun owners are being asked to take the prominent lead and to shape the findings? We can either participate in getting our voices heard and in getting the truth out or we can sit on our hands and let Joe Biden and Kamala Harris speak for us. I don't think so...

    Trump blew his re-election bid by firing up the liberal base! If he would had toned it all down and instead focused on his accomplishments, he'd still be our president. We had the most pro-life president ever who kept all of his promises which included building the wall and nominating true constitutional justices. Now look what we are stuck with. We also lost the Senate.

    Ralph
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2021
  3. Ohen Cepel
    • Contributing Member

    Ohen Cepel Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,956
    Location:
    Where they tell me to go
    Ralph,
    Regarding your study on the removal of the firearm. I wonder if that isn't the real cause. Classic study done years ago about improving lighting and workplace quality as a method to improve word efficiency. They did NOTHING with the lighting but workers did better just because they were getting some attention and someone cared a bit about them so they were more motivated for a period of time. Could it be someone caring enough and engaging with them was the key regardless of the location of the firearm?

    2nd thing to note is a lot of the suicides are older white males in rural counties. Their messaging will have to reach that crowd which will have to be different and likely not very PC.
     
  4. Fine Figure of a Man

    Fine Figure of a Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,910
    Location:
    Iowa
    Project GRIP Overview

    Mission

    The goal of Project GRIP (Gun-Related Injury Prevention) is to reduce gun-related injuries and deaths, like suicides and homicides. Right now, there is a communication gap between gun owners and users and the people who are working to prevent suicides, homicides and assaults. The Project GRIP research team is working with gun owners and users and people in communities with high rates of violence to better understand people’s attitudes, behaviors and practices around guns. Project GRIP wants to connect everyone's voices to create solutions that work to prevent deaths and save lives.

    This is a lie, the mission is to use taxpayers money to "prove" the need to infringe on their second amendment rights.
     
  5. Ohen Cepel
    • Contributing Member

    Ohen Cepel Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,956
    Location:
    Where they tell me to go
    Given the Mission Statement above they need to go after the 5-10 counties which account for most of the killings/shootings in America. Easy to ID them as that has been done. With African Americans accounting for almost 70% of the shooting victims that should be a clear focus quickly.

    Suicides are lots of old white guys.

    I am also leery about firearms research being used against us. However, they have the $$ and are going to do it no matter.
     
    theotherwaldo likes this.
  6. wiscoaster

    wiscoaster Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2019
    Messages:
    2,651
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Give me a link to the legislation that appropriates the funding and I bet I can show you how it's pointless.
     
  7. Zahn
    • Contributing Member

    Zahn Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2020
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Kansas
    The project title includes "firearm violence". That alone should tell us all what the motives are. That is a ploy to associate firearms with violence, to steer the conversation from the beginning to a specific goal.

    If someone came up to you and started talking about "knife violence" or "shovel violence" or "automotive violence" do you really think the conversation is going to include the positive merits of knives, shovels or cars?
     
  8. J-Bar

    J-Bar Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,945
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    When I read the first post in this discussion I was put off by the lengthy list of "shoulds" the OP created. When someone says "should" they are simply trying to control another person's behavior or choices.

    How about telling those folks conducting the study that gun owners place a high priority on personal freedom? How about telling them that no new gun laws will significantly reduce suicides or accidental injury?

    Why is personal freedom such a hard concept to grasp?
     
  9. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    20,307
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Of course not -- it's the sidewalk that killed him. We need Sidewalk Control!!
     
  10. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,610
    Location:
    Arizona
    All I'd have had to offer would be; Training, Accountability & Responsibility. As those don't figure into; murder, assault & sucide beyond blaming ME if someone gets to one of my guns as a bad-actor.... I see little but quicksand for gun owners in this effort on the grant-holder's and grant-granter's parts.

    Looks like it's set up to mine for data to support bio-metrics, micro-stamping, storage mandates and maybe purchase/ownership controls.

    Todd.
     
  11. Bob Willman

    Bob Willman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2018
    Messages:
    80
    Several thoughts come to mind. A truly unbiased study on any subject should be welcomed by all, but such things seem to be a rarity. It seems that when guns are concerned the studies are designed to support a goal and if a government is involved that goal involves control.of some kind. It would seem much easier to control a thing than a behavior. Behavior cannot be controlled by any law, but only by a conscious from our Creator. The founding fathers knew this. Liberals in government fail to realize that liberty is what makes this country great. Some people will do bad things no matter what laws or restrictions are passed. Most people will not. We need to recognize this fact and try to find a way to address it. No one should fear an armed person just because he or she is armed. It is the intent of the mind that matters and that intent is not easily judged before the fact. Somewhere we have forgotten the principal of personal responsibility. That we are each responsible for the things we do or not do. Guns are tools. They can be used for good or bad depending on the intent.

    Trying to get a factual and impartial study of firearms, that demonstrates gun control ineffective or God forbid that guns are beneficial, to be accepted by any governmental agency will be a steep uphill battle in my opinion. If liberals studied the history of the founding principals of this great country and recognized the wisdom of those great men who conceived it, based on the history that they studied, we would not be in the situation we are now in. I wish you great success in your venture.

    Bob
    WB8NQW
     
  12. Ralph III

    Ralph III Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2019
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    Ms/Al Gulf Coast
    Hello Everyone!

    Well, irrespective of how this has started out, I have appreciated all of the input thus far. That would include the actual strategies that Ohen and others have put forth, as well as the extreme skepticism expressed.

    I have my own skepticism, so the one's expressed only validate what I have questioned already. However, some of you are simply electing to hide your head in the sand. It's akin to this, "Well, the election process is rigged, so I won't bother voting". Consequently, Joe Biden is going to be our next president so good going. If you are not willing to stand up for your constitutional rights then please step aside and let others who actually have a set of gonads step up!

    Otherwise, here is one major point you are missing.

    1) There have been MANY purported studies such as this one conducted already! Most offer no real solutions and simply resort to blaming guns or suggest limiting gun access, etc. etc.

    The USA study acknowledges this and the fact those studies have essentially failed to produce any meaningful strategies in reducing homicides or suicides! Their goal instead is to take a look at these challenges from the gun owners perspective in hopes we can come up with realistic strategies. Be sure to read the last two quotes by Dr. Phillip Smith and Dr. Krista Mehari who are heading up the study.



    2) If you want to assume this is some deep dark attempt by the liberals to undermine our 2nd Amendment rights then, ok. But remember one truth, "A house divided against itself cannot stand"! If you don't know what that is in reference to or the meaning of it, then look it up. You can find it in the Bible (Matthew 12:22-37).

    I've never heard of a Professor who has a stated goal to educate the science fields about the "importance of gun ownership". But hey, if you want to believe it's a deep dark attempt then that's ok. There is nothing wrong going in feet first or eye's wide open.

    3) Whew! That's all of the defending I am going to do. So if we need to pretend or assume it's a conspiracy so be it.

    Now, does anyone have any opinions on how to reduce suicides in general and are you able to provide data to show it's effectiveness? Does anyone have any opinions on how to reduce homicides or illegal homicides (how ever you want to say it) and can you show me some data that I may be able to use? Lastly, does anyone have any opinions on how to reduce accidental gun shootings and can you reference some data that might help me?

    I've already been given some excellent advice but I'd like to hear other's opinion.

    God Bless,
    Ralph
     
  13. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    20,307
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Suicide, as I said earlier, is strongly correlated with clinical depression -- which is treatable. My approach would be:

    1. Efforts to educate the public about depression and suicide, with the goal of getting family and friends to recognize the symptoms and take action.
    2. Better treatment strategies.

    Two populations we should concentrate on are teenagers and veterans -- the latter already have strong programs, but with limited success.
     
    Ralph III likes this.
  14. Pudge

    Pudge Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    643
    Location:
    Tioga County, PA
    What is the correlation between legal gun owners and illegal homicides are they more likely to commit or be the victim of an illegal homicide than the rest of the population?

    It is important to establish whether legal access to a firearm results in illegal actions.

    Much of this research assumes that the correlation of access to a firearm and its use in illegal actions results in that access having a causative impact. But how does the use of alcohol or other mind-altering substances correlate to violent crime overall? Would a focus on that be more productive than an effort to limit law-abiding citizens' access to firearms in reducing violent crime?
     
    Golfanaticshooter likes this.
  15. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    20,307
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Here's a simple question:
    FBI crime statistics show that 51% of the counties in this country have 0 homicides. Five percent of the counties account for more than 68% of the homicides.

    We need a study on what is different about that 5% and how to correct it.
     
  16. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    32,115
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    I responded to many attempted suicide and suicide calls as a police officer. One common thread through them was that people who were serious about suicide didn't "attempt" suicide, they just did it. Most people who attempted suicide were seeking attention, help or both. We had some regulars who attempted suicide multiple times. Very seldom did they try to kill themselves using a method that would be actually fatal. I have responded to suicides where guns, rope and pills were used. In my experience the method one chooses is completely immaterial. Plenty of people destroy their livers and die after using a large dose of over the counter Tylenol to commit suicide, but we see no study on how Tylenol affects the suicide rate. Hanging is gruesome yet a large number of people use that method, I've seen people hang themselves while there were guns and ammunition in the house. Why aren't we studying how the availability of rope, lamp cords and drapery cords affects the suicide rate? No one will ever know why someone who committed suicide used the method they did. They aren't around to tell us.

    We need to stop focusing on things and start focusing on people.
     
  17. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    13,444
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    This tell me everything I need to know. The man has a Doctorate, but cannot construct a sentence.

    No need to waste the money. The answer is the 'progressive' agenda of creating preserves of people whom they deem Untermensch, but will never publicly acknowledge that, solely for the purpose of having total control over their lives, and their votes. (Who would bite the hand that feeds them?)

    And Jeff succinctly answered how to resolve it. The sad part is, just like forming those 'preserves' took several generations, so will changing it.
     
  18. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    13,444
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    This is from Dr. Smiths' homepage at the University of South Alabama.
    https://www.southalabama.edu/colleges/artsandsci/psychology/faculty/smith.html
    I'd like to know where he got those statistics. Certainly not the FBI or DOJ. He loses all credibility to me with this statement.
    https://www.southalabama.edu/colleges/artsandsci/psychology/faculty/mehari.html
    Dr. Mehari makes no such statements on her page, but describes her area of focus using left buzzwords.

    Sounds like they want gun owners' input just so they can say "We asked several gun owners........."
     
  19. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    62,891
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    They need to put John Lott on the advisory board if they are actually interested in our perspective. Known pro 2A activists, not just random folks from the shooting community.

    They need to completely separate defensive, from LE, from murder, from suicides. The intent issue needs to be addressed.

    They will never get enough unbiased data from enough sources to produce anything meaningful. The data simply isn't there because some self defense shootings take place without the defender reporting it and many self defense shootings don't result in death because the defender or someone else reported and response saved the life of the person shot. These complications extend to communities that don't report data where it can be accessed.

    The source of the funding must be transparent and the principal researchers and their backgrounds must be as well.
     
  20. Zendude

    Zendude Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Messages:
    1,750
    Location:
    Texas
    A major problem is how to keep guns from being trafficked into the hands of gangs and criminals. I don’t have a good solution for this, but the answer is definitely not a gun ban. Cocaine and heroin are banned but nothing seems to be able to stop the supply side of the problem from coming into our communities.
     
  21. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    28,761
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    An Ambitious project with a goal of reducing a thing ( violence suicide etc) without a clue to understanding the cause of the thing.
    It has no chance of success because the focus is on the end result not the cause!
    Suicide is mental health, economics, And interpersonal relationships.
    Inner city drug/gang violence is lack of family structure, core values, poverty, politics, and poor upbringing.
    A gun is an inanimate tool controlled by people who make bad decisions in its use
    A proper title for the study should be
    " Why do people do stupid stuff."
     
  22. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    20,307
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    You are dead on. Homicides are caused by CULTURE. In 51% of our counties we have a culture that rejects violence and embraces hard work and good citizenship. In the 5% we have a culture that reveres violence and violent people and embraces the idea that they are entitled to be supported by the government. And the progressives feed on that culture.
     
  23. Ralph III

    Ralph III Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2019
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    Ms/Al Gulf Coast
    Now I feel we are getting somewhere and I share most of the same opinions. Your input is allowing me to form a consensus though. I've been having a little bit of difficulty forming a concise opinion on suicide though. Some of you have experienced it first hand, which is sad, but I really value your thoughts.

    1. Hypothetically speaking and in going to the extreme (this helps me see things simply). Even if 100% of suicides were committed with a firearm and you removed all of the firearms you'd probably still have 95% commit suicide. They'd just choose a different method. So THE MAJOR FOCUS HAS TO BE on people/depression and not the means. I think a sole focus on firearms would be a distraction and consequently a major disservice. That is where I stand and I see many of you have the same opinion.

    Having said all of that!!!! My gut tells me there would be a very small drop in the suicide rate, as with my 5% hypothesis above. Some people are not really suicidal but they may be impulsive. So maybe they went through some traumatic experience. Maybe a teenager broke up with his girlfriend. I'd be inclined to temporarily put away my firearm in that instance.

    A. So maybe a recommendation of informing parents who own guns to consider using gun safes even if temporary, if they have children or other family members who have impulsive tendencies or who may be going through challenges?

    B. In regards to veterans or elderly people who are alone. Beyond getting them help if needed what about getting them a pet? Maybe they see the pet as being dependent on them and consequently a reason to live? We show a lot of affection for our pets, so maybe that would be enough in some instances to save someone from attempting suicide? Maybe a picture of your family beside your firearm in some instances would make a family member reconsider suicide? I'm just trying to bounce some things off the wall here guys so help me out.

    Irrespective, I think focusing solely on firearms is a mistake because it paints a false picture and I will be stressing that. Your input on my statements above would be appreciated. Does any of the above seem reasonable or do you consider it ridiculous?

    C. I think firearms in regards to homicide is very simple whereas the subject of suicide is very complicated. There are just to many unknowns with suicide. If you want to lower the homicide rate then get the guns out of criminals hands and into law abiding citizens hands. In addition to that take other precautions in making your home safe, etc. etc.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'd really like to hear more from Jeff White and herrwalther as you experienced suicide on a large scale apparently. Herrwalther, what could have been done to possibly save your soldiers? That had to be really tough so what would you recommend? I'd really like to hear your opinion.

    I read a similar article HERE.
    and that is astonishing. That most assuredly will be pointed out. Do you or Vern Hunphrey have a better source for these stats or is my source ok?

    NO IT DOES NOT! Where did you get that from? In addition to putting together a "gun owner advisory board" and a "community advisory board" they are paying people to act as "community research assistants". They will be doing most of the leg work and it requires 20 hrs of work each week at a minimum. I couldn't participate in that fashion because I work full time so they asked me to be on the "gun owners advisory board" instead. That is the only time the word "violence" is mentioned on their website and it is absolutely relevant. Just as Ohen and Vern noted, most gun violence occurs in only a few certain areas.

    Here is the quote.
    That is the point in having the "community advisory board". They want input from people who live in neighborhoods most affected by violence.

    The 50% suicide by firearm numbers are quoted everywhere so try googling. Those numbers come from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which compiles such statistics as their job and goal is to limit injuries. Here is one source from the American Public Health Association which puts the number at 57%. Found HERE. Their stats on gun violence and homicides are skewed though and obviously biased. A study under the Obama Admin by DOJ revealed this and as I noted in one of my posts. They are the health community though so of course their data is to be considered. So to question you; what are the FBI or DOJ stats on suicide?

    Thanks for the input everyone.
    Ralph
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2021
  24. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    4,613
    Location:
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    "The last temptation is the greatest treason:
    To do the right thing for the wrong reason."
    T. S. Elliot.
     
  25. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    20,307
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Here I disagree, and here's why:

    During WWI, German submarines were giving us fits. Will Rogers was at a cocktail party and talking to an admiral. "Admiral, I know how to deal with the German submarines."

    "How, Will?"

    "Simple. Boil the ocean."

    "How the pluperfect Hell do we do that?!?"

    "Admiral, I've given you the answer, but you're going to have to work out the details for yourself."

    Getting the guns out of criminals hands is a "Boil the Ocean" approach. We should step back and take a breath and ask, "What are we trying to do?" WHY do we want to "get the guns out of criminal hands?"

    Well, hmmm . . . to reduce violent crime? Okay, let's focus on THAT, without adopting a solution before we even tackle the problem;

    VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL

    The Right to Bear Arms is a Civil Right. It is as much a civil right as the right to vote or the right to trial by jury. Attempts to infringe on this right damage ALL our rights, since the methods used to undermine the 2nd Amendment can be used against all other Amendments.

    Further, the bearing of arms by responsible citizens is not the problem – in fact, in state after state, liberalized concealed carry laws have resulted in reduced violent crime. The right to bear arms is therefore a solution, not a problem.

    That said, we must recognize that some people will use weapons for criminal purposes. This paper sets forth a concept for reasonable violent crime control, based on three principles:

    · Targeting. The purpose of crime control is to prevent violence. Violent acts are committed by only a small fraction of the population. The biggest payoff therefore comes in targeting anti-violence legislation on those who commit violent acts, not on applying broad-brush restrictions to everyone.

    · Incapacitation. Experience has shown that incapacitation (through incarceration) reduces the number of crimes committed by violent felons over their criminal careers.

    · Enforcement. Many attempts at controlling violence have failed in the past due to lack of enforcement. There are many reasons for this, from simple non-feasance of officials to structural defects that reward non-enforcement.

    We target the violent criminal through two laws;

    1. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.

    2. Possession of a firearm by a previously convicted violent criminal

    We must carefully word these laws to ensure we don’t target the wrong people – we’re not after kids who hunt squirrels out of season. We do this by making the gun crime dependent on another crime – a violent crime, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, and so on.

    We incapacitate the violent criminal through mandatory sentencing. Although politically incorrect, mandatory sentencing is proven to work in incapacitating criminals. In this case the sentence is 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive with any other sentence. And additional 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive, is added for each subsequent offense.

    A holdup of a local 7-11, for example, would net the criminal 5 years on the state, and he would typically serve two. But before being released, he would serve an additional 10 years for using a firearm in a violent crime.

    If he did it again after release, this time he would get 20 years for use of a firearm in a violent crime, second offense, and 10 years for possession of a firearm by a previously-convicted violent criminal, for a total of 30 years. A third stickup would net fifty years.

    We get enforcement by reserving prosecution of these crimes to a specialized office in the Justice Department. They would prosecute ONLY these two crimes. If they fail to prosecute, they go out of business. If they prosecute vigorously, they will build up a backlog of work, and according to the natural law that governs bureaucracies, will get more funding, more personnel, and more promotions.

    They cannot plea bargain away anything – because they have no jurisdiction over any other crimes and nothing to gain from a plea bargain. They cannot be persuaded not to prosecute, because that would go against their interests.

    They can be counted on to be vigilant of crimes committed in the various states, because state prosecution for the basic crime will facilitate federal prosecution of the firearms charges.

    And finally, they can be given jurisdiction over one other crime – accessory to the first two crimes – so they can prosecute local officials who, knowing of crimes that fall under their jurisdiction, fail to inform them. Any police officer or prosecuting attorney who knows of, or who reasonably should know of a violation of these two laws, and who fails to charge the suspect, or forward charges for prosecution, shall receive the same penalty as the criminal.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2021
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice