A Gun Control measure most should be able to agree with

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by Row6

My popularity on TH is neither the topic of the thread, or anything I care about. I answered respectfully and on point to anyone posting on this thread about the topic, including you. I have been less than patient with those whose opinion was based solely on dislike for the federal government, whose overall power would remain the same except when dealing with convicted felons caught possessing a gun, which is already a federal crime - HELLOOOOOO!

IOW anyone who doesnt agree with you 100% on this subject. Got it.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Rowe, it is sort of ironic and in a funny way that you as a Lib is supporting a one strike and your out approach and some Conservative posters have at the least not backed that approach.

When it comes to gun violence I am all for the one strike and your out. If you commit a crime with a gun you crossed over the line that divides moral socially behavior into taboo behavior.

Actually, a felon caught possessing a gun is by definition called for strike two.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by northgagator

When it comes to gun violence I am all for the one strike and your out. If you commit a crime with a gun you crossed over the line that divides moral socially behavior into taboo behavior.

I think the language would have to be pretty narrow. I wouldn't want to see someone who gets a DUI or is charged with some sort of severe vehicular misdemeanor or felony but has a gun securely encased in their glove box or in their trunk given the same treatment as someone who breaks into a house with a gun on themselves or their getaway vehicle. The gun needs to have some relation to the crime either by use or possible use and accessibility to be applicable, and needs to be at least one shooting victim or potential shooting victim. Not a case where a guy with no priors is pulled over for a routine traffic stop with a couple bags of weed and carries a gun in his glove box.

[magnafides]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

IOW anyone who doesnt agree with you 100% on this subject. Got it.

How about providing a reason why you disagree, rather than just because you're anti-government. Something that can invite rational discourse and discussion, maybe.

(When I say "you" I mean posters in general, not necessarily you.)

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

Thanks for your response which is typical of the level of intelligence and thought stimulation you are so well known for.

Especially thanks for pointing out that federal law already allows for minimum sentence guidelines for felon possession of a gun on a THIRD conviction for other violent crimes, thus protecting the civil rights of those poor misguided souls who only are on their second conviction, not to mention convicted rapists, arsons, and second degree murderers who may be caught innocently packing a Glock. I think that insight pretty much ends all discussion.

You (apparently?) had a serious question about what I meant about "stuffing sausages," and had no idea the phrase could be confused, so a picture showing that it typically means: a repetitive, non-thinking, assembly-line, gold-bricking even, type of act . . . can often be worth a thousand words.

But you are so intent on taking offense at anything and everything, apparently nothing can soothe your savage breast, including the thought of federal prosecutors stuffing sausage (decoded: processing felons in possession of a firearm for a mandatory federal prison sentence) which the States can do - and do-do - perfectly fine. In fact, Flardy does have a mandatory minimum sentence for felons in possession of a firearm: 3 years for simply possessing a firearm; additional penalties apply if the firearm is used in the commission of a crime, i.e., 10/20/life.

And another thing. I used the everyman, generic, "you" in the earlier post to indicate that those who want to expand the executive branch of the government by prosecuting crimes best handled by the State, would like such a proposal.

In short, I gave you an example of objections to "federalizing" minimum mandatory sentences for felons in possession of a firearm - other than enhancement - that, in your rush to find offense when none was intended, ignored.

Lots of federal prosecutors spending time prosecuting relatively minor offenses (in comparison to the really big, important cases that federal prosecutors often tell us about) that should generally be left to the States, is one objection.

But if you like expanding the federal executive and want prosecutors to stuff sausages, this is one way to do it.

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by magnafides

How about providing a reason why you disagree, rather than just because you're anti-government. Something that can invite rational discourse and discussion, maybe.

(When I say "you" I mean posters in general, not necessarily you.)

'We' did so earlier in the thread.

To sum up, almost everyone generally agrees with the OP with a few minor discrepancies. Some think this is a federal issue, others more a state issue. I can see it both ways but bottom line, lets lock up violent felons who illegally have or use a gun in the act of committing a crime.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

'We' did so earlier in the thread.

To sum up, almost everyone generally agrees with the OP with a few minor discrepancies. Some think this is a federal issue, others more a state issue. I can see it both ways but bottom line, lets lock up violent felons who illegally have or use a gun in the act of committing a crime.

You were right in your earlier posts in the thread. All of them.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by helix139

I think the language would have to be pretty narrow. I wouldn't want to see someone who gets a DUI or is charged with some sort of severe vehicular misdemeanor or felony but has a gun securely encased in their glove box or in their trunk given the same treatment as someone who breaks into a house with a gun on themselves or their getaway vehicle. The gun needs to have some relation to the crime either by use or possible use and accessibility to be applicable, and needs to be at least one shooting victim or potential shooting victim. Not a case where a guy with no priors is pulled over for a routine traffic stop with a couple bags of weed and carries a gun in his glove box.

Good point. What or how you stated your opinion shows that a gun was not in use for the incident. At that point the person should be charged if there is enough evidence for the reason that law enforcement questioned him on. The gun should be ignored unless it shows up to be used in another reported crime or if the person has lost his right to have gun (felon).

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

You (apparently?) had a serious question about what I meant about "stuffing sausages," and had no idea the phrase could be confused, so a picture showing that it typically means: a repetitive, non-thinking, assembly-line, gold-bricking even, type of act . . . can often be worth a thousand words.

But you are so intent on taking offense at anything and everything, apparently nothing can soothe your savage breast, including the thought of federal prosecutors stuffing sausage (decoded: processing felons in possession of a firearm for a mandatory federal prison sentence) which the States can do - and do-do - perfectly fine. In fact, Flardy does have a mandatory minimum sentence for felons in possession of a firearm: 3 years for simply possessing a firearm; additional penalties apply if the firearm is used in the commission of a crime, i.e., 10/20/life.

And another thing. I used the everyman, generic, "you" in the earlier post to indicate that those who want to expand the executive branch of the government by prosecuting crimes best handled by the State, would like such a proposal.

In short, I gave you an example of objections to "federalizing" minimum mandatory sentences for felons in possession of a firearm - other than enhancement - that, in your rush to find offense when none was intended, ignored.

The proposal has nothing to do with "expanding the executive branch", but in making it more effective in combating violent crimes under laws which already exist. Your examples of existing federal law proved my point, given that they applied only after the THIRD conviction for other violent crimes, an obviously lame and way after the fact deterrent. Additionally states can't do RICO prosecutions of gangs and their sentencing rules are generally - if not always - weaker. For one apparently more concerned with the rights of felons who have "only" been convicted twice of violent crimes, you probably don't care that in our larger cities the local and federal law offices often partner up trying to stem the plague of murder and violence which they experience. I hope others do care and I hope I have given them some thought about a relatively easy aid in combating the problem.

But why am I explaining this for the fourth time. If you can't get it from earlier posts up thread, you won't get it now.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by Row6

OK, but beside the point. FWIW, there is still plenty of crime and violence associated with California's "legal" marijuana trade.

Not to sidetrack the thread but, is that true?

First of all your statement has a bit of a flawed premise because the marijuana trade in California is not fully legal to the extent that it now is in Colorado and Washington. In California they are still doing the "medical marijuana" thing so it's still possible to get arrested for the recreational use, possession or sale of marijuana.

But whether the California marijuana trade should be considered legal or not, I could be wrong but I don't think there's a lot of crime and violence associated with it. Cocaine and other drugs yes, but marijuana?

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

The proposal has nothing to do with "expanding the executive branch", but in making it more effective in combating violent crimes under laws which already exist.

Your examples of existing federal law proved my point, given that they applied only after the THIRD conviction for other violent crimes, an obviously lame and way after the fact deterrent.

Additionally states can't do RICO prosecutions of gangs and their sentencing rules are generally - if not always - weaker.

For one apparently more concerned with the rights of felons who have "only" been convicted twice of violent crimes, you probably don't care that in our larger cities the local and federal law offices often partner up trying to stem the plague of murder and violence which they experience. I hope others do care and I hope I have given them some thought about a relatively easy aid in combating the problem.

But why am I explaining this for the fourth time. If you can't get it from earlier posts up thread, you won't get it now.

Since you invited a response . . . .

The federal statutes and examples I cited were for your information and edification, to show that felons in possession of a weapon can have their sentenced enhanced with mandatory sentences, depending on prior convictions. OK, so you don't care what the federal laws are, and think there should be more.

Florida has a RICO equivalent (mirror image of the federal law), and prosecutes under it all the time. State Attorneys have also prosecuted drug gangs under state RICO.

Everybody "partners" with the Feds, whether they are in Frisco, San Antonio, Detroit, or BFE. The feds then cherry-pick the cases they want to bring in federal court, where they have the best evidence, most informants, and have to do the least amount of work. I mean, it's just a fact.

And you can shove the rest of your ad hominems.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Not to sidetrack the thread but, is that true?

First of all your statement has a bit of a flawed premise because the marijuana trade in California is not fully legal to the extent that it now is in Colorado and Washington. In California they are still doing the "medical marijuana" thing so it's still possible to get arrested for the recreational use, possession or sale of marijuana.

But whether the California marijuana trade should be considered legal or not, I could be wrong but I don't think there's a lot of crime and violence associated with it. Cocaine and other drugs yes, but marijuana?

Not expert on this, but my understanding is that there are organized criminal interests involved in hijacking and other rip offs. Growing and trafficing are in a grey area in the state that is susceptible to crime. It may be better than before, but I wouldn't know.