A Gun Control measure most should be able to agree with

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

By definition there would be fewer criminals needing to be imprisoned if drugs were legalized, and also presumably much less occasion for criminal violence involving guns.

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

[Minister_of_Information]

So Row, you do not agree that ending drug prohibition would reduce violent crime and the associated possession of firearms by criminals?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

Ok. But i agree with the concept.
You and your source want it at the federal level. I tend to think it belongs at the state level.

Fine, and according to bill's info, some states already have these minimums. Since the discussion in congress and the national stage is about federal law, and since inexplicably federal law does not now include minimum sentencing for felons caught with guns, establishing them is low hanging fruit which would prove highly effective in prosecuting violent criminals. even attempting to prosecute a felon who unlawfully tries to buy a gun, but is denied by background checks, would be a waste of valuable time and resources. if you catch him with a gun, he should know he's going away for a while.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

So Row, you do not agree that ending drug prohibition would reduce violent crime and the associated possession of firearms by criminals?

Start another thread. this one is about the need for federal minimum sentencing for felons caught with guns.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

Ok. But i agree with the concept.
You and your source want it at the federal level. I tend to think it belongs at the state level.

Concur. I don't really see what the federal interest is in whether a felon is caught with a gun or not. I suppose they could make some move by which to modify the laws applicable to people convicted on federal charges, they obviously have an interest there, but just an all felons rule is beyond their legitimate reach, IMO. The custom of the country would be to use their spending power to leverage states to do it, instead.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Concur. I don't really see what the federal interest is in whether a felon is caught with a gun or not. I suppose they could make some move by which to modify the laws applicable to people convicted on federal charges, they obviously have an interest there, but just an all felons rule is beyond their legitimate reach, IMO. The custom of the country would be to use their spending power to leverage states to do it, instead.

Setting federal minimum sentencing guidelines for felons possesion of a gun does nothing to extend federal jurisdiction. It is already a federal crime. and would only impact existing law. This is not difficult and involves no extension of federal power. except against those already in violation of federal law. The prism some of you insist on viewing every issue through is making you blind.

[egator1245]

Good idea, keep the guns from criminals, put them in jail, and enforce the laws.

[egator1245]

I forgot to add, "leave the law-abiding citizens alone."

[northgagator]

I believe I understand Rowe's point.
At this time under Federal Law and Some states laws there is not a minimum penalty.
What is happening is that the Fed's and some states are using the current law as a bargaining chip to entice a plea or cooperation to get testimony.

[Minister_of_Information]

I'm generally not in favor of mandatory minimums, but if they wanted to increase the guidelines that would be ok.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I'm generally not in favor of mandatory minimums, but if they wanted to increase the guidelines that would be ok.

I agree that sentencing minimums don't leave enough room for judicial discretion in many cases, but in something as cut and dry and potentially lethal as felons possessing guns how much discretion is necessary. Additionally, and according to my expert source, setting those guidelines would be the most effective legal action we could take to help put away the repeat violent criminals who commit most of the crime, and perhaps deter a minority of them from possessing firearms.

[northgagator]

Here is a good read that offers a two part solution.
1, Tougher sentencing guidelines.
2, Alternative sentencing for non violent offenders.
3, Investing in ways to improve the success rates of recidivism.

In fact, the relationship between imprisonment and crime control is murky. Some portion of the decline is attributable to tough sentencing and release policies. But crime is also affected by things like economic trends and employment and drug-abuse rates. States that lagged behind the national average in rising incarceration rates during the 1990’s actually experienced a steeper decline in crime rates than states above the national average, according to the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit group.

A rising number of states are broadening their criminal sanctions with new options for low-risk offenders that are a lot cheaper than incarceration but still protect the public and hold offenders accountable. In New York, the crime rate has continued to drop despite efforts to reduce the number of nonviolent drug offenders in prison.

The Pew report spotlights policy changes in Texas and Kansas that have started to reduce their outsized prison populations and address recidivism by investing in ways to improve the success rates for community supervision, expanding treatment and diversion programs, and increasing use of sanctions other than prison for minor parole and probation violations. Recently, the Supreme Court and the United States Sentencing Commission announced sensible changes in the application of harsh mandatory minimum drug sentences.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/op...mon1.html?_r=0

[g8orbill]

if there is no Federal Law on the matter-then the State law takes precedent, I do believe.
So row-in Florida we are covered.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

if there is no Federal Law on the matter-then the State law takes precedent, I do believe.
So row-in Florida we are covered.

No, we are not covered for gun possessing felons being prosecuted in federal courts located in the state of Florida.
The decision of who prosecutes - state or federal - is governed by many factors, including some venal and some tactical. The feds can do Rico cases which can be particularly effective with gangs and their penalties are usually significantly stricter. This proposal has nothing to do with moving the border between federal and state prosecution - who often work together on cases -and everything to do with strengthening the penalty for those criminals the feds go after. Unless one is sympathetic to felons owning guns, it's hard to imagine a reason to oppose it.

[g8orbill]

so tell me how you feel about felons getting their civil rights restored

[Row6]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

so tell me how you feel about felons getting their civil rights restored

Case by case I'd be in favor, but my understanding is that gun ownership is not part of it.

[g8orbill]

fair enough-thanks for answering

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

Perhaps a good idea, but according to my source, that is often their best tool for getting criminals in jail, since felony gun possession does not have minimum sentencing, and most drug possession does. That makes no sense of course.

There are mandatory sentences for a felon in possession, if the felon has sufficient prior convictions to qualify.

In 1986, Congress again amended the felon in possession statute through the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.23 Unlike its predecessors, this Act purported to represent an amelioration of the perceived harshness of federal firearm regulation.24 This amendment made major changes to the structure of the felon in possession law. First, it removed those who are under indictment for felonies from the purview of the statute.25 Second, it eliminated Section 1201, which contained the original felon in possession statute.26 Finally, it replaced the prior prohibitive language “to ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce” with “to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”27 In addition to the amendment to the substantive law, Congress also enacted a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence for those convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) who previously had been convicted of three or more robberies, burglaries, or a combination of the two.28 Interestingly, the two-year statutory maximum protection contained in the predecessor felon in possession statute was not carried over to its new codification in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).29 In essence, the law prohibiting possession of a firearm by a felon moved from its own chapter to one concerned with the actual trade, distribution, and movement of illegal weapons.30 http://erepository.law.shu.edu/cgi/v...8&context=shlj

[Lawdog88]

Other Federal enhancements and mandatory sentences include:

Under § 924(e)(1), known as the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), a person convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of § 922(g) shall receive a mandatory sentence of 15 years imprisonment if that person has three prior convictions “for a violent felony or a serious drug offense.”

Happens all the time in Federal Court.

[ufbeta]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Please explain Federal jurisdiction for such a law.

Not sure this is what you're asking but just learned an interesting tidbit while serving on a federal grand jury. Weapons charges become Federal if weapon and/or ammunition were manufactured in a state other than where the crime was committed (makes a large percentage of gun crimes prosecutable in Federal courts)

Interestingly enough child porn is the same way. If you're storing images on a hard drive manufactured outside the state you live in, it's a Federal crime.