Gun laws you'd realistically like repealed/changed/created?

[ATN082268]

Even if the FBI destroys information regarding gun record checks and even if that data isn't recoverable, what is stopping the FBI from shipping that data to somewhere else before it is destroyed? The FBI has the data for at least 24 hours and could merely have Sheriff X request the data (on the FBIs behalf but unknown to everyone else) for supposedly some law enforcement purpose.

[Nickel Plated]

Another nice and I think obtainable change would be to expand the prohibition on creating a registry from just the ATF to any government agency.
Why is it the ATF can't make a database, but the NYPD can? What is really the difference between the two.

If the 2A has been incorporated and applies to the states, then shouldn't those restrictions as well?

Really the biggest issue I have living in NYC. It ain't the AWB, it ain't the prohibition on CCW, it's the fact that you have to pay $400 and wait damn near a year for a permit just to handle a firearm. Getting rid of that permit system would make the place infinitely easier to live in as a gun owner.

[Tom Servo]

Why is it the ATF can't make a database, but the NYPD can? What is really the difference between the two.

The federal government is specifically prohibited from doing so by the 1986 FOPA. Unfortunately, that prohibition does not extend to state or local governments.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting question - can the FBI ask to access the NYPD data base?

[shortwave]

I would like to see a law created that prevents/eliminates plea bargaining in crimes involving guns.

Would also like a law preventing LE/prosecutors from being able to not charge a felon that has been busted in possession of a firearm in exchange for info. the felon knows on other crimes/criminals.

[Pilot]

I would like to see a law created that prevents/eliminates plea bargaining in crimes involving guns.

Would also like a law preventing LE/prosecutors from being able to not charge a felon that has been busted in possession of a firearm in exchange for info. the felon knows on other crimes/criminals.

I would like to see both of these also, but big city DA's who mostly want political advancement just want convictions. It is a numbers game. Plus, the courts are full so no plea deals means more court cases, and less overall convictions. It is all for their personal advancement.

[shortwave]

I would like to see both of these also, but big city DA's who mostly want political advancement just want convictions. It is a numbers game. Plus, the courts are full so no plea deals means more court cases, and less overall convictions. It is all for their personal advancement

I know...and all the while courts and prosecutors are returning felons back out on the street that are again breaking the law again by getting more guns, commit more crimes with the guns so the anti-gun populace can yell from the roof tops, "take all the guns away from ALL citizens".

Just doesn't make since.

[leadcounsel]

would like to see a law created that prevents/eliminates plea bargaining in crimes involving guns.

Would also like a law preventing LE/prosecutors from being able to not charge a felon that has been busted in possession of a firearm in exchange for info. the felon knows on other crimes/criminals.

I disagree. Mandatory sentencing guidelines, mandatory prosecutions, 'no deal' crimes, etc. often are well-intended but have dire consequences.

Just like when politicians want to create laws that impact things for which they are clueless (eg gun laws), non-lawyers should not be tinkering with legal dealings.

Plea bargains are a VERY necessary and useful tool for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. MOST cases are pled out - and this is cost effective and certain results for all parties. Imagine the COST to taxpayers if every gun crime had to go through a full trial. The cost would be enormous to the system, the judges, the prosecutors, the appointed defense lawyers, the jury, and frankly the jails. Plea bargains guarantee a conviction... many times the evidence isn't that strong and some of these folks would statistically win and be totally freed.

Consider US v. Bales (the Soldier in Afghanistan who murdered some 16 and injured several civilians using firearms) versus US v. Hasan ( Major Hasan shot and killed many US servicemembers at Ft. Hood.) In Bales, the prosecutors accepted a guilty plea deal. They would have likely won a contested case, but at the cost of millions of dollars. Bales still got life in prison with his guilty plea. Government got a certain conviction and saved tons of money and got the case to trial faster. Bales didn't get the death penalty. Win-win. US v. Bales cost less than 1/2 or maybe 1/3 or 1/4 what US v. Hussein cost. Hasan did not plead in his case. He was sentenced to death, but his trial was much more costly, took much longer, and there theoretically was no certain verdict. It is clear that a guilty plea is good for the tax payer in general. Bales took around 18 months from the incident to the trial and sentence. Hasan took 4 years?! His attack was in 2009, and his trial was completed in late 2013. Clearly plea deals are good for justice, not just for capital cases but at all levels for many many reasons.


I suspect that US v. Bales cost around $1,000,000 ballpark, maybe $2,000,000, whereas US v. Hussein cost around $5,000,000 (according to Wikipedia and personal knowledge).

Let the professional prosecutors determine what is best for their own jurisdiction regarding what crimes to pled out and prosecute. It tends to work fine.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by leadcounsel

Plea bargains are a VERY necessary and useful tool for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. MOST cases are pled out - and this is cost effective and certain results for all parties. Imagine the COST to taxpayers if every gun crime had to go through a full trial. The cost would be enormous to the system, the judges, the prosecutors, the appointed defense lawyers, the jury, and frankly the jails. Plea bargains guarantee a conviction... many times the evidence isn't that strong and some of these folks would statistically win and be totally freed.

That just tells me the legal system is in serious need of reform.

[leadcounsel]

That just tells me the legal system is in serious need of reform.

Well, this thread is about realistic changes to gun laws. Not re-vamping the entire judiciary system...

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by leadcounsel

Well, this thread is about realistic changes to gun laws. Not re-vamping the entire judiciary system...

Fair enough. I'll leave it for another thread

[shortwave]

Well, this thread is about realistic changes to gun laws. Not re-vamping the entire judiciary system...

...and my suggested gun law changes were realistic changes for gun laws that I feel need changed. Respectfully, changes you asked for in your opening post.

Let the professional prosecutors determine what is best for their own jurisdiction regarding what crimes to pled out and prosecute. [B]It tends to work [/B]fine

Yea it sure does...a drug dealing felon busted once again for dealing drugs by the local authorities. In the same safe with the dope, thirteen guns found and over half on the stolen' hotsheet' . Although dealer turned evidence on his dealer which resulted in several busts, there was never one mention of the guns which incidentally carried more weight in mandatory jail time than the drug charges he was facing. Guns were never even brought up at hearing.
Dealer back out on the street in less then 6mos.


These cases happen everyday in which local LE busts scumbags like this with guns only to use the gun laws for nothing more than plea bargaining tools. And yes, plea bargaining saves the court system a lot of money and time. But there come a time either we want to get serious about getting these criminals and guns off the street or we're not.

And we should just blindly trust these 'professional prosecutors' that are plea bargaining these kind of gun cases and many of these same prosecutors are anti gun and are promoting stricter gun laws that are trying to take my guns away....Please.

If we're just going to make strict, mandatory gun laws that carries long term penalty's for gun crimes, only to have prosecutors make a mockery out of them when these laws are offended by pleading the cases down, then don't scream and holler about there being too many guns on the street.

It may be your opine that the system is working fine. From what I see, it's seriously flawed when it comes to crimes involving guns. Find another area to plea bargain with...not guns.

[Armorer-at-Law]

I repeat from post #36:

I think a realistic change in federal law would be to allow FFLs to sell handguns (or any firearms) to residents of other states in compliance with both states' laws (as is currently the law for long gun sales by FFLs).

This seems like a realistic and reasonable pro-rights change in the law. There is incentive to push this so that citizens in DC can purchase firearms, at least. There may be other examples that would drive this change. It would cut down on a few FFL transfers, but probably <5% in most cases, since it would only apply to face-to-face dealer sales.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Armorer-at-Law

I repeat from post #36:

This seems like a realistic and reasonable pro-rights change in the law. There is incentive to push this so that citizens in DC can purchase firearms, at least. There may be other examples that would drive this change. It would cut down on a few FFL transfers, but probably <5% in most cases, since it would only apply to face-to-face dealer sales.

This seems realistic and reasonable, but if I were an FFL, I'd worry about one of the more restrictive states trying to prosecute me under some "long-arm" theory if I sold something that was illegal in their state. I'm not sure such a prosecution would be viable in most states, but we've got a few that would try really hard to make something like that stick, IMHO.

Originally Posted by shortwave

And we should just blindly trust these 'professional prosecutors' that are plea bargaining these kind of gun cases and many of these same prosecutors are anti gun and are promoting stricter gun laws that are trying to take my guns away....Please.

So you'd rather trust Congress to decide what a "professional prosecutor" should be able to plead down? Thank you, no. Prosecutors need a certain amount of discretion in handling their cases, or you wind up with rather absurd results. Let me give you an example. In the 1980s, Mothers Against Drunk Driving waged an incredibly successful fight to change DWI laws. In Arkansas, one change that came about was that we got a statute that says that a person charged with DWI shall plead or be tried on that charge. The prosecutor may not nolle pros it, may not simply dismiss it, may not reduce it to Reckless Driving. Either the defendant pleads to DWI, or goes to trial on it. Additionally, there is no possibility of probation for a DWI conviction. Sound OK? Consider this: If the prosecutor determines that there was never any probable cause for the stop, he or she is prohibited from simply dropping the case. By way of comparison, a prosecuting attorney on a murder charge may simply drop a case if a lack of probable cause is found.

I also have some serious doubts about your claim that "many of these same prosecutors are anti gun and are promoting stricter gun laws that are trying to take [your] guns away." I will grant that there are certainly some in the more restrictive jurisdictions, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anti-gun prosecutors in The Patron States of Shootin' Stuff.

[Tom Servo]

This seems realistic and reasonable, but if I were an FFL, I'd worry about one of the more restrictive states trying to prosecute me under some "long-arm" theory if I sold something that was illegal in their state.

I hate to sound like a selfish jerk, but you're correct. If I ship a gun to New York or Maryland, it's required to go through an FFL. If it turns out the buyer had a misunderstanding of the weapon's legality, the receiving FFL will catch the error.

Without the FFL's intervention, I might very well be giving someone a gun they can't legally possess in their home state. I wouldn't feel good about them getting thrown in the slammer. Nor would I feel good about the potential civil liability I could incur as a result.

I will grant that there are certainly some in the more restrictive jurisdictions, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anti-gun prosecutors in The Patron States of Shootin' Stuff.

Actually, in the urban counties of Georgia, gun charges are nearly always the first thing to be negotiated out. The excuses are lack of jail space, lack of time to go to trial, and other logistical stuff.

[Spats McGee]

That doesn't make the prosecutors "anti-gun," though. They have to weigh the charges against the evidence. Depending on the way statutes and caselaw play out, it may simply be that the gun charges are more difficult to prove, in which case it makes sense to allow a defendant to plead to the other charges.

[Tom Servo]

Depending on the way statutes and caselaw play out, it may simply be that the gun charges are more difficult to prove, in which case it makes sense to allow a defendant to plead to the other charges.

In a way, that's my point. We spent the first half of 2013 being told we should be willing to do "whatever it takes" to stem the tide of gun violence.

We were presented with all sorts of proposals for new laws, but prosecution of existing laws is spotty at best. It's not the fault of the prosecutor. He works with what he has, but when that (true story) involves bumping felony DV and firearms charges down to misdemeanor simple battery, the system has a real problem.

"Whatever it takes" should have included giving the system the resources to give teeth to existing laws.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

...Depending on the way statutes and caselaw play out, it may simply be that the gun charges are more difficult to prove, in which case it makes sense to allow a defendant to plead to the other charges.

Yes!

We're getting off track, but I think it's important to understand the whole notion of settlement in context. A plea bargain is a settlement of a criminal complaint.

And a settlement (or plea bargain) is the trading of a chance of a possible, best result for a certain, acceptable result. Sometimes that makes good sense and is a reasonable trade.

Deciding whether or not the trade makes sense involves weighing the likelihood of a best result against the likelihood of an unacceptable result. And that is a matter calling for professional judgment.

[leadcounsel]

Off topic, but important to the discussion to educate...

Plea bargains, by their very nature, are a win-win. To the uninformed, it may not appear that way.

But the parties involved understand intimately the weight of their cases and reasons for a deal. Outsiders have no clue. Plea bargains, in fact, are frequently MORE fair than a contested trial, where any level of 'injustice' (from either perspective) can and does happen with greater frequency. Mandatory minimums have attempted to cure this but results are wild and all over the board.

Look at other areas that have mandatory prosecution, notably domestic violence and Lautenberg. It takes a cursory review of these absurd laws to see the rampant injustice. Many jurisdictions have mandatory arrests and prosecutions if the cops are called. Totally unfair, among the most unfair and absurd legal results - and it comes from the 'tinkering' of legislators to combat REAL domestic violence. Yet, when (typically) men go to prison and lose their gun rights labeled as a 'wife beater' because of a loud argument that alerted the nosy neighbors who summoned the cops, which started an unstoppable chain of consequences from arrest to prosecution to Lautenberg... you get the idea. And it happens, in many states every day. And there is no police or prosecutor discretion to ignore/dismiss DV complaints in many states.

Let's try to swing this good conversation back on OP topic.

Write your Congress leaders today to enact changes.

[shortwave]

Actually, in the urban counties of Georgia, gun charges are nearly always the first thing to be negotiated out. The excuses are lack of jail space, lack of time to go to trial, and other logistical stuff.

This is exactly what is happening all over the country at a rate that if the public knew and maybe some of the anti-gun organization knew, there would be an outcry for a change. Jail overcrowding and docket overload is so bad in some jurisdictions that there are many felony arrests for various felony crimes that are simply not being made by cops out on the street cause they've been instructed not to do so.

The excuse of 'overcrowding' is being used to the extent that when felons with warrants are pulled over, they are not being arrested cause there is just no where to put them.

I'm not saying all this is the fault of the prosecutors. And I'm not saying to stop plea bargaining. Understandably, there's a 'big' place for it. What I am suggesting is in a case such as I mentioned in the earlier post that if a felon is caught with a gun, or 13 guns in the case I mentioned, and the mandatory sentence per gun is a separate charge of 5yrs per gun, then there should be a minimum limit to which the gun charge/charges can be reduced by.
In other words, there WILL be some time spent for the gun charges. Time may be reduced but there will be some time spent on the charge.

IMO, I don't care if the felon BG caught with a gun turns evidence and there's a conviction on 'Jack the Ripper', the bad guy may get some time for the gun charges reduced, but again, he/she should not skate on the gun charge all together. And there should be a law put in place stating such.

I don't have the answer to the overcrowding jails nor court system. But there is no question in my mind that if we are going to quit pretending to get tough on gun crimes and stop pleading gun crimes cases down to the point that the gun charges disappear, then maybe the gun crimes can decrease.

[QUOTE]So you'd rather trust Congress to decide what a "professional prosecutor" should be able to plead down? Thank you, no. Prosecutors need a certain amount of discretion in handling their cases, or you wind up with rather absurd results. Let me give you an example. In the 1980s, Mothers Against Drunk Driving waged an incredibly successful fight to change DWI laws. In Arkansas, one change that came about was that we got a statute that says that a person charged with DWI shall plead or be tried on that charge. The prosecutor may not nolle pros it, may not simply dismiss it, may not reduce it to Reckless Driving. Either the defendant pleads to DWI, or goes to...

Spats,

I don't know if the tough actions of MADD was responsible for the decrease of DUI deaths in our country or not...

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-.../drunk-driving

...but I would imagine that although some of the changes brought on by MADD in some jurisdictions might not have been favorable by all, you can bet that members of MADD sitting in courtrooms all over the country and making note of the elected judges that reduced DUI to reckless op. has had some weight on DUI statistics over the years.

Maybe similar tactics MADD used for stricter enforcement of DUI (with a few changes) could be done by gun activist as well in gun cases.

[shortwave]

Lets not muddy the waters...

...My suggestion's was not directed at cases which can be questionable such as domestic violence.

My suggestion for a gun law change was directed at when a felon is busted by LE for a crime and has a gun. Simply enforce our existing laws. And if there has to be a plea bargain, make a minimum amount of mandatory time the gun charge can be plead down to.

[Tom Servo]

I don't know if the tough actions of MADD was responsible for the decrease of DUI deaths in our country or not.

There was a decrease in drunk-driving fatalities that coincided with their work in the 1980's. The organization now is different than the one that started back then.

They do, however, make an interesting example. Following the Newtown shooting, Shannon Watts started a "Moms Against Illegal Guns" or somesuch. The name has changed a couple of times. Anyhow, she claimed to have modeled her organization and strategy on MADD.

Originally, MADD wanted to do one thing: make people pay for drunk driving. They didn't go after alcohol companies, lower speed limits, or raise the driving age. As such, we saw a net gain. Our drive home got just a bit safer, and folks who didn't break the law suffered no loss or inconvenience.

If that was how Ms. Watts ran her gun organization, I'd be a supporter.

[shortwave]

If that was how Ms. Watts ran her gun organization, I'd be a supporter

Same here Tom.

As much as I am for retaining our gun rights we have, I'm just that much against criminals possessing them as well. Especially known felons. After all, when these criminals get turned loose to get another gun and commit yet another crime with it, that's just that much more ammo for the anti-gun community to try and convince those that may be sitting on the fence when it comes to gun issue's that the answer is harsher gun laws.

[carguychris]

[MADD] didn't go after alcohol companies, lower speed limits, or raise the driving age... If that was how Ms. Watts ran her gun organization, I'd be a supporter.

Such an approach had already been tried with relation to alcohol, by Mrs. Carrie Nation and Mr. Wayne Wheeler.

It's instructive to remember how THAT turned out.

[leadcounsel]

I'm not saying all this is the fault of the prosecutors. And I'm not saying to stop plea bargaining. Understandably, there's a 'big' place for it. What I am suggesting is in a case such as I mentioned in the earlier post that if a felon is caught with a gun, or 13 guns in the case I mentioned, and the mandatory sentence per gun is a separate charge of 5yrs per gun, then there should be a minimum limit to which the gun charge/charges can be reduced by.
In other words, there WILL be some time spent for the gun charges. Time may be reduced but there will be some time spent on the charge.

Again, mandatories like what you suggest are counter-productive for judicial efficiency. So, you are proposing FIVE years in prison mandatory for possession of a tool... and item.... so... say you have 4 bolt action rifles illegally. You think TWENTY YEARS in prison is a fair sentence? That's much more than child molesters, rapists, etc. typically receive in a sentence....

As much as we espouse NOT vilifying an inanimate object on this forum, your mandatory sentence of FIVE years (or really any amount) is a slippery slope and further vilifies guns. And, again, removes any incentive for an accused person to plea bargain. Faced with, say, possession of 3 guns and a pound of cocaine, and at least 15 years + whatever... a person might simply roll the dice and fight all of the charges because he'll never see daylight if he pleads anyway... Whereas, a prosecutor could get a fair sentence of a few years in a plea deal and make the case move swiftly and certainly through the system...

Again, drives me nuts when people who never worked in the system want to revamp it... and these tweeks have huge impacts on cases and justice.

I particularly don't like laws that focus on the OBJECT versus the conduct. For instance, an assault enhancement penalty with a gun versus a big knife. Assault is already illegal. Why is it enhanced with a gun versus a knife?

Further endorsing/supporting gun-specific crimes (use/possession, etc) further erodes gun rights/ownership/opinions. Somehow we've been conditioned to believe gun homicide is more violent than knife/club/etc. homicide. That is a misconception. In fact, more people are killed with fists and feet every year than longguns.