Gun laws you'd realistically like repealed/changed/created?

[shortwave]

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

More dribble IMO.

Please explain how putting in place a minimum sentence for an already convicted felon when caught committing another crime of being in possession of a gun vilifying guns in any way.

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...

Is the point you're trying to make is that it's more important to move the wheels of justice faster rather then start playing more hardball with felons caught with guns and dope?
If an already convicted felon gets busted with 3 guns and a pound of cocaine and wants to roll the dice...let em. And when he losses sentence him to the max for the three guns and max time on the dope as well.

Yea...I know, that's time consuming, expensive and the jails are overcrowded.

But there has to be some kind of stand made sooner or later. And as far as repeat convicted felons getting busted again...have a special place for them and stack em up like cordwood in cells. I don't buy the overcrowding when it comes to them, nor do I feel any compassion for their living conditions while they are doing their time.

It boils down to the seasoned criminal out on the street knows his way around the courtroom, knows his charges will be plead down and he weighs the crime for the amount of time he'll probably get. If he feels the crime is worth the time, he'll commit the crime.

Make the gun laws and penalties tough enough that the word quickly gets around out on the street that the games have stopped when it comes to gun crimes. Until this happens the court systems will remain revolving doors, the dockets will stay packed, we will continue the downward trend of letting criminals off with lessor sentences for bigger crimes cause the dockets are packed and we want to speed up the wheels of justice () and we'll keep seeing the same faces over and over again as we're presently doing.

The present system is clearly broke and if not changed, will not get better on its own and will not stay the same, but get steadily worse with more criminals that should be locked up sharing the sidewalk with your family and mine. All the while the anti-gun populace is strongly campaigning to take all guns away from everyone.

Something will give sooner or later.

leadcounsel,

Do you really want to know what I think a rapist or child molester should be sentenced to?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by shortwave

...If an already convicted felon gets busted with 3 guns and a pound of cocaine and wants to roll the dice...let em. And when he losses sentence him to the max for the three guns and max time on the dope as well...

What makes you think that a conviction is guaranteed? The reality is that there are no guarantees. That's what a plea bargain is about -- exchanging a possibility for a certainty.

True, if the case is strong and conviction is likely, the prosecutor is in a position to drive a harder bargain. And as the possibility that a criminal might go free increases, the certainty of a perhaps lesser conviction/sentence, as opposed to a criminal immediately back on the street, starts to look like a better result.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by shortwave

Do you really want to know what I think a rapist or child molester should be sentenced to?

But you still have to get him convicted first.

[shortwave]

What makes you think that a conviction is guaranteed? The reality is that there are no guarantees. That's what a plea bargain is about -- exchanging a possibility for a certainty.

In the scenario leadcounsel put forth , plea on the dope charges but don't plea the gun charges clear out of the picture as often happens. Again, impose a law that regulates the least amount of time a felon getting caught with a gun can get plead down to.

Example: max time that could be given ='s 15yrs per gun and CANNOT be plead down to less then 3yrs mandatory time per gun. And the three years cannot be included in timed served and must be added on top of other time given for other charges.

[QUOTEAgain, 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.

][/QUOTE]

And it drives me nuts just the same when people that work in the system think that cause they work in the system that the system is fine and doesn't need fixing or can't stand some improvement.

Here's some people that work in the system that apparently think the system needs changed:

philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/05/24/pennsylvania-house...

another good read, please take note of what the Chief of Police says about this proposal...

Gun convictions would mean 5-year minimum if House bill ...



articles.philly.com/2012-08-16/news/33233560_1

... these people are in 'the system' and I happen to agree with them.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by leadcounsel

Plea bargains are a VERY necessary and useful tool for both prosecutors and defense attorneys.

You are most certainly correct. The justice system gets to more efficiently process criminals and the criminals get a shorter sentence. The problem with that little setup is that everyone makes out at the expense of the victim which is obscene. At a bear minimum, I'd like to see (with relentless enforcement), some stiff mandatory sentencing, with no concurring sentences or other sentence reducing devices, of people who commit murder, manslaughter, rape, battery and/or robbery with guns. I would support the Death Penalty for all murder cases.

[Tom Servo]

We've gone afield, and I bear some of the responsibility.

However, this isn't a thread about child crimes or the death penalty. Let's stick to the matter at hand.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by shortwave

...Here's some people that work in the system that apparently think the system needs changed:

...I happen to agree with them.

1. Well they're not really changing the system. They're just setting penalties.
   
   
2. And that is the province of the legislature under our system.
   
   
3. Of course one of the possible consequences of making it more difficult to secure a conviction based on a plea bargain is that some criminal will win acquittals.

[shortwave]

Well they're not really changing the system. They're just setting penalties

Correct.

House Bill 2331 would require a five-year minimum sentence without parole for felons caught possessing firearms, and it would define the crime as a "crime of violence," triggering Pennsylvania's three strikes law, which requires a 10-year sentence for a second offense and 25 years for a third offense

...and again, this bill was crafted and presented to the House by Todd Stephens whom was an assistant DA in Montgomery Co. that prosecuted gun crimes cases as a special agent US attorney. And is currently a state representative.

Article here:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/loca...ligencer_news/...

As you can see it was sponsored by many heads of various organizations including the Chief of Police, FOP and the Pennsylvania Attorneys Assoc.

Again, these people are in 'the system' and can see a need for mandatory minimum sentencing on the state level when it comes to felons getting caught with guns.

FWIW I like the added 'without parole' clause as well.

And no, it shouldn't matter if it's a handgun, shotgun or a bolt action long gun.

[leadcounsel]

Well the argument for mandatory minimums could have the opposite or unintended consequence of not charging altogether so that a deal can be reached well below the threshold. Again, unintended consequences for meddling.

The penalty ranges are typically appropriate ... if the judge or jury/panel believe a crime warrants a stiff sentence, they typically are open to giving that. However, to say that every XYZ case deserves a stiff mandatory without any consideration for the mitigation, well that is just malarkey.

I can think of many serious mitigating facts where an ex-con might possess a self-defense gun in a bad neighborhood after he has been rehabilitated and living a normal life trying to make an honest living as an ex-con. Not many worse scarlet letters than being an ex-con. I'm no bleeding heart, but certainly the guy who has straightened out and has a .38 for home defense is not the same as the drug/gun runner....

This has gone far afield, but an interesting topic. I believe mandatory minimums are generally counter productive and rarely represent justice.

[Al Norris]

OK. We've wondered far off topic. Sentencing guidelines/criteria as they relate to criminal possession is only peripherally relevant to the topic.

Let's bring it back, or it gets closed.

[Armorer-at-Law]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

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.

My proposal was limited to allowing FFLs to sell handguns to residents of other states, like they are currently allowed to do with long guns.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by shortwave

Is the point you're trying to make is that it's more important to move the wheels of justice faster rather then start playing more hardball with felons caught with guns and dope? . . . . <snip>

Yea...I know, that's time consuming, expensive and the jails are overcrowded. . . . .<snip>

It boils down to the seasoned criminal out on the street knows his way around the courtroom, knows his charges will be plead down and he weighs the crime for the amount of time he'll probably get. If he feels the crime is worth the time, he'll commit the crime. . . . . <snip>

. . . . Until this happens the court systems will remain revolving doors, the dockets will stay packed, we will continue the downward trend of letting criminals off with lessor sentences for bigger crimes cause the dockets are packed and we want to speed up the wheels of justice () and we'll keep seeing the same faces over and over again as we're presently doing. . . . .<snip>

I understand your desire to have either harsher sentences, or better enforcement of gun laws, or some combination thereof. You may think that it's a good trade to have cases drag out longer in exchange for getting that. The Founding Fathers had some reservations about cases taking too long to get to trial, though:

Originally Posted by Founding Fathers

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Sixth Amendment, emphasis supplied.

Remember that in order to successfully prosecute a case, the prosecutor has to get: (1) the prosecutor; (2) the defendant; (3) defense counsel; (4) judge; (4) involved officers; (5) other witnesses (crime lab, civilians, etc.); and (6) a jury . . . all in one room at the same time.

If we begin hammering for more enforcement, at the expense of longer docket waits, word will also get out on the street that cases are being dismissed because of Speedy Trial violations. Sometimes, the prosecutor has to take what he can get on day 300, because he knows that Day 366 = Dismissal Day.

[Frank Ettin]

Note also that even without regard to the constitutional requirements for a speedy trial a delay can, as a practical matter, erode the prosecution's case. Memories fade. Witnesses become unavailable (move away or die). Evidence gets misplaced or contaminated.

In the real world there are good, practical reasons to move cases along to conclusion.

[shortwave]

And again, I understand and appreciate everything you just posted Spats.

I understand that a convicted felon has rights to a speedy trial when said felon is caught with a gun that he is breaking the law(again) for having.

But at what expense for the safety of the public?

You have a convicted felon that did wrong to become a felon in the first place. Same convicted felon does his/her time for the first felony, apparently did not learn a thing, gets out and gets a gun which is committing yet another felony that he/she knows they are committing. Felon has no regards for the law which is shown by his/her actions of having the gun.

So I have to ask...where is the public suppose to draw the line and quit accepting this 'revolving door policy' of the courts when a convicted felon re-offends and his sentence is plead and he does very little time?

Just where in the equation does the publics safety and the publics rights enter into the picture?


As I've read back through much of the posts, it's very apparent that the counselors here have the understandable mindset that the courts are bogged down.

They are bogged down to the point that LE in many jurisdictions have been instructed to not make arrests on many crimes that used to be standard policy to make arrests on. They have been instructed, in many cases by the prosecutors office, to not make arrests for what was the standard quantity of narcotics found on someone. Instead, they just raised the quantity amount. Again, the reason...the dockets are just too full to prosecute at the standards they once were so we'll just lower our standards.

There are jurisdictions that the cop out on the street is not arresting people that have outstanding felony warrants on them simply cause of jail overcrowding.

Spats, you are an attorney and there are other attorneys that have posted on this thread as well. I'm not an attorney. But I do know these things are going on across the country. Surely, as an attorney, you must know the standards of whether a perp is jailed or set free, for whatever the reason(overcrowding, overloaded dockets) has fallen drastically.

I spent 33yrs working very closely with many LE officers and remain close friends with many. I can tell you for certain that most every cop I know that has any whiskers is sick and tired of making good arrests, and yes, some involving guns which have been felony arrests, only to have the perp beat them out of the station cause the cop is still doing his report. Many times the same cop has more issues with the same perp before perp has ever made it to trial on the first offense. And again, perp turned back out on the street with two court dates now instead of one. Too, many times these are repeat felony offenders.

Again, have to ask...when these perps are turned back out on the street or their sentence plead down next to nothing when a gun is involved...where is the concern for the publics safety? Or the LEO's safety that has to re-arrest the perp? Where do we draw the line? And should the public blindly put that much faith for their safety in an over-worked, under paid prosecutor that has so many cases going on that the repeat felony offender standing in front of him is just another face and the prosecutor really doesn't know if this perp has the tendency of yet again, repeat offend no sooner then his feet hit the streets from his shortened plead down sentence?

[Tom Servo]

Again, have to ask...when these perps are turned back out on the street or their sentence plead down next to nothing when a gun is involved...where is the concern for the publics safety?

We're looking at a tricky balance. That said, I'd much rather see tax money spent to help prosecutors, courts, and correctional facilities do their jobs than I would see it wasted on new laws that only make the burden worse.

[Spats McGee]

shortwave, I do not dispute that many criminals are repeatedly arrested, nor do I dispute that the court and corrections system may seem like a "revolving door." I do dispute that the attorneys who have posted in this thread are "bogged down in the same mindset as the courts."

Mind you, I'm not glad to see felons getting out of jail before the arresting officer makes it home. There is, however, a very Big Picture to the legal system and it has an incredibly large number of "moving parts." If you have a solution that both: (a) achieves your goals; without (b) sacrificing Constitutional rights, I'm all ears. However, let me bring one example to your attention:

Originally Posted by shortwave

I understand that a convicted felon has rights to a speedy trial when said felon is caught with a gun that he is breaking the law(again) for having.

But at what expense for the safety of the public?

The defendant's right to a speedy trial is enshrined in the A6. The Bill of Rights is pretty undemocratic when you get right down to it. There's lots of stuff about "individual rights" there, and they're not all subject to trade-offs based on "public safety." Don't 2A proponents spend a lot of time fending off folks that claim that claim that the right to keep and bear arms comes at the "expense of public safety?" Be careful when you start offering to trade off an individual right, even in the interest of "public safety."

It would most likely improve public safety if we simply eliminated the A6. Then again, it would also most likely improve public safety, and make LE much more effective if we eliminated the Fourth Fifth and Eighth Amendments. They're pesky. The gov't's job would seem much more secure if we also did away with A1 and A2, and, while we're at it, A3. Are those trade-offs that you'd be willing to make?

As you noted, I'm a lawyer. Specifically, I'm a deputy city attorney. That makes me one part prosecutor, one part civil rights defense attorney, and one part general litigator. It also means that ConLaw plays a central role in LOTS of my work. Quite frankly, that can be pretty inconvenient. When I have our elected officials breathing down my neck to do SOMETHING about a crack house, being able to just send some guys with badges and bulldozers down there to handle the problem would be easy. It would also be unconstitutional. I also took an oath to uphold the Arkansas and US Constitutions, and that includes those times when it is inconvenient.

It's not that prosecutors and judges are unsympathetic. The Constitution has requirements and restrictions by which we must abide. If you have a solution to jail overcrowding and the "revolving door" that is both effective and constitutional, I'm all ears.

[leadcounsel]

Remember that in order to successfully prosecute a case, the prosecutor has to get: (1) the prosecutor; (2) the defendant; (3) defense counsel; (4) judge; (4) involved officers; (5) other witnesses (crime lab, civilians, etc.); and (6) a jury . . . all in one room at the same time.

If we begin hammering for more enforcement, at the expense of longer docket waits, word will also get out on the street that cases are being dismissed because of Speedy Trial violations. Sometimes, the prosecutor has to take what he can get on day 300, because he knows that Day 366 = Dismissal Day.

The defendant's right to a speedy trial is enshrined in the A6. The Bill of Rights is pretty undemocratic when you get right down to it. There's lots of stuff about "individual rights" there, and they're not all subject to trade-offs based on "public safety." Don't 2A proponents spend a lot of time fending off folks that claim that claim that the right to keep and bear arms comes at the "expense of public safety?" Be careful when you start offering to trade off an individual right, even in the interest of "public safety."

It would most likely improve public safety if we simply eliminated the A6. Then again, it would also most likely improve public safety, and make LE much more effective if we eliminated the Fourth Fifth and Eighth Amendments. They're pesky. The gov't's job would seem much more secure if we also did away with A1 and A2, and, while we're at it, A3. Are those trade-offs that you'd be willing to make?

Having been an attorney for over a decade, and a prosecutor and defense attorney for a combined 5 years...

Bingo. Stated perfectly. I would only add that it's very dangerous to go down the road of, "because he was convicted last time, he must be guilty this time..." mentality. Each trial is determined on its own merits.

Now, please, can we get this back on track...

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

...Don't 2A proponents spend a lot of time fending off folks that claim that claim that the right to keep and bear arms comes at the "expense of public safety?" Be careful when you start offering to trade off an individual right, even in the interest of "public safety."

It would most likely improve public safety if we simply eliminated the A6. Then again, it would also most likely improve public safety, and make LE much more effective if we eliminated the Fourth Fifth and Eighth Amendments. They're pesky. The gov't's job would seem much more secure if we also did away with A1 and A2, and, while we're at it, A3. Are those trade-offs that you'd be willing to make?

As you noted, I'm a lawyer. Specifically, I'm a deputy city attorney. That makes me one part prosecutor, one part civil rights defense attorney, and one part general litigator. It also means that ConLaw plays a central role in LOTS of my work. Quite frankly, that can be pretty inconvenient. When I have our elected officials breathing down my neck to do SOMETHING about a crack house, being able to just send some guys with badges and bulldozers down there to handle the problem would be easy. It would also be unconstitutional. I also took an oath to uphold the Arkansas and US Constitutions, and that includes those times when it is inconvenient...

Well put, Spats.

And let me add that it's pretty disingenuous to demand respect for the Second Amendment while urging throwing the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under the bus.

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

...It's not that prosecutors and judges are unsympathetic. The Constitution has requirements and restrictions by which we must abide. If you have a solution to jail overcrowding and the "revolving door" that is both effective and constitutional, I'm all ears....

And the realities of administering a complex process, witness availability and effectiveness, evidence, and the uncertainties inherent in a trial make it impossible to count on a good result in all cases. And sometimes the public interest might be better served by a sure conviction on a plea, albeit on compromise terms, than risking an acquittal in hopes of an optimal result.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by leadcounsel

Now, please, can we get this back on track...

The thread drift has been enjoyable, but here's where we started:

Originally Posted by leadcounsel

What are some gun laws you'd realistically liked changed/repealed, or even created, and what have you done to take action on this?

1. State law that prevents Feds from enacting laws that take away our gun rights. Speaks for itself.

2. Eliminate the state residency requirement to buy/sell guns. This is a silly, antiquated law that really does nothing to deter crime. It only serves as a 'gotcha' to gun owners. If you're legal to own, why does it matter what state you are in? And it can be a real problem. Say you go on a hunting trip out of state, and your gun is lost/damaged. Or say you are out of state on business and your CC is lost/damaged/stolen? You're effectively disarmed out of state...

3. SBR/SBS/Cans legal. First with the stamp. Ultimately eliminate the antiquated law. It's illogical. Owning a pistol AR or a rifle AR, but not a SBR AR...? Very puzzling. And eliminate much/all of 922 regarding cosmetic features also. These laws serve no purpose other than 'gotca' laws because they do nothing for public safety or design features of the guns. It's just a hassle for gun owners.

shortwave, I'll be happy to continue this exchange in a different thread or via PM.

[shortwave]

Mind you, I'm not glad to see felons getting out of jail before the arresting officer makes it home. There is, however, a very Big Picture to the legal system and it has a incredibly large number of "moving parts." If you have a solution that both: (a) achieves your goals; without (b) sacrificing Constitutional rights, I'm all ears

By your statements, can I assume that you at least agree that:

a) there is a problem with the legal system in that repeat felons involved in gun related cases are being released too prematurely back to the street by means of plea bargaining for reasons such as overcrowding, docket overload(which can potentially cause a less than speedy trial for accused) and the expense of going to trial.

b) if there was not an overcrowding or overload docket issue that nullified/reduced the possibility of there not being a speedy trial that there may not be a tendency for as much of the plea bargaining that is presently going on?


I have a question.

Who sets the length of time as to what 'speedy' means in A6?

Is this a timeframe that is set by what each state feels is 'speedy' ? Or is 'speedy usually interpreted as the same amount of time in all states/jurisdictions?

The reason I'm asking is I'm wondering how Pennsylvania is enforcing HB 2331 without violating perps A6 'speedy' trial rights.

[Al Norris]

Fourteen hours ago, I asked the members participating on this thread to get it back on track. It's still off.

Closed.