Common Sense Gun Laws - Facebook Post this AM

[pianoman9701]

I hear the term "common sense gun laws" bandied about frequently. I believe in common sense, too. One common sense gun law that should be passed immediately would be to require the government to demonstrate that they can enforce existing gun laws before passing new gun laws. Currently, if you're on a domestic assault hold, have been charged and convicted of non-felony domestic assault, or are a felon, just attempting to buy a gun is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in jail and a fine of up to $100K. Yet, the federal and state governments pursue less than 10% of kicked-back background checks. To put this in perspective, if criminals knew that the government would only pursue 10% of bank robberies, the number of bank robberies would skyrocket. Can you imagine the possibly huge positive effect we could have on gun crimes if we actually enforced existing laws and sent a message to criminals about how serious we are in reducing gun violence? It's simple. Don't further restrict law-abiding citizens if the government is already unable or unwilling to enforce existing laws to arrest and convict criminals. If your point really is to make people safer (and I'm dubious that's really the point of many of the anti-gun crowd), do so within existing law or stop trying to further restrict me just because you know I'll follow the law. That's just stupid. Of course, if making people safer really isn't the goal, then by all means keep trying to whittle away at our liberties. The last time we kicked out the tyrants, it was over a $.03 tax on a beverage. We're way overdue. - "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - T. Jefferson

[notsosneaky]

Your on the right track
But consider this; a persons right to protect themselves shouldn't be infringed even if they are " prohibited" by current laws. A convicted felon who's not in prison should have their rights restored upon release. Remember a felony is charged for much more common crimes now than in the past. Is there any data suggesting a person hauled in for a "domestic" should loose his/her right? Are they more dangerous if they're "prohibited" or do we just feel better saying that.
Free is free
Incarcerated is incarcerated

Just some more common sense for you.

[pianoman9701]

That's a whole other debate that we're not having in this thread. With the emphasis from the left on gun bans lately, this is an important point. If you're not enforcing existing laws, then new laws aren't for reasons of safety. They're solely for control of the people by the government.

[csaaphill]

Your on the right track
But consider this; a persons right to protect themselves shouldn't be infringed even if they are " prohibited" by current laws. A convicted felon who's not in prison should have their rights restored upon release. Remember a felony is charged for much more common crimes now than in the past. Is there any data suggesting a person hauled in for a "domestic" should loose his/her right? Are they more dangerous if they're "prohibited" or do we just feel better saying that.
Free is free
Incarcerated is incarcerated

Just some more common sense for you.

[Bofire]

good post!
Carl

[hunter399]

If your felony included the endorsement of a weapon ,then no gun rights.They should in force current gun laws before making new one .common sense gun laws is another term for taking our gun rights.

[Lucky1]

Well said. Run for office and I will vote for you. 

[bigtex]

Remember a felony is charged for much more common crimes now than in the past.

I actually disagree. If your comparing 2016 vs 1930s then obviously yes. But 2016 vs 2006 or 2000 not really.

A lot of states are starting to look at Californias Prop 47 where the voters voted to make "nonviolent" felonies into misdemeanors, things like simple drug possession, possession of a stolen firearm, the majority of property crimes are now misdemeanors in California. Now as a result property and drug crimes are up in CA but hey that's another story. There are several states looking at CAs Prop 47 and looking to do similar in their state, WA is one of them.

In WA several years ago the threshold for theft and several other property crimes were increased. The majority of property crimes have a value threshold where items of lesser value are prosecuted as misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors and those of higher value as felonies. Prosecutors wanted a higher threshold. So someone who may have been convicted of a felony theft case in WA in 2000 may now only face a gross misdemeanor charge in WA in 2016.

You also need to look at the probability of a prosecutor taking the felony case. There are felonies out there that I know if I arrested someone on I'd be getting my butt chewed out by the prosecutors office. I can also say that for some misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors.

[skidynastar33]

The problem is that the group of people wanting to pass these gun laws,  don't really want to do anything but still want to be able to pat themselves on the back before they go to bed.(hence gun laws and other laws that don't really do anything) If they really wanted to do something to make a difference you would help educate people on guns and work on trying to keep families together so kids arnt raised in chaos and then more prone to act out.

[csaaphill]

No once you do your time and are out your liberties should be returned automatically. Which is why I like GOA they don't like any gun control and want to repeal NFA.
all gun control laws are unconstitutional anyhows. give a rats Butt what opinion the courts hold.

[bigtex]

all gun control laws are unconstitutional anyhows. give a rats Butt what opinion the courts hold.

So essentially you only like the constitution when it favors you? The constitution is what gives us the court.

[DaveMonti]

As long as the topic is government regulation, politics will be the rule.  Common sense does not apply and will not apply unless some drastic changes occur in the existing system.

It would be great if common sense was the basis for laws, but laws are not designed by anything but special interests, be it for a politicians legacy and self preservation or their funding parties. 

[Okanagan]

Any time someone tells me over and over that something is common sense, I know it isn't.  Double so when it is politicians making the claim.

Out of curiosity I counted the number of times the word combo "common sense" was spoken in a press conference after a shooting a few years ago:  29 times the speakers said "common sense" gun laws. 

[csaaphill]

all gun control laws are unconstitutional anyhows. give a rats Butt what opinion the courts hold.

So essentially you only like the constitution when it favors you? The constitution is what gives us the court.

I like the constitution as it was written not what Socialists or fascist have tried to interpret it.
And who appoints the Judges? and how have they ruled time and time again?
You should really check this guy out http://castle2016.com/
He's one of the one Running for President. and go to GOA's web site. Eye Opening. better yet here
http://www.gunowners.org/ go ask them what they support and they will tell you the same as I said.

[pianoman9701]

Most of you seem to missed the point of my post. The term "common sense gun laws" is thrown around with the most restrictive new gun law proposals. Personally, I hate the term. I find it to be an oxymoron. In addition, we're not going to get any existing laws repealed, like those prohibiting felons or domestic abuse cases. I'm not validating or supporting any unjust laws. I'm pointing out to the non-gun crowd that we have laws in place which ostensibly, were passed in the interest of public safety and yet, are not being enforced. My point is to get people thinking "if they're not enforcing existing laws to make us safer, laws which penalize dangerous people for trying to buy guns, what's the sense in passing new laws, and why would the government seek to do so? What is the government's real purpose?" When debating someone, you use their own words against them to turn the discussion. That's all that's going on here.

[hunter399]

The government is not perfect,the important part is people Don't get guns that they shouldn't get,if they can't own one for whatever reason,felony ect.They have enough gun laws in Washington ,if they could enforce them . Government wants more laws cause of all the crazy shootings,or that's the reason they will use to all non gun owners . Government wants to ban assult weapons and these shootings are there reason . Clinton = common sense gun laws= assult weapons ban  .I'm not sure what u want to discuss, just my 

[pianoman9701]

I disagree. I think the government wants to ban certain guns because they want to control the population as they become more corrupt and wield more power. They've already shown that criminals aren't their emphasis. That's  the reasons for my suggested legislation. They say it's for public safety. Fine. Prove it. Go after the criminals, not the law-abiding citizens.

[csaaphill]

Most of you seem to missed the point of my post. The term "common sense gun laws" is thrown around with the most restrictive new gun law proposals. Personally, I hate the term. I find it to be an oxymoron. In addition, we're not going to get any existing laws repealed, like those prohibiting felons or domestic abuse cases. I'm not validating or supporting any unjust laws. I'm pointing out to the non-gun crowd that we have laws in place which ostensibly, were passed in the interest of public safety and yet, are not being enforced. My point is to get people thinking "if they're not enforcing existing laws to make us safer, laws which penalize dangerous people for trying to buy guns, what's the sense in passing new laws, and why would the government seek to do so? What is the government's real purpose?" When debating someone, you use their own words against them to turn the discussion. That's all that's going on here.

yeah man sorry No on common sense laws either that's how they get it. But I since it's already unconstitutional don't really want them enforcing laws that are already there. Repeal and reform how things are done instead of just enforce things that shouldn't be there anyways, or go for more as you say either.

[csaaphill]

I disagree. I think the government wants to ban certain guns because they want to control the population as they become more corrupt and wield more power. They've already shown that criminals aren't their emphasis. That's  the reasons for my suggested legislation. They say it's for public safety. Fine. Prove it. Go after the criminals, not the law-abiding citizens.

this isn't here for nothing

[bigtex]

I'm pointing out to the non-gun crowd that we have laws in place which ostensibly, were passed in the interest of public safety and yet, are not being enforced.

While I have many stories of this a good one just happened to a USFS LEO friend of mine in NE California.

USFS gets a report of a squatter on USFS lands with a trailer and an "attachment" built on. USFS LEO and some SO Deputies roll up to find a trailer with a wooden added on "attachment" with about 125 marijuana plants planted into the ground, the guy had a rifle and a handgun. Oops he's also a felon.

So at minimum you have felon in possession of a firearm, drug user in possession of a firearm, and cultivation of marijuana right? So USFS LEO calls the US Attorney's Office (federal prosecutor). They look it over for a few days and give the LEO a call.....

"We're declining prosecution, call the state prosecutor...."

Why did they decline? Well his felony conviction was for a felony DUI not something 'violent', and it's not like he had A LOT of guns, and for the MJ charge eh that's not that many plants! Yet nowhere in federal law does it say only felons convicted of a violent felony can't possess firearms, or that the felon must have A LOT of guns, or that you have to plant so many plants to be charged. The law simply says if your a felon you cant have a gun, if your a drug user you cant have a gun, and its illegal to plant marijuana on federal lands.

And this brings us to the issue of underfunded and understaffed prosecutor offices. The same federal prosecutors office that my USFS LEO friend is in also handles places like Stockton, Sacramento, and Bakersfield...hello drug trafficking and gang violence capitals of California. And that is the same issue we have with prosecuting poaching offenses in WA, the same prosecutor you want to handle your big game trafficking case has the local PD in their office with a drive-by gang shooting case, hmm I wonder which one they'll take..

If we actually funded prosecutors offices like we should we wouldn't have people saying "just enforce the current laws" because they would have the staffing to do so!

[JimmyHoffa]

BigTex, on the form 4473 it mentions which felonies prohibit firearms, or more accurately which ones don't. 

[bigtex]

BigTex, on the form 4473 it mentions which felonies prohibit firearms, or more accurately which ones don't.

Under federal law ANY felony (felony = possibility of over a year in lockup) prohibits firearms, unless the conviction has been pardoned/expunged/etc. This is listed on the 4473.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

The prosecutor in the case I mentioned told the officer he had a good case for all charges, it just didn't meet their prosecuting "standard" (ie wasn't big enough)

[JimmyHoffa]

Form revision?  Used to have some listed, like anti-trust violations, embezzlement, unfair trade, mail and wire fraud(?), etc.  Actual felonies that were exempt, no expungement/pardon necessary.

[bigtex]

Form revision?  Used to have some listed, like anti-trust violations, embezzlement, unfair trade, mail and wire fraud(?), etc.  Actual felonies that were exempt, no expungement/pardon necessary.

Not sure. But I don't remember the federal law changing. There be some court case precedent behind it (law said all felonies, court said no money crimes don't matter, higher up court then overruled several years later...maybe?)

[JimmyHoffa]

possibly, I used to think it was blanket covering all felonies.  Maybe it did change.