Common Sense Gun Laws - Facebook Post this AM

[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 In addition, we're not going to get any existing laws repealed, like those prohibiting felons or domestic abuse cases.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.