Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I've said before, it would be hilarious if, after having spent so much time and effort defending Kavanaugh, the conservatives ended up completely regretting it because he turned out to be a liberal.
This law concerns crimes committed while in possession of a firearm.
Aside from being vague, the only place that law really goes wrong, is where it allows criminals to get off with lighter sentences if they DON'T have a gun.
An assault is an assault, a rape is a rape, a murder is a murder. Doesn't matter what tool you use to help commit it.
If you feel that someone who commits the crime with a gun needs a very harsh sentence, you're probably right. But if you feel the criminal needs a less harsh sentence if he doesn't have a gun at the crime scene, you're probably wrong. He should have the same book thrown at him and get the same harsh penalty, either way.
We have a similar law in Washington state known as 'hard time for armed Crime.' It was run as an initiative (ballot measure) by a local conservative talk host, and supported heavily by the NRA. It passed in a statewide vote in 1995. I wonder what this ruling will mean for it.
I really don't see this as much of a 2nd Amendment issue. Sounds like the SCOTUS was concerned about the language in the federal law, not necessarily about the concept per se of enhanced penalties for using guns in crimes.
I think it worked out well here. Armed robberies of convenience stores & such did go down a lot after it passed.
It is important with any legislation to get the language right.
Any way you look at it, the liberals on the SCOTUS won against the TRUMP ADMIN on this issue - that is how it was framed, at least. Hard to imagine why the Trump Admin isn't into the US Constitution - NOT.....
Whether these criminals (subjects in question) get 15 years or 50 years isn't really important to me. Heck, I know someone who shot her BF through the gut and killed him - she was in a 1/2 way house 18 months later (3 year sentence, but was working and in the 1/2 way house for the last 50%).
It's hard for anyone to argue that criminals change their behavior for...say...10 years vs. 15.
"Hmm...let's see, I will hold up this store because the Max. penalty is only 10 years.....and 10 years of being knifed, raped, abused and in a horrible cell....that's not much, so I'm going to go ahead"......
NOT the way people think. Crime has come down for various reasons but it's not due to 20 years instead of 10. Years ago they had a 10 year minimum...NO EXCEPTIONS...for selling LSD. Today you'd like get nothing, and can- in fact - buy analogues of it legally online (for research only, of course!).....
Heroin used to send a lot of people to jail. Big time if you were dealing. Today, in many states, odds are you will never see a sentence for having a couple dozen bags....
I'm with the liberals on this one. I don't like sentencing minimums anyway..in general.
Let's face it. Our entire justice system is bought and sold anyway. If some billionaires kid robbed a gas station with a gun he'd never see a day in prison. No way.
We have a similar law in Washington state known as 'hard time for armed Crime.' It was run as an initiative (ballot measure) by a local conservative talk host, and supported heavily by the NRA. It passed in a statewide vote in 1995. I wonder what this ruling will mean for it.
I really don't see this as much of a 2nd Amendment issue. Sounds like the SCOTUS was concerned about the language in the federal law, not necessarily about the concept per se of enhanced penalties for using guns in crimes.
I think it worked out well here. Armed robberies of convenience stores & such did go down a lot after it passed.
It is important with any legislation to get the language right.
Gorsuch likely would have allowed it if it had been narrowly tailored but Kavanaughs statement is IMO still troubling as it perhaps goes beyond that.
Its far easier for Republicans to chip away the 2nd than Dems, as GOP voters for the most part wont speak out against their own team members. Can you imagine the backlash if Obama had banned bumpstocks?
As I've said before, it would be hilarious if, after having spent so much time and effort defending Kavanaugh, the conservatives ended up completely regretting it because he turned out to be a liberal.
Any way you look at it, the liberals on the SCOTUS won against the TRUMP ADMIN on this issue - that is how it was framed, at least. Hard to imagine why the Trump Admin isn't into the US Constitution - NOT.....
Whether these criminals (subjects in question) get 15 years or 50 years isn't really important to me. Heck, I know someone who shot her BF through the gut and killed him - she was in a 1/2 way house 18 months later (3 year sentence, but was working and in the 1/2 way house for the last 50%).
It's hard for anyone to argue that criminals change their behavior for...say...10 years vs. 15.
"Hmm...let's see, I will hold up this store because the Max. penalty is only 10 years.....and 10 years of being knifed, raped, abused and in a horrible cell....that's not much, so I'm going to go ahead"......
NOT the way people think. Crime has come down for various reasons but it's not due to 20 years instead of 10. Years ago they had a 10 year minimum...NO EXCEPTIONS...for selling LSD. Today you'd like get nothing, and can- in fact - buy analogues of it legally online (for research only, of course!).....
Heroin used to send a lot of people to jail. Big time if you were dealing. Today, in many states, odds are you will never see a sentence for having a couple dozen bags....
I'm with the liberals on this one. I don't like sentencing minimums anyway..in general.
Let's face it. Our entire justice system is bought and sold anyway. If some billionaires kid robbed a gas station with a gun he'd never see a day in prison. No way.
People on balance, and in the long run, certainly do respond to incentives. When our 'hard time for armed crime' passed in 1995, I had a good friend who worked as a graveyard shift convenience store clerk. He followed all the local papers closely for reports of store robberies, and said there was one nearly every month within a 5-10 mile radius. After the law passed, the number went down dramatically. There was also a '3 strikes your out' law passed around that time (life in prison for 3 violent felonies), which doubtless helped too.
He was at the job for about 8 years, and said he experienced only one (unsuccessful) attempted armed robbery at his store. The guy had a gun stuck into his waistband, but my friend was confident it was just a bb gun, so my friend just shooed him away.
This represented xactly what was intended by the law--robbers switching from real guns to bb guns and other implements. The law worked.
I would have no issue if they passed a law that said any criminal using a gun in commission of a violent crime receive the death penalty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
