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.
Gun control has become a big issue in this campaign, for a variety of reasons. One is the recent shootings. A second is Obama's probably unconstitutional executive order. Generally I think gun control is useless since someone who is enough of a criminal to shoot someone won't care about fastidiously obeying gun laws.
There is only one reason I favor background checks and a paper trail for gun purchases; that is to give the police the ability to be the sole witnesses in certain gun incidents. In this story,Fight over Instagram password leads to gunfire in Jersey City, a boyfriend was enraged that his girlfriend wouldn't yield her Instagram password. The article stated that "(t)he 17-year-old, who the city is not identifying because he is a minor, was arrested at about noon yesterday for making terroristic threats, aggravated assault for knowingly pointing a firearm and three other weapons charges."
Now there is a very good chance that neither the girlfriend nor her mother will want to testify for the following reasons:
When the boyfriend is free on bail or after he serves any (likely light) sentence he may be a bit threatening or intimidating;
The boyfriend and girlfriend may "make up"
The girlfriend and mother may have other legal problems and may not want to appear in Court; and/or
The girlfriend and mother may have employment or other time constraints and could lose their jobs if they have to appear in Court.
In these circumstances the officer's testimony alone should be sufficient to obtain a conviction on the weapons' charges. The threats and assault charges require the girlfriend's and mother's cooperation, which may not be readily forthcoming.
Sort of the way Al Capone ultimately ent to jail on tax charges, weapons charges are useful ways of incarcerating people who ought to be convicted.
Here's a clue-it was already illegal for a 17 year old to purchase a handgun. Criminals don't obey laws. Exactly what would one more "gun control" law have done?
There is only one reason I favor background checks and a paper trail for gun purchases; that is to give the police the ability to be the sole witnesses in certain gun incidents. In this story,Fight over Instagram password leads to gunfire in Jersey City, a boyfriend was enraged that his girlfriend wouldn't yield her Instagram password. The article stated that "(t)he 17-year-old, who the city is not identifying because he is a minor, was arrested at about noon yesterday for making terroristic threats, aggravated assault for knowingly pointing a firearm and three other weapons charges."
Now there is a very good chance that neither the girlfriend nor her mother will want to testify for the following reasons:
When the boyfriend is free on bail or after he serves any (likely light) sentence he may be a bit threatening or intimidating;
The boyfriend and girlfriend may "make up"
The girlfriend and mother may have other legal problems and may not want to appear in Court; and/or
The girlfriend and mother may have employment or other time constraints and could lose their jobs if they have to appear in Court.
In these circumstances the officer's testimony alone should be sufficient to obtain a conviction on the weapons' charges. The threats and assault charges require the girlfriend's and mother's cooperation, which may not be readily forthcoming.
Sort of the way Al Capone ultimately ent to jail on tax charges, weapons charges are useful ways of incarcerating people who ought to be convicted.
It's also a convenient way of incarcerating someone who shouldn't be incarcerated. Nice friendly police state we are building here...There are already laws on the books to handle this type situation. The problem is our judicial system tends to be too lenient. Will that change? Very doubtful
Here's a clue-it was already illegal for a 17 year old to purchase a handgun. Criminals don't obey laws. Exactly what would one more "gun control" law have done?
There may be no way to convict that 17 year old other than technical gun law violations.
There is only one reason I favor background checks and a paper trail for gun purchases; that is to give the police the ability to be the sole witnesses in certain gun incidents.
The San Bernardino shooters broke at least 14 CA and Federal gun laws before they even entered that room. Where was the paper trail?
Here's a clue-it was already illegal for a 17 year old to purchase a handgun. Criminals don't obey laws. Exactly what would one more "gun control" law have done?
When I was 12, I bought a 22 lever action rifle from Sears.
Must have been illegal for the government to have a say, one way or the other, then.
When I was 12, I bought a 22 lever action rifle from Sears.
Must have been illegal for the government to have a say, one way or the other, then.
Is a lever action rifle a handgun?
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.
