Ideas for reducing illegal guns

[JD Barleycorn]

I know you mean well but some ideas are too stupid and the devil is in the details. Number one question, what is an illegal gun? Don't you mean an illegal gun owner (or possessor)? My gun my have been purchases legally and then stolen by a low life. Accordingly is it now an illegal gun or is it still my gun in the hands of an illegal gun possessor (he or she is not the owner). When I started this post there was only the original so some things may be redundant.

Let me start.

- Pay $500 and amnesty for anybody handing in an illegal gun I read this that someone could make a living stealing guns, turning them in and getting amnesty for the crime that got them the gun. What happens to the "legal" gun that was stolen? Is it returned to the rightful owner? If that is the case then a few people could have their guns "stolen" on a regular basis, returned, and the perp would get off and get paid.
Counterproposal: All stolen guns will be returned to the legal owners or legal guardians (they may be dead or have committed a felony in the meantime) from which they were stolen. There is no amnesty. The reward will go to $1,000 as a bounty for every stolen weapon recovered. The Justice Department will oversee such trias as the crime of stealing a weapon will be elevated to federal felony. Make it hurt to get caught stealing weapons. So much that it will become much rarer.

- Mandatory 1 year jail for illegal carrying or posession, no bail. Until such time as all states have reasonable concealed carry laws I cannot support this. Some legal gun owners may carry for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with committing crimes. Is it your intent to put those people in the same category as someone who carries to commit crimes?
Counterproposal: A federal concealed carry law effective in all states and municipalities. In the event an unlicensed person is found to be carrying a weapon...well if you have a federal law then I guess no one is carrying illegally. So now the question becomes WHAT was the purpose behind carrying a gun. If it was a legal reason then there is no charge. If the person carrying was a convicted felon, guilty of domestic abuse, deemed to be (by a competent medical authority) mentally or emotionally disturbed, an illegal alien, or a veteran with a dishonorable discharge then the act is illegal. Penalty for first offense is 1 year, second offense 5 years. All persons legally carrying weapons will pass a universal training regime or be a member of the military or law enforcement.

- Mandatory 10 year jail for supplying illegal guns. See my definition of "illegal" weapon.
Counterproposal: 10 years is good if the weapons was obtained illegally by purchase, theft, or deceit. All weapons confiscated will be returned to the last rightful owner (see number one).

- Tougher country wide laws on obtaining legal guns, so that the process is not abused. Like I said the devil is in the details. This has to be very specific. I enlisted, went to boot camp, finished my A school, went to advanced training, participated in my first deployment, joined the self defense force where I carried a M-14, grenades, and wore body armor during the Iranian Hostage Crisis (we were in the Persian Gulf). Upon my return home I was legally unable to buy a drink or pistol because I was not 21 years of age. Is this what you mean? Any process to qualify for ownership that is so onerous amounts to a ban or prohibition on ownership. This is a deal breaker.
Counterproposal: Any legal citizen having acquired the age of 21 or possessing an active military ID shall have the assumed right to own a weapon according to the US Constitution. The disqualifiers to ownership include felony convictions, domestic abuse convictions, dishonorable discharges, mental infirmity, demonstratable emotional instability, or repeated midemeanor convictions.

Stricter border controls. Please be specific again.
Counterproposal: Build the wall, fence, whatever you want to call it whether it is physical or electronic. Close the border using barricade, aerial surveillance, maritime surveillance, and armed personnel. Change the current laws, training, and weapons to allow our border security to do their jobs in safety. Any illegals will be processed and identified by fingerprint, retinual scan, and DNA matching. First offense means departation with 48 hours, second offense will be considered a misdemeanor conviction (mere presence on US soil is sufficient for a finding of guilt) with a fine and 30 days in a local lockup, third offense would be considered a felony conviction with loss of any change of ever becoming a legal citizen and very uncomfortable incarceration. The 14th amendment shall be altered to prevent "anchor babies". It is within the amendment itself for Congress to regulate immigration. On immigration; English shall be the official langauge of the United States. All business shall be done in the official langauge. To obtain citizenship all volunteers shall have proficiency in the offical langauge to qualify. Everyone now in the country shall have one, and only one, opportunity to get themselves right with the law following five years of proven border security. That opportunity shall require that all probationary citizens shall not have the right to vote for a period of 20 years, all probationary citizens shall maintain a clean criminal record (one felony conviction and you're done, three or more misdemeanor convictions and you're done, four or more civil complaints and you're done), all probationary citizens shall NOT avail themselves of social programs for a period of 10 years (unemployment, Medicare, food stamps, etc), the children (US born) of probationary citizens and young probationary citizens SHALL finish high school with a passing grade. All probationary citizens shall be of good physical health without chronic or transmittable diseases.

- Free pussy for an hour for anybody handing in guns (or cock, whatever floats your boat, or a tongue if you are lesbian) Someone has to say it. Who will pay for this pussy and who will provide it. Rhonda the fucked out street walker who has been selling for the last 20 years (not counting the time she has been in the hospital with TB) or someone in the police department. Sounds good but the logistics won't work.

- Armed raids on apartment blocks and search of all property The details again. Probably cause or just a feeling on the back of the neck?
Counterproposal: Adjudication that any widespread criminal activity is "gang" related and judicial authorization to use special training and tactics to prevent said criminal activity. Meaning that street gangs should be considered terrorist organizations and treated as such. There is a danger that an activist judge and law enforcement official would target non-criminal groups like the Tea Party, militias, grass root movements (left or right), or other loosely organized groups. Criminal behavior must be established under current criminal guidelines and subject to appeal. Any abuse by officials should cause to be formed a panel of non-local officials to mete out punishment. Meaning that if a judge and police chief decide to go after a political opponent because he or she is a member of the Tea Party then those officials will lose their position and go to prison themselves. This is such a slippery slope that the more important laws punish the officials to prevent abuse.

- Sronger stop and search laws, any car can be stopped for no reason and searched. Having been subjected to a stop and search in my younger days (nothing was found) because a rookie state trooper wanted to have something to do at 3 AM I have to insist on probably cause. For many people the car is an extension of their home which is protected under the Constitution. You carry household items, documents, food, clothing, etc in your car and should be protected. This is also a deal breaker.
Counterproposal: Stop and search only if it can be shown that there is reasonable probable cause. Meaning that an officer can't decide that you car is the same color as a car involved in a robbery half a state away and that is the only criteria for a stop. Maintain the same standards as we have now.

- Random metal detectors at schools Metal detects can and have been defeated. They are stationary (except for wands which are less reliable) and can be bypassed by an individual intent on doing harm. Also an armed individual could quickly neutralize a metal detector station unless it was a fortified point of entry.
Counterproposal: It is true that a good offense is the best defense. Train and arm volunteer member of the teaching or support staff. Armed members will not be known to the general public or student population. Design schools with restricted entry points, locking doors (doors should also open inward so they can be blocked), and an armored band to a height of three feet on the walls. Control who comes and goes, give each classroom the ability to defend itself, and in the worse case scenario give the students a chance to lower themselves behind a steel or concrete barrier in the wall. 1/4 inch of steel plate or solid concrete blocks will protect against most ammunition.

- Ban all Tarantino films I don't like Tarantino either. He is arrogant, presumptuous, and panders to the lowest common denominator but he has the right to be a crass boor.

- Infiltrate gangs This should be happening already as part of a proactive policing plan.

- increase police resources, increase taxes to pay for them Work smarter, not harder, and cheaper too. In many cases the police have the resouces but are unable to use them effectively because of political or legal reasons.
Counterproposal: First root out official and police corruption, eliminate waste, promote people not by seniority but by the ability to do the job. When I lived in New Orleans the local police were riding three to a car and some cars were in a terrible state of disrepair. The Mayor was demanding a tax increase to pay for new cars. Marc Morial was elected to replace him. They found over 700 brand new cars stored in a parking garage. Their excuse, they didn't have the money to paint them...but they did have the money to buy more cars. Eliminate the corruption first. Evaluate your needs. High crime areas have priority not the city council members street. Put more cops on the streets in those areas. Now we get into drones... I don't like them but we accept helicopters without a second thought. I think the use of drones should be subject to a warrant by a judge and not generally used. If an area is declared under siege by crime then drones can do surveillance and recording. Those resources will not be allocated to the low crime,high value areas for the comfort of the citizens. Crime fighting must come first. After review, disband any program that is not showing appreciable results. Is D.A.R.E. working? If not the money can go to something that is working.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by essence

BTW, in answer to your two questions on mandatory jail sentences, the answer is YES, oh YES !!

Wow. A mandatory 10 year prison sentence for loaning a rifle to someone and you are enthusiastic about it. We don't have mandatory 10 years sentences for actual shootings. And you want 10 years for lending someone a rifle to hunting?

Your mandatory sentences are a non-starter. There are a 100 million or more firearms in this country and many people loan their to others. Most people would be unaware of the change in the law until they were faced with a 10 year sentence. That is the type of law they have in a totalitarian state. This law might put a couple of hundred thousand people in jail. We already have a too-large prison population.

Originally Posted by essence

Seriously, seeing as we are this board, we have prostitution stings, wouldn't it be better to have illegal gun ownership stings instead?

False choice. The one is not a substitute for the other. Why not get rid of BOTH kinds of stings?

Originally Posted by essence

So what are your ideas on how to reduce illegal (or illegal possession of ) arms/guns?

I'm not sure, but they will be far more respectful of liberty than imposing 10 year sentences for loaning to someone an otherwise legal inanimate object.

[essence]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

And this is something you RECOMMEND for the US?

No thanks.

Who said I recommended it?

I am simply putting forward brainstorming ideas, getting away from the negativity.

US has various laws on stop and search, suspicion, and parole. I think many criminals would fall under the banner of police not needing a warrant to conduct a search.

I think if you are on parole you can be searched at any time without suspicion. That would catch 80% of criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_v._California

[I B Hankering]

$500 is cheap considering how much guns are retailing for at present!

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=678913

Enforcing the laws that are on the books would suffice. No new laws are required, if libertard politicians had the balls to actually act rather than grandstand. There is absolutely no legitimate excuse for characters like Little Rowdy -- arrested 19 times: twice for gun violations in Chicago -- wandering the streets and repeatedly committing crimes.

Furthermore, these ex post facto laws are bullshit! The idea that a Fienstein, Biden or an Odumbo can deprive a citizen of vested property is unadulterated bullshit!

Beretta agrees:


Gun maker Beretta threatens to leave Maryland, take hundreds of jobs
By Cheryl K. Chumley-The Washington Time

Major weapons manufacturer Beretta USA is vowing to close shop and leave Maryland if the state passes new gun-control measures.

The multimillion dollar, centuries-old manufacturer provides hundreds of jobs in the state, the Blaze reports. It was considering an expansion to its existing Prince George County plant — until Maryland lawmakers introduced a bill to ban so-called assault weapons.

The law also would ban the company’s 9 mm pistol, a staple of the U.S. military and civilian police departments.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2M1fJCrxa
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[essence]

Great post JDB!

I thought yssup would make a good pussy. Sorry, cheap joke. CoG and he can take turns. God, this thread has gone bad already, back on the agenda.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by essence

What happens at present to the ones confiscated? Do they re-enter circulation?

I'm not sure about the 'stop manufacturing' bit. It would reduce illegal guns, but illegal ownership of legal guns?

No they should be destroyed. Otherwise they could reach the hands of a person with less than lawful intentions. If they are to be banned then all efforts should be employed to reduce the numbers of illegal guns in circulation. For the Government to state a particular gun is banned isn't enough.

[Texas Contrarian]

Why not just go ahead and jettison the Constitution?

That's what one Georgetown University law professor wants to do:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/op...anted=all&_r=0

[essence]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Why not just go ahead and jettison the Constitution?

That's what one Georgetown University law professor wants to do:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/op...anted=all&_r=0

So what are your ideas for reducing illegal arms, or the illegal possession of legal arms?

Without changing the law or constitutionality of either?

[Iaintliein]

Pretty much every high profile shooter since John Wilkes Booth has been a democrat.

Repeal ALL of the gun laws (hence, instantly stopping possession of ALL illegal guns), then strip anyone who votes democrat of their second amendment right. After all, how can anybody who voted to put Joe Biden a heartbeat away from nuclear launch codes be taken serious when discussing "keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally incompetent"?

If you are serious about "gun violence" this will cut it by probably 3/4.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Pretty much every high profile shooter since John Wilkes Booth has been a democrat.

Repeal ALL of the gun laws (hence, instantly stopping possession of ALL illegal guns), then strip anyone who votes democrat of their second amendment right. After all, how can anybody who voted to put Joe Biden a heartbeat away from nuclear launch codes be taken serious when discussing "keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally incompetent"?

If you are serious about "gun violence" this will cut it by probably 3/4.

Whats even more scary about Biden is he's a bullet away from being president. Which by the way would be the only way he would ever be president.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by essence

So what are your ideas for reducing illegal arms, or the illegal possession of legal arms?

I'm not exactly sure.

But suffice it to say that they'd land well short of having armies of police kick in doors to conduct indiscriminate searches of residences, and searching vehicles without so much as a hint of reasonable suspicion. You advocated those drastic measures in your opening post.

Originally Posted by essence

Without changing the law or constitutionality of either?

Please note that your proposals are not even remotely constitutional. (Perhaps you were just kidding?)

I have no problem with strengthening the background check databases and recordkeeping for individuals who have criminal records or mental issues. There seems to be little doubt that we could do a lot better in those areas.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Ban any films glorifying gun violence if liberals financed, acted in, directed, profited from, or were connected in any way.

[carguy1989]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Pretty much every high profile shooter since John Wilkes Booth has been a democrat.

Repeal ALL of the gun laws (hence, instantly stopping possession of ALL illegal guns), then strip anyone who votes democrat of their second amendment right. After all, how can anybody who voted to put Joe Biden a heartbeat away from nuclear launch codes be taken serious when discussing "keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally incompetent"?

If you are serious about "gun violence" this will cut it by probably 3/4.

The only "illeagle" guns I can think of are fully automatic weapons IF the owner is not licensed to own them. There are LOTS of people that own guns illeagally. The results of making guns illeagle can readilly be seen in both the U.K and Austraila. How can anysemi smart individual take our current administration serious aboht gun laws when they take weapons into Mexico and disribute them?????

[SEE3772]

[essence]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I'm not exactly sure.

You advocated those drastic measures in your opening post.



Please note that your proposals are not even remotely constitutional. (Perhaps you were just kidding?)

I wasn;t advocating anything, I was brainstorming, that is the stage where every idea, however whacky, is allowed, you filter them out and analyse them later. I was just starting a debate.

Problem solving stages:

- identify the symptoms
- understand the problem(s)
- idendify whether perceived problems are real or not
- brainstorm solutions
- analyse solutions
- choose solutions
- implement solutions
- review effectiveness of solutions.

or something like that.

Constitutional? I thought most of the ideas are constitutional, tightening guildiness on sentencing is a tactic, more rigorous focussed searches are a tactic (if you can sting a prostitue, why can;t you sting an arms dealer?), it doesn;t take much for police officer to 'sniff' some illegal substances when you forget to indicate when turning, whether real or not, it doesn't take much to check any warrants and do further checks. There's nothing uncostitutional in making gun purchase go through a few more rigorous checks, Free pussy might be considered entrapment, but incentives for handing in arms is not unconstitutional.

I fear the constitution is a canard to avoid rigorous focussed application of laws already in the statute book.

The problem may be that, rightly, the police do not have enough backing and protection to implement these kinds of policies. It is a tactical issue. To do a vigorous search of an apartment block with 2000 officers, even if you know from survelliiance that there is extensive arms dealing, would be, literally, dynamite.

It is a practical problem, not a constitutional problem.

Stories of how the Rolling Stones got away with stashes of illegal substances in their car because of smart lawyers are funny, but not so funny if they were arms.

Do I want the right for a police officer to search my house or car for no reason? Of course not. Do I want the right for a police officer to ask for my id, and if found to be on parole or have a warrant, to search my car, different question. Do I want a police officer to have the right to ask my passenger for an id, and if they are found to be on parole, search the passanger and my car, no, but I live in the real world and donlt tell me it doesn't happen all the time.

Then you have the problem of how to encourage communities to cooperate with the police and build a level of trust with them. Difficult if all the kids are being searched all the time, it creates resentment.

Practical, not constitutional, issues.

Many years ago, my stepson was arrested for carrying in the street a small amount of illegal substances. Police came to search his bedroom, only my wife and I were present. He was 17 or so, not present. They found an unloaded handgun hidden away, I knew nothing about it. No evidence it had been used recently, no ammunition, it was simply a status symbol. I remember the police seargent tolling the other offices 'be careful, this is a professional household' i.e. they weren;t dealing with some ghetto house.

If I had had any idea my stepson was so stupid, i would have asked for a warrant.

Nothing arose, they didn;t follow up on the gun. They did on the illegal substances, but lost the papers when it went to court, so he walked. He also had just lost his gf of some years to a sudden unexplained death, so maybe they had sympathy and lost the papers 'by accident'.

Of course, the only times I have been faced with a gun, it was a legal handgun in the hand of somebody who was v unlikely to be licensed. One was clearly under the influence of drugs.

Does a gun license require regular (say annual) illegal substance checking? If not, why not?

There's an idea to add to the list.

Nothing unconstitutional in that, surely, employers require it.

Just a matter of money and willingness.