Lets do some serious talking about gun laws.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

My common sense gun law proposal: Gun owners are responsible for their guns. If they are negligent in securing their firearms, they are guilty as an accessory to anyone who commits a crime with that gun. Mandatory sentence extension of 5-10 years for any crime committed with a gun. This will require law abiding gun owners to secure their guns so no one can get them without their permission, and it will keep illegal gun users off the street longer, and hopefully act as a deterrent.

So someone burglarizes your home, steals your pistol, robs a bank, kills the guard, and you are guilty of being an accessory to capital murder with a mandatory sentence extension of 10 years, because you were "negligent" in securing your pistol in your home?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Use your head. There will always be a hearing.

Yes, and that's called an "arraignment" to determine there is probable cause to justify your arrest and the "magistrate" sets the bail bond in an amount that is generally recommended in that particular community for a person charged with "accessory to capital murder" .... which means someone where in the $50,000 to $100,000 range at a minimum. Then you can hire an attorney (because generally speaking if you can bond out you can "afford" an attorney), and go through 10-12 months of court appearances awaiting a trial on the charge of "accessory to capital murder." The attorney fees and expenses for an attorney capable of adequately defending you on a "capital murder" charge will be someone in the range of $20,000 to $50,000 (on up) at a minimum. Throughout this process the pistol is in the possession of the state as evidence, along with any "device" or "thing" used to "secure" it.

At the "hearing" (as you say) the Jury will decide whether you were negligent in securing the firearm with the "device" or "thing" you used, and you will have to hire an "expert" on securing firearms in the home to testify on your behalf to refute what the State's expert(s) says. That will be another $5,000 to $10,000 plus travel expenses for the experts. The conservative amount of your "ticket" for the "hearing" will be in the range of $70,000 to $100,000 conservatively....because you were exercising your Constitutional Rights!

I know you can afford that regularly in your discretionary defense spending fund, but Joe the hamburger flipper down at the local "MickieDee" can't.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No, I am the DA. The law says what it says. If there was an exception it should have been written into the law.

Uh, I'm making suggestions, not drafting legislation. You're as bad as the Obamatons.

[CuteOldGuy]

The Court doesn't determine probable cause at an arraignment, you ignorant poser. That's where the defendant is read the charges and offers a plea. But you keep trying to sound like you know something when you don't. It's fun to watch.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Court doesn't determine probable cause at an arraignment, you ignorant poser.

Wait ....

...are trying to divert attention away from your ignorance. Name calling also.

Let me guess .... you went and looked it up in the CCP!

That's the difference between reading it and doing it.

Do you see those quotes I put around the word ...?

If the person has already been indicted, there's not need for a PC finding. And additionally if the defendant is arrested by warrant, there's no need for it either. But if it is a warrantless arrest there needs to be a finding to hold the Defendant ...

... keep up the book work.

Now, do you want to talk about "gun laws" or criminal procedure?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

My common sense gun law proposal: Gun owners are responsible for their guns. If they are negligent in securing their firearms, they are guilty as an accessory to anyone who commits a crime with that gun. Mandatory sentence extension of 5-10 years for any crime committed with a gun. This will require law abiding gun owners to secure their guns so no one can get them without their permission, and it will keep illegal gun users off the street longer, and hopefully act as a deterrent.

laws defining gross negligence already cover this.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So someone burglarizes your home, steals your pistol, robs a bank, kills the guard, and you are guilty of being an accessory to capital murder with a mandatory sentence extension of 10 years, because you were "negligent" in securing your pistol in your home?

according to the professor, YES! you should have known your house was going to be broken into and when! and prevented it!

further, you would be required by the Professor to live in a fortress, that can't ever be broken into.

also, by the Professor's logic, if your house burns down, you are at fault! forget smoking in bed, you are fault if your wires fry and cause a fire. you are at fault for that lightening strike! but keep paying those "worthless" insurance premiums anyway.

[biggeorge565]

There is a great divide between gun lovers and gun haters. Right now, the private ownership of guns is the highest it has ever been, but Obongo brags about violent crime being down. I am in favor of responsible gun ownership - I own about 15 guns and don't want to give them up or register my long guns.. On the other hand, I don't want to see a group of thugs hanging around on a street corner with AR-15 type rifles slung over their shoulders. There are some areas that are definititely black and white, but there is a much bigger area that is grey. I would favor reasonable background checks, but what is reasonable is up for debate. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to this but I know that whatever is done, criminals will still have guns.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

laws defining gross negligence already cover this.




according to the professor, YES! you should have known your house was going to be broken into and when! and prevented it!

further, you would be required by the Professor to live in a fortress, that can't ever be broken into.

also, by the Professor's logic, if your house burns down, you are at fault! forget smoking in bed, you are fault if your wires fry and cause a fire. you are at fault for that lightening strike! but keep paying those "worthless" insurance premiums anyway.

If you are going to own a firearm, it is your responsibility to to take all reasonable steps to insure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. Why do you oppose this? If you leave your gun on a table or in a drawer and a child or criminal gets ahold of it, are you not in someway responsible for what is done with that gun? You made the gun readily available. Therefore, you are an accessory. If you have your gun properly secured in a safe, then you've taken reasonable precautions. This is not difficult.


If you are smoking in bed, and burn down your house, is it the cigarette's fault or yours? If there is faulty wiring because you ignored maintenance, is it the wiring's fault or yours? If faulty wires burn your house down, and there was no way you could reasonably have known, is it still your fault?


And any defendant can demand a probable cause hearing in any felony case. It is called a "preliminary hearing" in Kansas, not an "arraignment". It would be nice if you two were truly as smart as you think you sound.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If you are going to own a firearm, it is your responsibility to to take all reasonable steps to insure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. Why do you oppose this? If you leave your gun on a table or in a drawer and a child or criminal gets ahold of it, are you not in someway responsible for what is done with that gun? You made the gun readily available. Therefore, you are an accessory. If you have your gun properly secured in a safe, then you've taken reasonable precautions. This is not difficult.

horse crap. forget if a child gets a hold of it. you are saying that if a burglar breaks in and ransacks your house and find a gun it's my fault? please. you could put it in safe is the next lame argument you'll make. and if they steal the safe? stop blathering



If you are smoking in bed, and burn down your house, is it the cigarette's fault or yours? If there is faulty wiring because you ignored maintenance, is it the wiring's fault or yours? If faulty wires burn your house down, and there was no way you could reasonably have known, is it still your fault?

does it invalidate your insurance professor? no.

And any defendant can demand a probable cause hearing in any felony case. It is called a "preliminary hearing" in Kansas, not an "arraignment". It would be nice if you two were truly as smart as you think you sound.

we know you aren't. but keep trying anyway.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Uh, I'm making suggestions, not drafting legislation. You're as bad as the Obamatons.

Yes, I want good, solid, well thought suggestions that could be law. Trying to hit that standard forces people to really think about their opinion.

[JD Barleycorn]

[QUOTE=CuteOldGuy;1058295751]If you are going to own a firearm, it is your responsibility to to take all reasonable steps to insure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. Why do you oppose this? If you leave your gun on a table or in a drawer and a child or criminal gets ahold of it, are you not in someway responsible for what is done with that gun? You made the gun readily available. Therefore, you are an accessory. If you have your gun properly secured in a safe, then you've taken reasonable precautions. This is not difficult.


If you are smoking in bed, and burn down your house, is it the cigarette's fault or yours? If there is faulty wiring because you ignored maintenance, is it the wiring's fault or yours? If faulty wires burn your house down, and there was no way you could reasonably have known, is it still your fault?


And any defendant can demand a probable cause hearing in any felony case. It is called a "preliminary hearing" in Kansas, not an "arraignment". It would be nice if you two were truly as smart as you think you sound.[/QUOT

No one said anything about opposing common sense. This is about what is reasonable and what is not. The NRA helped draft the first gun laws but it was the southern democrats who wanted the first ban.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by biggeorge565

There is a great divide between gun lovers and gun haters. Right now, the private ownership of guns is the highest it has ever been, but Obongo brags about violent crime being down. I am in favor of responsible gun ownership - I own about 15 guns and don't want to give them up or register my long guns.. On the other hand, I don't want to see a group of thugs hanging around on a street corner with AR-15 type rifles slung over their shoulders. There are some areas that are definititely black and white, but there is a much bigger area that is grey. I would favor reasonable background checks, but what is reasonable is up for debate. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to this but I know that whatever is done, criminals will still have guns.

In case you own an AR-15, if anyone ever tells you that you shouldn't have an assault weapon and it should be banned tell them the AR-15 isn't an assault weapon by definition, then show them this article. Then tell 'em to fuck off, lol.

Jim
http://www.ijreview.com/2016/06/6279...and-the-ar-15/

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And any defendant can demand a probable cause hearing in any felony case. It is called a "preliminary hearing" in Kansas, not an "arraignment". It would be nice if you two were truly as smart as you think you sound.

And if the person is already indicted by a grand jury you are not entitled to a "preliminary hearing" or "probable cause" hearing. But your book didn't tell you that ... so your statement is wrong!

2011 Kansas Code
Chapter 22. - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Article 29. - PROCEDURE AFTER ARREST
22-2902 Preliminary examination.

22-2902. Preliminary examination. (1) The state and every person charged with a felony shall have a right to a preliminary examination before a magistrate, unless such charge has been issued as a result of an indictment by a grand jury.

"It would be nice if you ... were truly as smart as you think you sound."

... now back to your dumbass proposal of prosecuting someone for a capital offense based on "negligence" ....

... you apparently one someone to be CONVICTED of CAPITAL MURDER because the someone's weapon was stolen from their home and used in a bank robbery to kill someone ....

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No one said anything about opposing common sense. This is about what is reasonable and what is not. The NRA helped draft the first gun laws but it was the southern democrats who wanted the first ban.

The problem with the "concept" of "common sense" .... who is to determine it.

There are many "concepts" in our constitutional and criminal jurisprudence that don't "make sense" to a lot of people, but that's not the philosophical focus of either one ... since we are talking about "individual" rights and not the rights of a collective body of persons.

It makes "sense" to have laws protecting a specific identifiable category of persons, such as those who are lacking in mental capacity to make decisions on their own, but it doesn't make "sense" to impose criminal liability on the basis of the individual failing to protect the public at large from intervening events beyond the "someone's" PRACTICAL control, particularly when the government attempts to impose restrictions on the use of an item that "enjoys" constitutional protections.

With regard to the laws around the time the 2nd amendment was crafted it was "common sense" for the government to provide firearms to those persons who could not afford to buy one, which demonstrates the "common sense" basis upon which the amendment was passed by a vote of the people.

As a matter of "common sense" it makes more "sense" for people to have a firearm in their homes for personal protection in the poorer neighborhoods, and to impose rules and/or regulations that place too great a financial burden on them to have one is counterproductive to the original aims of the 2nd amendment. Gun ownership will become a class matter!

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

And if the person is already indicted by a grand jury you are not entitled to a "preliminary hearing" or "probable cause" hearing. But your book didn't tell you that ... so your statement is wrong!

2011 Kansas Code
Chapter 22. - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Article 29. - PROCEDURE AFTER ARREST
22-2902 Preliminary examination.

22-2902. Preliminary examination. (1) The state and every person charged with a felony shall have a right to a preliminary examination before a magistrate, unless such charge has been issued as a result of an indictment by a grand jury.

"It would be nice if you ... were truly as smart as you think you sound."

... now back to your dumbass proposal of prosecuting someone for a capital offense based on "negligence" ....

... you apparently one someone to be CONVICTED of CAPITAL MURDER because the someone's weapon was stolen from their home and used in a bank robbery to kill someone ....

How often is a grand jury used in Kansas? Nice try.