CHL Stops Church Shooting

[SonOfScubaDiver]

I heard on the news yesterday that, in the last 10 years, the military has only submitted one domestic violence conviction to the FBIs database. The reason for this is because the military justice system does not have a separate domestic violence charge. It's covered under assault. So, if a soldier gets a bad conduct discharge for domestic violence, it goes into the records as an assault charge, which does not bar him from purchasing guns. A dishonorable discharge, for any reason, does bar soldiers from buying guns. That's a pretty big loophole that needs to be addressed.

 

[DaleA]

It happened in Oregon in a public manner when the pastor gave an AR15 won in a raffle to someone to hold until it could be destroyed and it wasn’t enforced

Well yes, but the pastor was a vocal, out spoken gun CRITIC who did not like guns at all, so of course the law was not suppose to target HIM and, of course, when it was revealed who he was, there were, again OF COURSE, there were no charges filed.

(where is the dripping sarcasm icon?)

 

[rickyrick]

I don’t think it should’ve been enforced, really, wouldn’t have done anything for the greater good. I don’t think it should be a crime for an adult to gift a gun to his pops either.
However, there’s a possibility that some rules were already in effect that weren’t followed.
The guy was a time bomb and may have still gotten a gun, who knows at this point.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don’t think it should’ve been enforced, really, wouldn’t have done anything for the greater good.

Doesn't matter.

My great-grandfather, the law professor, taught us that laws that are enforced selectively or arbitrarily and capriciously are worse than no laws at all, because selective enforcement creates disrespect for the rule of law. If a law is enacted that doesn't contain exceptions, then it must be enforced with no exceptions. If it isn't, nobody knows when and where it will be enforced and when and where it will be ignored. If the people who enacted the law didn't want it to apply to anti-gun men of the cloth, they should have written that into the law.

 

[JohnKSa]

...laws that are enforced selectively or arbitrarily and capriciously are worse than no laws at all, because selective enforcement creates disrespect for the rule of law. If a law is enacted that doesn't contain exceptions, then it must be enforced with no exceptions. If it isn't, nobody knows when and where it will be enforced and when and where it will be ignored.

YES! I agree completely.

I do NOT agree with all the laws we have on the book, but I do feel VERY strongly that they should ALL be impartially and uniformly enforced just as they are written.

Not only does selective/capricious/arbitrary enforcement cause disrespect for the laws, it also creates a situation where the system and the people in the system can legally discriminate against some citizens by enforcing the laws against them while not enforcing the laws against others.

The gun control laws passed in the South after the Civil War were a perfect example. They were never meant to be enforced against whites--there's even a quote from a FL judge explicitly stating that fact.

If a law exists, it needs to be enforced all the time and against all offenders.

If society doesn't want that law enforced or thinks that uniform/universal/impartial enforcement is problematic then it needs to be taken off the books.

 

[44 AMP]

If society doesn't want that law enforced or thinks that uniform/universal/impartial enforcement is problematic then it needs to be taken off the books.

I so agree, however, in the real world it so seldom happens. Laws are almost never taken off the books. Enforcement may be abandoned, but the laws themselves almost always stay on the books.

I believe laws supporting slavery and the "Jim Crow" laws have actually been removed, but many, many other laws remain, and simply are not enforced.

The more amusing ones are often collected and published in "stupid laws that still exist" type lists.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I so agree, however, in the real world it so seldom happens. Laws are almost never taken off the books. Enforcement may be abandoned, but the laws themselves almost always stay on the books.

The key word being "almost."

Two or three decades ago I was heavily involved in getting a stupid state law (unrelated to firearms) repealed in my state. It was a law that had been on the books for over 80 years, and in that time had resulted in NO convictions. It was enforced very sporadically. It was also written so poorly that very few people even understood what it really said. The most recent time someone was charged, it went to trial. The prosecution went through its dog and pony show, after which the defense said simply, "The defense moves to dismiss."

The judge asked what the grounds were, and the defense attorney explained that the law, parsed to its essence, prohibited two specific actions. None of the testimony produced by the prosecution in any way showed that the defendant had engaged in either of the two prohibited actions. The judge considered for about a minute, read the law again, and said "Case dismissed."

After that, a group, of which I became a part, started a drive to repeal the law. We were successful in our first try.

It can be done, but you have to do your homework and you have to know who the key legislators are and how to approach them.