At one time in this country drunk driving wasn’t that big of a deal. Unless a drunk driver killed or injured someone, they were often able to escape a drunk-driving incident without anything on their permanent record. But all of that changed. One of the things that brought about that change was the efforts of the organization – Mothers Against Drunk Driving – MADD.
One of the things that MADD did was to get members in the court room to monitor how DUI cases went, and when DWI or DUI charges were plea bargained, or a judge was lenient with a DUI case – MADD brought pressure to bear on those officials, with protests, in the press (if possible), and during the next election. Judges and prosecutors soon realized that going easy on even one unfortunate person who drove intoxicated – had political consequences and the entire judicial system across the country become much less lenient.
I have been wondering for some time if the NRA doesn’t have something like that for weapons charges? I have read NRA literature that states that we don’t need stricter gun laws – we simply need the existing gun laws to be enforced, and that one of the problems is that when weapons are involved in criminal enterprise, the weapons charges are used as plea bargaining for cooperation, testimony, or concessions on other charges that they consider core to the case –such as drug charges.
I think the NRA has at times been accused of not really being supportive of law enforcement, and only having a narrow view of protecting gun manufacturers, gun dealers and NRA members.
I think it would be an interesting and effective strategy to show the public how the gun laws really are not enforced, and are often just a technicality in an over-all criminal case. And it would show that the NRA is serious about their wish that gun laws be enforced when it pertains to criminals using guns illegally for robberies, assault, drug dealing etc…
One of the things that MADD did was to get members in the court room to monitor how DUI cases went, and when DWI or DUI charges were plea bargained, or a judge was lenient with a DUI case – MADD brought pressure to bear on those officials, with protests, in the press (if possible), and during the next election. Judges and prosecutors soon realized that going easy on even one unfortunate person who drove intoxicated – had political consequences and the entire judicial system across the country become much less lenient.
I have been wondering for some time if the NRA doesn’t have something like that for weapons charges? I have read NRA literature that states that we don’t need stricter gun laws – we simply need the existing gun laws to be enforced, and that one of the problems is that when weapons are involved in criminal enterprise, the weapons charges are used as plea bargaining for cooperation, testimony, or concessions on other charges that they consider core to the case –such as drug charges.
I think the NRA has at times been accused of not really being supportive of law enforcement, and only having a narrow view of protecting gun manufacturers, gun dealers and NRA members.
I think it would be an interesting and effective strategy to show the public how the gun laws really are not enforced, and are often just a technicality in an over-all criminal case. And it would show that the NRA is serious about their wish that gun laws be enforced when it pertains to criminals using guns illegally for robberies, assault, drug dealing etc…