Does the NRA ever highlight when weapons charges are plead, dropped or not enforced?

C

C0untZer0

Moderator
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…
 
I agree. I think the NRA, as an organization that claims to be for enforcing current gun laws, should be sending out press releases every an offender is let off the hook by a court or prosecutor.
With all the screaming we hear from the antis, showing them a focused direction to vent should be a very good thing. They potentially would become spokespersons for enforcement along with the NRA.
Would that be a bad thing?
 
Some of the existing laws are nothing but unconstitutional infringements. Getting a stiffer sentence because you committed a crime while in possession, not use, of a gun versus having a knife seems wrong to me. That's just one example

lawson4
 
If a bulglar bring a sharpened screwdriver with him as part of his plan to rob my house - that's one thing. If he brings a gun with him, that's another.

I want the drug dealer who is using a firearm to do more time than the drug dealer who is not.

I want the car theif who steals but doesn't bring a firearm into the picture to do less time than the car theif who brings a firearm to the situation. I mean i want them both to receive the apropriate sentence for auto theft, but I also want the armed car theif to be incarcerated for the weapons offense.

I am thinking about the case of officer Jared Reston - I'm just thinking about it because I read so much about that shooting. You've got two shoplifters who get stopped in a mall. Shoplifter number one gives up. Unbeknowst to the officer, shoplifter number 2 is carrying a .45 auto. He doesn't give up, he flees, and when he is caught by Officer Reston a gun battle ensues. So that criminal was killed by Officer Reston, and yes criminals are stupid, they do stupid things and don't seem to learn. But hypothetically, if there are two shoplifters in the future - they both should receive justice from the shoplifting, but a shoplifter who brings a gun to the situation - I want that fricken guy locked up for a long time.
 
So a person that kills with a screwdriver should do less time than one that klills with a gun? Someone that kills by pouring gasoline on someone and lighting it should get off easier than the guy with the gun?

scpapa
 
I honestly think that during my time living in Florida the 10-20-Life law/PR campaign had an effect on deterring crime. Everywhere you went, they had radio adds, they had signs, billboards and TV commercials.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/

It is something so simple even a crack fiend can understand what it is all about.


All things being equal, prosecutors can still easily plead out and otherwise manipulate charges to avoid mandatory minimums at their discretion more often than not.

and on the same note I would support a 10-20-life law for the use of ANY deadly weapon be it a knife, a car, a pipe etc.
 
Enhanced sentences for acts committed with a firearm rather than some other lethal weapon reinforce the false idea that firearms are somehow more inherently evil than swords, daggers, arrows, baseball bats or other bludgeoning device. A deep knife wound to the chest is statistically more lethal than a deep bullet wound.

Scpapa's gasoline-as-a-weapon analogy illustrates, perhaps better than anything why being shot, terrible as it is, isn't necessarily the most egregious thing that can be done to a person.

The real issue is enforcement and sentencing for any misuse of a defensive weapon, indeed any malicious violence. Unwarranted violence is the issue, not the tool. These sentencing enhancements take our eye off the ball, IMO.
 
My point was aimed more towards federal gun laws already on the books. You get caught with a gun in your possession, it matters not why, and you are not allowed to possess a gun under federal law (ie. Convcited felon without rights restored), then you get to visit the federal court system as well as any state/local court. The gun charges should not be dropped by federal prosecutors simply because there is also a state burglary charge in the works. The alleged offender gets to face all charges. If the state wants to cut a deal, fine. Let them. The federal justice system should still be in play.
 
scpapa said:
So a person that kills with a screwdriver should do less time than one that klills with a gun?...
Click to expand...
Well, a while ago, a statute making criminal homicide committed with a Bowie knife or dagger more serious than when committed with any other weapon, including a gun, was upheld as constitutional -- by the Supreme Court of Texas in 1859 (Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859))
 
+1 CowTowner

Obama has already told Sarah Brady that he would try to enact stricter gun laws - so it begs the question - WHY? There is an unspoken assumption that stricter gun laws curb gun violence. How can the administration say it is serious about curbing gun violence, when they're giving a pass to so many criminals on this?

I'm just saying that it would behoove the NRA to be active every week in trying to change this, and raising public awareness about it and MADD had paved the way and shown how it's done.

It seems to me that instead of actually punishing criminals, the administration just wants to ban guns and it seems that they've used an entire bureau (BATFE) to try to garner support for it ala Operation Fast & Furious.
 
scpapa - you make valid points.

But I'm not asking the NRA to lobby for laws like what they have it Florida, I just think it would be beneficial if they pointed out when they're chucked out the window... by any government, federal, state, municipal.
 
A gun is more of a remote control weapon than a knife or club. It greatly unbalances power into the hands of someone that has it. ( unless we are talking contact distance then the odds may be more even )

It also gives the shooter a chance to spray and pray rather than running around slashing. A knife is more escapable for a group of people that a gun.

Stiffer time for committing a robbery with a gun can only help non criminal gun owners as these non criminals are unlikely to commit a robbery no matter the weapon.

I would like to see PD situations that involve somewhat poor judgment by the victim remain at realistic levels as the initial aggressor was the BG and not the person defending themselves.
 
There are different levels of gun charges. Posession by prohibited person (felon, etc.) is very common as lots of criminals have already been through the system before.

Posession during the commission of a crime (gun there, but not used).

This one is plea bargin city. Especially for those who are not already convicted felons.

USE of the firearm during commision of the crime (this is the serious one that should never be bargined away, but too often is. And shouldnot be more serious than charges for a different weapon)

Unfortunately, our system has become so complex and self clogging that many prosecutors are happy to get a case through with a plea to something, now rather than a trial for everything when the system can schedule it.

The NRA is the best thing we have, but its not perfect, or infallible, and they have limited resources. Every time you see someone here, or somewhere else saying what the NRA should be doing, remember that when you get that letter or phone call asking for money.

MADD tactics can (and obviously do) work, but the effort is large, and gun owners do not have as broad a sympathy base as victims of drunk drivers.
 
So a person that kills with a screwdriver should do less time than one that klills with a gun? Someone that kills by pouring gasoline on someone and lighting it should get off easier than the guy with the gun?
Click to expand...

He's talking about possession, with intent to use... Not the actual use (and murder). Read his post again.
 
.....and gun owners do not have as broad a sympathy base as victims of drunk drivers.
Click to expand...

Very true. However I don't think it is sympathy we should be trying to garner or use. Rather we should simply be pointing out which prosecutors, judges or others are tossing out gun charges as part of the deal making process. If the public were made aware of the gun laws not being enforced in the same way that M.A.D.D. made them aware of drunk drivers, we would have antis as well as those on the fence listening. Once the public is aware that the laws already on the books are not being enforced and allowing criminals shorter trips if any to prison, the people responsible should get the message as well IMHO.
 
I think MADD had a multi-pronged strategy for accomplishing their goals. One of those efforts involved garnering sympathy and building support for changing laws - i.e., raising the drinking age, lowering the legal limit for what alcohol blood level was considered intoxicated.

But one of those efforts was just to change how the judicial system handled drunk driving cases and point out when cases were plea bargained, or charges dropped, or an offender received a lenient sentence.

If I didn't make it clear about what type of gun charges I was talking about I’m sorry, but the plea bargaining of possession charges by convicted felons and the plea bargaining of the use of or possession of a firearm in the commission of a crime are things that I would like to see the NRA sine a spotlight on.

As far as giving the NRA money... yes this would cost money, but MADD mainly accomplished it because their members took the time to sit in on cases and take notes. These bereaved and outraged moms where popping up in courts everywhere across the country. I know an effort like this would take money, but I think for it to be successful, NRA members would have to volunteer their time. That's how it worked for MADD. I would be willing to volunteer my time for something like this.

There are things in this country that are not logical - how we fund medical research is one of those things. There are diseases that receive funding way out of proportion to the number of citizens it is affecting - but the people who lobbied for that funding were particularly persuasive and good at presenting their case.

Our judicial system is another thing that is not logical. We have legislators who think it's important to pass laws regulating what people eat and banning cookies that have hydrogenated oil and food with transfats. We have lawmakers (in Chicago) who thought it was their job to ban people from eating Foie Gras, there are people in California who are trying to make it illegal for parent to circumcise their kids... There is nothing logical about our judicial system.

MADD was successful in getting a certain type of crime different treatment in the courts.

Should driving drunk been punished more severely than shoplifting or vandalism, or auto theft? If you ask someone from MADD, any person who gets behind the wheel of a car with a blood level of .08 is the equivalent of a murderer, the statistics show that there are plenty of people who have driven at .08 and they've gotten home and not killed someone. Not every person who drives with a .08 level is a rolling attempt at manslaughter, but MADD has made their case and made their case well.

There may be nothing logical about the gun laws, but I think it behooves the NRA to point out, when it involves convicted felons or the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime - I think it behooves NRA members to point out to the public when the existing gun laws are not being enforced.

I think in general the public does not know how often it happens and it gives rise to the general underlying attitude that we need more gun laws...

We in the NRA may not like that a murderer who shoots someone gets extra time for using a firearm, it may seem illogical that someone who poisons their victim receives less time than someone who shoots their victim. But from a practical standpoint if we dicker about the law being illogical - we make ourselves vulnerable to being made to look bad by anti-gunners. On the other hand, if we focus on the fact that gun laws are often not being enforced - ignoring that some of those gun laws are illogical, the NRA can get the message across that we support law enforcement, the NRA supports keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, and takes a strong stance against the use of firearms in committing crimes.
 
Last edited:
My only concern is that I don't want the NRA turning into something similar to what MADD has become, a Neo-prohibitionist group.Aside from the constitutional damage they have caused, nowadays their antics are making the roads far more dangerous due to them trying to hide the fact that they accomplished their goads decades ago and are obsolete.

People with .08, .10, .12, and .15 BAC are NOT the problem. It's the people with .25, .27, and .30 that are the problem ones and diverting resources to focus on the more common non-problem low-BAC people only diverts resources away from nabbing the real problem offenders. I don't want the NRA going down that same slippery slope, padding their numbers by selectively redefining the term "drunk driver" to make it look like there is still a problem when there isn't one in order to keep getting donations to "solve" the problem.
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-automatic-jail-time-20110802,0,3724169.story

"Convicted felons found illegally carrying guns will now face automatic jail time under a measure Gov. Pat Quinn(Illinois) signed into law today.

The new law removes the option of probation for felons who are convicted of unlawful use or possession of a weapon, which will now result in two to 10 years behind bars. Jail time increases to three to 14 years for each additional violation or for felons who are caught with guns while on parole or supervised release."




I just wonder if 2-10 is really 2-10 or if it is 6 months to 4 years for "good behavior"
 
They had to use a picture of a Glock for their article...

Couldn't they use a Desert Eagle to represent the bad guys - like Hollywood does?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top