Gun laws you'd realistically like repealed/changed/created?

[Spats McGee]

shortwave, I do not dispute that many criminals are repeatedly arrested, nor do I dispute that the court and corrections system may seem like a "revolving door." I do dispute that the attorneys who have posted in this thread are "bogged down in the same mindset as the courts."

Mind you, I'm not glad to see felons getting out of jail before the arresting officer makes it home. There is, however, a very Big Picture to the legal system and it has an incredibly large number of "moving parts." If you have a solution that both: (a) achieves your goals; without (b) sacrificing Constitutional rights, I'm all ears. However, let me bring one example to your attention:

I understand that a convicted felon has rights to a speedy trial when said felon is caught with a gun that he is breaking the law(again) for having.

But at what expense for the safety of the public?

The defendant's right to a speedy trial is enshrined in the A6. The Bill of Rights is pretty undemocratic when you get right down to it. There's lots of stuff about "individual rights" there, and they're not all subject to trade-offs based on "public safety." Don't 2A proponents spend a lot of time fending off folks that claim that claim that the right to keep and bear arms comes at the "expense of public safety?" Be careful when you start offering to trade off an individual right, even in the interest of "public safety."

It would most likely improve public safety if we simply eliminated the A6. Then again, it would also most likely improve public safety, and make LE much more effective if we eliminated the Fourth Fifth and Eighth Amendments. They're pesky. The gov't's job would seem much more secure if we also did away with A1 and A2, and, while we're at it, A3. Are those trade-offs that you'd be willing to make?

As you noted, I'm a lawyer. Specifically, I'm a deputy city attorney. That makes me one part prosecutor, one part civil rights defense attorney, and one part general litigator. It also means that ConLaw plays a central role in LOTS of my work. Quite frankly, that can be pretty inconvenient. When I have our elected officials breathing down my neck to do SOMETHING about a crack house, being able to just send some guys with badges and bulldozers down there to handle the problem would be easy. It would also be unconstitutional. I also took an oath to uphold the Arkansas and US Constitutions, and that includes those times when it is inconvenient.

It's not that prosecutors and judges are unsympathetic. The Constitution has requirements and restrictions by which we must abide. If you have a solution to jail overcrowding and the "revolving door" that is both effective and constitutional, I'm all ears.

 

[leadcounsel]

Remember that in order to successfully prosecute a case, the prosecutor has to get: (1) the prosecutor; (2) the defendant; (3) defense counsel; (4) judge; (4) involved officers; (5) other witnesses (crime lab, civilians, etc.); and (6) a jury . . . all in one room at the same time.

If we begin hammering for more enforcement, at the expense of longer docket waits, word will also get out on the street that cases are being dismissed because of Speedy Trial violations. Sometimes, the prosecutor has to take what he can get on day 300, because he knows that Day 366 = Dismissal Day.

The defendant's right to a speedy trial is enshrined in the A6. The Bill of Rights is pretty undemocratic when you get right down to it. There's lots of stuff about "individual rights" there, and they're not all subject to trade-offs based on "public safety." Don't 2A proponents spend a lot of time fending off folks that claim that claim that the right to keep and bear arms comes at the "expense of public safety?" Be careful when you start offering to trade off an individual right, even in the interest of "public safety."

It would most likely improve public safety if we simply eliminated the A6. Then again, it would also most likely improve public safety, and make LE much more effective if we eliminated the Fourth Fifth and Eighth Amendments. They're pesky. The gov't's job would seem much more secure if we also did away with A1 and A2, and, while we're at it, A3. Are those trade-offs that you'd be willing to make?

Having been an attorney for over a decade, and a prosecutor and defense attorney for a combined 5 years...

Bingo. Stated perfectly. I would only add that it's very dangerous to go down the road of, "because he was convicted last time, he must be guilty this time..." mentality. Each trial is determined on its own merits.

Now, please, can we get this back on track...

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Don't 2A proponents spend a lot of time fending off folks that claim that claim that the right to keep and bear arms comes at the "expense of public safety?" Be careful when you start offering to trade off an individual right, even in the interest of "public safety."

It would most likely improve public safety if we simply eliminated the A6. Then again, it would also most likely improve public safety, and make LE much more effective if we eliminated the Fourth Fifth and Eighth Amendments. They're pesky. The gov't's job would seem much more secure if we also did away with A1 and A2, and, while we're at it, A3. Are those trade-offs that you'd be willing to make?

As you noted, I'm a lawyer. Specifically, I'm a deputy city attorney. That makes me one part prosecutor, one part civil rights defense attorney, and one part general litigator. It also means that ConLaw plays a central role in LOTS of my work. Quite frankly, that can be pretty inconvenient. When I have our elected officials breathing down my neck to do SOMETHING about a crack house, being able to just send some guys with badges and bulldozers down there to handle the problem would be easy. It would also be unconstitutional. I also took an oath to uphold the Arkansas and US Constitutions, and that includes those times when it is inconvenient...

Well put, Spats.

And let me add that it's pretty disingenuous to demand respect for the Second Amendment while urging throwing the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under the bus.

...It's not that prosecutors and judges are unsympathetic. The Constitution has requirements and restrictions by which we must abide. If you have a solution to jail overcrowding and the "revolving door" that is both effective and constitutional, I'm all ears....

And the realities of administering a complex process, witness availability and effectiveness, evidence, and the uncertainties inherent in a trial make it impossible to count on a good result in all cases. And sometimes the public interest might be better served by a sure conviction on a plea, albeit on compromise terms, than risking an acquittal in hopes of an optimal result.

 

[Spats McGee]

Now, please, can we get this back on track...

The thread drift has been enjoyable, but here's where we started:

What are some gun laws you'd realistically liked changed/repealed, or even created, and what have you done to take action on this?

1. State law that prevents Feds from enacting laws that take away our gun rights. Speaks for itself.

2. Eliminate the state residency requirement to buy/sell guns. This is a silly, antiquated law that really does nothing to deter crime. It only serves as a 'gotcha' to gun owners. If you're legal to own, why does it matter what state you are in? And it can be a real problem. Say you go on a hunting trip out of state, and your gun is lost/damaged. Or say you are out of state on business and your CC is lost/damaged/stolen? You're effectively disarmed out of state...

3. SBR/SBS/Cans legal. First with the stamp. Ultimately eliminate the antiquated law. It's illogical. Owning a pistol AR or a rifle AR, but not a SBR AR...? Very puzzling. And eliminate much/all of 922 regarding cosmetic features also. These laws serve no purpose other than 'gotca' laws because they do nothing for public safety or design features of the guns. It's just a hassle for gun owners.

shortwave, I'll be happy to continue this exchange in a different thread or via PM.

 

[shortwave]

Mind you, I'm not glad to see felons getting out of jail before the arresting officer makes it home. There is, however, a very Big Picture to the legal system and it has a incredibly large number of "moving parts." If you have a solution that both: (a) achieves your goals; without (b) sacrificing Constitutional rights, I'm all ears

By your statements, can I assume that you at least agree that:

a) there is a problem with the legal system in that repeat felons involved in gun related cases are being released too prematurely back to the street by means of plea bargaining for reasons such as overcrowding, docket overload(which can potentially cause a less than speedy trial for accused) and the expense of going to trial.

b) if there was not an overcrowding or overload docket issue that nullified/reduced the possibility of there not being a speedy trial that there may not be a tendency for as much of the plea bargaining that is presently going on?


I have a question.

Who sets the length of time as to what 'speedy' means in A6?

Is this a timeframe that is set by what each state feels is 'speedy' ? Or is 'speedy usually interpreted as the same amount of time in all states/jurisdictions?

The reason I'm asking is I'm wondering how Pennsylvania is enforcing HB 2331 without violating perps A6 'speedy' trial rights.

 

[Al Norris]

Fourteen hours ago, I asked the members participating on this thread to get it back on track. It's still off.

Closed.