Hell Has Frozen Over: The NRA and Brady Campaign Decide to Agree!

L

LanceOregon

Moderator
Yes, this is indeed true. There is a actually a gun crimes / law enforcement plan that BOTH the NRA and the Brady Campaign have decided to back!

It is something that the city of Richmond, Virginia has been doing for some time now, with both state and federal help. And it is having a dramatic effect in significantly reducing gun violence!

Now you may ask: What is this top secret formula that Richmond has come up with? Well, nothing less than enforcing existing gun laws and vigorously prosecuting the criminals!! They have found that doing that actually reduces violent crime!!

Now tell me this, who would of thought that would possible work???

The name of this program is called Project Exile. A key component of the program is arresting felons that are in possession of firearms, and sending them to prison for that specific crime.

Here are further details about this story, from this morning's Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789872887012221.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Do you agree that Project Exile should become a model for the entire nation???

Do you see any sort of drawbacks or negatives in pursuing such a plan nation-wide??

.
 
Well, nothing less than enforcing existing gun laws and vigorously prosecuting the criminals!!
Click to expand...
I've been trying to tell the locals here the same thing for over 30 years...they're a little slow.:rolleyes:
 
IIRC, Project Exile has a federal court prosecute the offender rather than the court that his case should fall to by law. This gives more power to the fed.gov which makes me wince.

I think it is a good idea, but I'm not sure about it's implementation nationwide.
 
Do you see any sort of drawbacks or negatives in pursuing such a plan nation-wide??
Click to expand...
From the wsj article:

But Richmond doubled down on the cooperation among state and federal agencies. The eight federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies and federal and state prosecutors meet regularly almost like one super police force determining where to deploy personnel.

In one example of cooperation, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the FBI took a case to ease the workload on local authorities, says Brian Swann, who heads the ATF office here. The defendant killed a man who was trying to steal his crack cocaine. Although murder cases aren't usually federal, this one involved a firearm and drugs, and so could be moved to federal court. The defendant got life plus 40 years.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the result, but I have a serious problem with the means to the end, meaning the increasing federalization of all crime. The explanation is in this other thread. It boils down to this question, paraphrased and altered from an earlier dissent penned by SC Justice Alito:

Is a murder which is connected in some way to the interstate markets in guns and drugs inherently more "economic" or more "commercial" than a murder which is not connected to guns or drugs?

I think not, and wonder about the federal authority under the commerce clause.
 
I also would prefer to see state courts give criminals five years flat time, but off our streets is off our streets and I'm good with it. I've seen first-hand how VA implements this program and it works well. Criminals from DC and MD are literally afraid to cross into Virginia due to the Commonwealth's reputation as a place where punishments happen and prison awaits, and Virginia's crime rate is much lower than that of it's immediate neighbors. (Some of Virginia's criminals actually travel to DC and MD where the chance of prison time is less.)

Exile's great, and the only ones who oppose it are prisoners advocacy groups, and (predictably) Larry "Hey-look-at-me" Pratt.

I'm all about guns for decent law-abiding people, but I think that if you use one to further a crime--or possess one after being convicted of a felony--then you need to spend five years out of circulation.
 
The reason that they have tied their prosecutions to the Federal courts is due to the many straw-man purchases here in Virginia. Many should recall the threats that NY has made to VA about illegal firearms from VA showing up in their state. It is far more simple to treat all firearms related crimes inside of this Project Exile as Virginia law is case law rather that statute. It is a blanket way to deal with gun crime. Richmond still has a terrible crime rate even with this Project Exile.

Think about it. Why would the Wall street Journal give a crap about how VA governs itself other than NY having some sort of connection to that crime. I see it as proof of another state directly effecting the policy of another through coercion. This might be good and it might be bad. Depends on ones point of view. More power to the Fed less to the States, and voluntarily at that.

It is in my mind a bad thing. But then again I am not too keen on anything Federal. Maybe I am silly and this is only interstate commerce clause material. It just appears to be another way to whittle away at the sovereignty of the states. This sets the stage for states to defer their problems to the Fed and absolve themselves of their responsibility to the residents of the individual state. It makes wrongful prosecution and the subsequent appeals much more expensive to the accused and cheaper for the state.
 
Virginia's crime rate is much lower than that of it's immediate neighbors.
Click to expand...

That's nice, but could it be that those neighbors are paying for their own prosecutions and prisons, while Virginia is sucking up resources from around the country to throw at the same job? These long sentences with no parole in the federal pen are expensive, like many good ideas. I share Slugthrower's objection:

This sets the stage for states to defer their problems to the Fed and absolve themselves of their responsibility to the residents of the individual state. It makes wrongful prosecution and the subsequent appeals much more expensive to the accused and cheaper for the state.
Click to expand...
 
Well, nothing less than enforcing existing gun laws and vigorously prosecuting the criminals!!
Click to expand...

Elementry my Dear Watson. Use a gun in a crime, expect to pay the price. Honest gun owners aren't the problem, the criminals are the problem.
 
I like the idea of fully prosecuting criminals, and the NRA has been screaming for this for decades. I do not see why the states need to have the Fed Gov't do it for them though.
 
Criminals from DC and MD are literally afraid to cross into Virginia due to the Commonwealth's reputation as a place where punishments happen
Click to expand...

I like that dynamic. In my small town we have a hanging judge. So much so that one criminal caught breaking into a car dealership that straddled the county line spent his first half hour of arrest proclaiming he wa not in our town when he did his deeds. Good stuff:)
 
Well one big problem with Project Exile is that when you give a federal prosecutor budget money for a program like this, the Feds expect to see a certain increase in the number of illegal weapons prosecutions so they can show results to the Congressman who gave them the cash.

The downside is that ol' Farmer Joe with a shotgun that is a 1/4" too short is a lot easier target than the criminal gang selling drugs on the corner street. Not only is he unlikely to resist violently, he isn't going to be as legally savvy either.

Overall, I think the basic concept behind Exile makes sense and it has been wielded well (so far); but there are some problems with it that need to be addressed.
 
I would prefer an actual crime be committed, I don't think possession automatically indicates guilt but thats another thread.

Again they are bypassing the laws of the state and handing more control to the federal government, stupid idea.
 
No. Once you are convicted of a crime, so many doors slam shut, it's obscene. The criminals should have their full rights back before they are released into society. The label, 'felon' takes in WAY too many non-violent crimes. I can't imagine trying to create a life after being in prison, and, not having the right to protect oneself, given the situations you are likely to end up in, should not be something you give up as well...
 
I don't agree with full rights back but, it really depends on what they did. I don't think you can compare a violent felon with someone who has done white-collar crimes.
 
A felon is a felon, and felons are not allowed to possess firearms. Project Exile seems to be a law that is worth passing, because it actually punishes the bad guy instead of the good citizen who only wants to protect his or her person/family. Sure, there will be a few drawbacks, such as the example posted above about the farmer with a too short shotgun, but such incidents are preventable. When I was a prosecutor, the folks I prosecuted for gun crimes were not, on average, good citizens- they were repeat criminals who came in and out of the system repeatedly often with only probation due to the sentencing guidelines. Such results drove me insane because I could not get around the guidelines. Project Exile seems to be the ticket for actually giving armed criminals what they deserve.
 
I have some pretty good knowledge of the way things work in the VA US Attorney's offices, and I can assure you that they're not taking penny-ante cases like the shotgun barrel that's 1/4 inch too short. They're already swamped with cases and they only go to trial on the serious ones and/or the ones that don't plead out--and the US Attorney typically offers very generous plea deals to first-time offenders. The ones that they go forward on are the real bad guys. And as far as I'm concerned, any felon released from prison who gets caught with another gun is deserving of a five-year hit. Keep in mind that this usually comes about because they are contacted by police who suspect them of involvement in a new crime and when they are searched they are found to be carrying a gun. So it's usually the ones who have returned to a life of crime and taken another gun out into the public space knowing that they're prohibited from having one OR carrying one. (Felons don't get CCWs)

So I really can't feel sorry for people who know the law, decide to break it, then get caught and face the penalty. And I really don't feel sorry for people caught carrying one because the police had probable cause to search them. I don't know about anyone else here but I've never had a police officer walk up and search me. That doesn't happen to too many people, and it almost never happens to people who aren't doing wrong or hanging around with wrongdoers.
 
The downside is that ol' Farmer Joe with a shotgun that is a 1/4" too short is a lot easier target than the criminal gang selling drugs on the corner street. Not only is he unlikely to resist violently, he isn't going to be as legally savvy either.
Click to expand...

In England they have been doing something like this, coming down a lot harder on the average person than the criminals, especially when somebody tried to defend themselves in their home.

Well it sort of backfired on them, eroding public confidence in the rule of law. Word has it they are just starting to back off on the approach, I might come back and edit this post if I can dig up an article.

It may have to do w/ the fact that people were rightly starting to think their nation was sliding into its 1984 self.

A government can try their hand at petty tyranny, but it doesn't get them re elected. As a couple pointed out on here, it is a massive waste of time to go after normally law abiding people when there are so many dirtbags out there that offend again and again.
 
I would prefer an actual crime be committed, I don't think possession automatically indicates guilt but thats another thread.
Click to expand...

So you are arguing that convicted Felons have a right to own firearms?

They can still target shoot with air guns, and hunt with bows.

A felon in possession of a gun is generally up to no good.

.
 
I like the idea of fully prosecuting criminals, and the NRA has been screaming for this for decades. I do not see why the states need to have the Fed Gov't do it for them though.
Click to expand...

Bingo. What the heck is wrong with states who won't agressively punish crimes where guns are involved in the commission of such crimes? Why do we need the federal government involved in everything? The fed's should not even be involved in gun control unless a criminal violates the gun laws in one state and then runs to another state, or if someone is running guns across state lines. The states could implement their own gun control laws and be just as ineffective as the feds are at reducing gun crimes. Sorry, I had to toss that in.

States could even have their own laws regarding whether they'll let their residents buy firearms from out of state dealers or out of state private sellers. Just because the state of New Jersey, for example, forces their subjects to jump through a bunch of hoops to own a gun, why should Wyoming be forced to do the same. If states think background checks for their own citizens is a way to reduce crime, then they can implement those. If not, they can let their citizens buy guns without a background check. They might choose to run a background check on people from another state or not let people from another state directly buy firearms unless that person has a dealer from his home state involved. This really should be a state issue.

Shrink the size of the federal government, anyway and anywhere we can. That's my philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top