It doesn't work, and can't work if they don't use it
Bushidomosquito,
We already have that. Many crimes carry an additional, mandatory, cannot be waived 5 or 10 year additional penalty if a firearm is used. And this was passed quite a few years ago.
The problem is that while the law says that the extra penalty must be applied, and cannot be altered by a judge, it only applies if the criminal is charged and convicted. Most of the time, the additional "gun penalty" is plea bargined away before charges are brought. So what happens is "we'll drop the gun thing, if you plead to xxxxxx", and they do, quite often. Felons looking at hard time know that hard time is today a rather flexible thing, except the gun time. 5 to 10 for robbery can often mean out in 2 to 3, but an added 5 or 10 years on a gun charge cannot (by law) be waived, so they plead out and get less time.
The flaw in the system is the prosecutors, not bringing the gun charge in the first place, in order to get a plea, to avoid the trouble of a trial. After all, the perp is off the street, and the courts are not (as) clogged, and they get a conviction on their record. To them it is a win/win situation. I don't mean to slam the folks who work the justice system, I am sure they are doing what they believe is the best job they can. They are putting criminals behind bars, isn't that what it is all about? Not all do this, but enough do that it is a known fact, something I am sure bothers those who are trying to do what is best, not just what works.
So, here we have (had for some time) a legal tool that is under-utilised, nearly the opposite of the three strikes laws, which have been (in many cases) over utilised. And by that I mean people who have 1 or 2 felony convictions for non-violent and non-dangerous offenses, and face life in prison if/when they screw up again. The intent of the three strikes laws was to permanently lock up repeat violent offenders, people who rape, maim, and kill people, not somebody who wrote some bad checks, later got caught with a drug stash, and then years later blows a .09 for a DWI. People like this are screwd up, and do deserve to do some time, but a life sentance? Doesn't seem right to me. But the law is the law, and it is a tool to be used. And if they have it in their tool box, they will use it. But people being what they are, some tools get more use than others. Some people who deserve it get charged. Others who deserve it don't. Some who don't deserve it get charged, others don't. If we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn't need a lot of the things we have, and we would have all the things we need. Until then, we just have to do the best we can, with what we've got.
If religion is the opiate of the masses, perhaps gun control is the opiate of the bleeding heart. Although for at least some people, religion actually works.
Bushidomosquito,
We already have that. Many crimes carry an additional, mandatory, cannot be waived 5 or 10 year additional penalty if a firearm is used. And this was passed quite a few years ago.
The problem is that while the law says that the extra penalty must be applied, and cannot be altered by a judge, it only applies if the criminal is charged and convicted. Most of the time, the additional "gun penalty" is plea bargined away before charges are brought. So what happens is "we'll drop the gun thing, if you plead to xxxxxx", and they do, quite often. Felons looking at hard time know that hard time is today a rather flexible thing, except the gun time. 5 to 10 for robbery can often mean out in 2 to 3, but an added 5 or 10 years on a gun charge cannot (by law) be waived, so they plead out and get less time.
The flaw in the system is the prosecutors, not bringing the gun charge in the first place, in order to get a plea, to avoid the trouble of a trial. After all, the perp is off the street, and the courts are not (as) clogged, and they get a conviction on their record. To them it is a win/win situation. I don't mean to slam the folks who work the justice system, I am sure they are doing what they believe is the best job they can. They are putting criminals behind bars, isn't that what it is all about? Not all do this, but enough do that it is a known fact, something I am sure bothers those who are trying to do what is best, not just what works.
So, here we have (had for some time) a legal tool that is under-utilised, nearly the opposite of the three strikes laws, which have been (in many cases) over utilised. And by that I mean people who have 1 or 2 felony convictions for non-violent and non-dangerous offenses, and face life in prison if/when they screw up again. The intent of the three strikes laws was to permanently lock up repeat violent offenders, people who rape, maim, and kill people, not somebody who wrote some bad checks, later got caught with a drug stash, and then years later blows a .09 for a DWI. People like this are screwd up, and do deserve to do some time, but a life sentance? Doesn't seem right to me. But the law is the law, and it is a tool to be used. And if they have it in their tool box, they will use it. But people being what they are, some tools get more use than others. Some people who deserve it get charged. Others who deserve it don't. Some who don't deserve it get charged, others don't. If we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn't need a lot of the things we have, and we would have all the things we need. Until then, we just have to do the best we can, with what we've got.
If religion is the opiate of the masses, perhaps gun control is the opiate of the bleeding heart. Although for at least some people, religion actually works.