Sen. Graham VS Police chief

Whenever I hear the cry of poverty concerning enforcement, I all ways remember the same argument against a former Mayor of NYC who ordered his department to prosecute petty crimes.

Despite the resistance of the Police and Prosecutors he persevered and NYC is a safer place.

Prosecution of certain crimes are not glamorous. They do not generate headlines. They do not support the careers of ambitious cops prosecutors and politicians. What they do is cut crime at the base level by intervening with the entry level criminal and possibly break the cycle.

Money and time is available for the things managers want.
 
He launched straight into "we don't chase paperwork prosecutions."
Click to expand...
LE doesn't do paperwork prosecutions because they don't have the time or resources to do so. Pursuing charges against someone who fails a background check is absurd.

It is the equivalent of prosecuting someone for asking a question. That is what the current background check basically is. It is permission to purchase a firearm based on a number of established criteria.

May I purchase a firearm?
Maybe. Answer these questions first.
May I purchase a firearm?
Based on your answers, yes/no.

It's a simple program - if/then. Pardon my computerspeak.

No one should be punished for asking a question.

[EDIT] I should add an example. Would you prosecute someone who is mentally ill for attempting to purchase? Is it a crime to be mentally ill? No, it's not.
 
Last edited:
The Owl said:
Spats McGee said:
He launched straight into "we don't chase paperwork prosecutions."
Click to expand...
LE doesn't do paperwork prosecutions because they don't have the time or resources to do so. Pursuing charges against someone who fails a background check is absurd.
Click to expand...
There was a problem with the questions asked by Graham. A more proper question might have been "how many arrests did your department make for providing weapons to prohibited persons?" I don't know exactly what this man is Chief of, but I'm guessing he isn't federal. If he were ATF, though, the proper question would have been "how many prosecutions has your dept pursued for providing false information on 4473s?" However, the correct answer to the question asked, was either "none," "I don't know," or "X number," or even "none, because it's not illegal to fail a background check."

The fact that he gave none of these, but simply repeated "paperwork prosecutions" leads me to believe that he was simply there to provide a useful soundbite (soundbyte?).

The Owl said:
It is the equivalent of prosecuting someone for asking a question. That is what the current background check basically is. It is permission to purchase a firearm based on a number of established criteria.

May I purchase a firearm?
Maybe. Answer these questions first.
May I purchase a firearm?
Based on your answers, yes/no.
Click to expand...
It's not the same. Those are not the questions on the 4473. The answers to the 4473 are provided under penalty of perjury.
 
The Owl said:
[EDIT] I should add an example. Would you prosecute someone who is mentally ill for attempting to purchase? Is it a crime to be mentally ill? No, it's not.
Click to expand...
Being a convicted felon isn't a crime, either.
 
Flynn is the chief of the Milwaukee PD.

My citation in Italics was a simplistic representation of the process, perhaps too simplistic.

In my opinion, the penalty for false answers should be a permanent record of the attempt to purchase and the nature of the lie(s).
 
The Owls remarks, real world; unfunded mandates...

I read over "The Owl's" remarks & I agree with part of it but disagree with others.
Sworn LE officers(police commanders & chiefs) & county sheriffs(which are elected) have complained about "unfunded mandates" for decades. The poor economy is one point, but US law enforcement agencies have made that complaint for years. Mostly smaller PDs or sheriffs depts with less sworn manpower gripe the most.
As for the resources & calls for service, I'd say the big problem is a lack of focus. US police agencies used to go by community policing or community oriented policing to lower crime rates or address major problems. Now they just respond to 911 calls/service calls & avoid being pro-active. :rolleyes:
I've talked to many sworn LE officers in real world events(not Hollywood cop shows or internet news items). In critical incidents they say; "we only have 2 guys working" or "you'll have to wait".
Some cops blame citizens for reporting crimes and do what they can to avoid reports, arrests, etc. it's called "holding court in the street". :mad:
Many patrol officers are also burned out or unable to work in a professional, ethical way.
This why the DoJ/Civil Rights Div & the DEA have to go after them. Or the PD's own IA(internal affairs) or Professional Standards have to come in & clean up the mess.

ClydeFrog
 
No, it isn't a crime to be a felon, but I think we all know the reasons why felons are excluded from purchasing firearms.

I will state that I don't believe it should apply to felons who have committed non-violent offenses, but I will also state that a prior record of non-violence is not necessarily indicative of a person who can be trusted.

Do you see how we can dissect the fractal? It's somewhat pointless. Endless iterations and we still end up in the same predicament.

It all relies on human nature, which is fickle.
 
Pursuing charges against someone who fails a background check is absurd.

It is the equivalent of prosecuting someone for asking a question. That is what the current background check basically is. It is permission to purchase a firearm based on a number of established criteria.

May I purchase a firearm?
Maybe. Answer these questions first.
May I purchase a firearm?
Based on your answers, yes/no.

It's a simple program - if/then. Pardon my computerspeak.

No one should be punished for asking a question.

[EDIT] I should add an example. Would you prosecute someone who is mentally ill for attempting to purchase? Is it a crime to be mentally ill? No, it's not.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is advocating for arresting someone simply because they were denied permission to purchase a firearm on the basis of their truthful responses to the questions on the Form 4473.
 
Well, OK. Now I know more about where Flynn comes from. Fair enough.

If we wanted to get really, really technical about it, we could even argue over whether his department actually conducts any prosecutions. However, that's beside the point, IMO. Between his department and the local prosecuting authority, there's not enough budget to prosecute things like straw purchases now, adding more laws to the mix will not solve that problem.

The penalty for providing false answers on a 4473, if it's ever actually prosecuted, is already pretty permanent: a felony conviction, loss of firearms rights, loss of voting rights, 10 years in prison and $250K in fines (if I remember the fines right).
 
I would say the Chief was being evasive. On the one hand he said he wants to prevent the "wrong people" from buying guns, but on the other hand he said he isn't interested in chasing people who fail background checks.

Aren't people who fail background checks BY DEFINITION "the wrong people"?

Fail.
 
He's the police mouthpiece for the same Milwaukee mayor who was beaten within an inch of his life and permanently injured by club-wielding thugs at the state fair, but who is (A) not in favor of CCW and (B) has the distraction (to our glee) of the local sheriff making public service messages on the radio telling citizens to buy a gun and keep it at home because the police cannot be there fast enough to help in an attack.

He's hardly the poster child for anything other than the small city version of Chicago politics. As a local, I can say that we mostly ignore him. They don't have the budget to actually do squat, most of the beat-cops are strong supporters of CCW and RKBA issues, and all of the good citizens carry.


All in all.... it works. Plus we have good beer.


Willie


.
 
And that's just what we don't need with incarceration in the US at the highest in the world. I can't speak for other states or the feds but max incarceration in Wisconsin is 35-40k per inmate, lesser classifications only slightly cheaper.

It doesn't makes sense to prosecute for this, especially at max sentence - 10 years for lying on a piece of paper? People lie all the time to get what they want. It's human nature. We don't throw them in the slammer for 10 years for goosing their résumé, although sometimes I think we should.

Existing laws should be culled and tailored as necessary to address issues as they arise, whatever they may be. New laws are not needed.

These kneejerk responses to random violence are going to be the death of us. Government has lost all sense of proportion.
 
Theater, it's just theater

Congressional Hearing Rule #1: Make the members look good!
Congressional Hearing Rule #2: Staffers know the real answers to every question that will be asked, make sure Rule #1 is met
Congressional Hearing Rule#3: NO SURPRISES!
Congressional Hearing Rule#4-10: See rule #1

(from someone who worked for the chairman of the house appropriations committee many years ago... And little has changed)
 
I'd like to mention a few things in response.

The Owl said:
It is clear that there are people here who do not understand the manpower problems faced by law enforcement agencies in this country.
Click to expand...

Being in law enforcement in a small town that has been hit hard by the textile industry moving overseas the last many years, I know too well the manpower problems. It can also be debated about whether it was Sen Graham or Chief Fynn was wrong... I will say, just from testifying in court, that if asked to provide relevant information, provide it. Even if it is detrimental to your case.

All bickering aside though, the question is, is that the fed gov is looking into expanding the background check requirements. Its well known the lack of prosecutions. The argument of manpower, etc. doesn't mean that any new law will be enforced either. So why are they discussing new background checks if it wont be enforced?

Unsure what you mean by

And that's just what we don't need with incarceration in the US at the highest in the world. I can't speak for other states or the feds but max incarceration in Wisconsin is 35-40k per inmate, lesser classifications only slightly cheaper.
Click to expand...

I never knew the crime should equal the cost to incarcerate the criminal once convicted....

Again at the end of the day, its passing the buck...Too bad its not deer season.

I don't mean to be rough on you The Owl, but I hope you admit too, the whole hearing is a dog and pony show.
 
Last edited:
The Owl said:
LE doesn't do paperwork prosecutions because they don't have the time or resources to do so. Pursuing charges against someone who fails a background check is absurd.
Click to expand...

Consider the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States, during hearings on the National Firearms Act of 1934, about how to convict the major gangsters of the 1930s:

And I am assuming in all this, of course, that the criminal elements are not going to obtain permits and they are not going to obtain licenses, and they are not going to be able to bring themselves within those protective requirements. Therefore, when we capture one of those people, we have simply a plain question to propound to him - where is your license; where is your permit? If he cannot show it, we have got him and his weapons and we do not have to go through an elaborate trial, with all kinds of complicated questions arising.
Click to expand...

Convicting a felon for an open-and-shut "paperwork" offense of falsifying a 4473 would seem to be easier -and a more pro-active use of law enforcement resources- than waiting for a violent crime to occur, trying to identify and capture the criminal, and then trying to get a conviction with probably imperfect evidence.
 
LE doesn't do paperwork prosecutions because they don't have the time or resources to do so. Pursuing charges against someone who fails a background check is absurd.

It is the equivalent of prosecuting someone for asking a question. That is what the current background check basically is. It is permission to purchase a firearm based on a number of established criteria.
Click to expand...

You are so mistaken.

Don't confuse a felon who knowingly is attempting to illegally purchase a gun by falsifying his paperwork with someone who has a mental problem and may not be aware they are not allowed to purchase a gun. The form is not a permission slip. It is a legal document, falsification is a Felony Offense.

If the system is broke you adress the system and fix it, you don't ignore it and leave it broke. I learned this in the Army and I learned it well. You can talk around it and complain about it and give all the reasons why you "can't do what is supposed to be done" but the end result is if you haven't done what is required to fix the problem then the problem doesn't get fixed.

That LEO was Milwaukee Chief of Police Edward Flynn, he is a servant of the City of Milwaukee and a Government offical himself. He was at a hearing, probably a request he couldn't say no to. He was being questioned and he wasn't being asked his opinion and he was dodging the answer in a Government inquery which is looking for answers on how to find solutions to real problems. He can be part of the solution or part of the problem and from what I saw he is not part of the solution, he is a broken cog in the machine.
 
Last edited:
The Owl If I may state your position as I understand it. We should not prosecute persons who falsify the 4473 because it cost to much and it is a minor crime.

My response is the Wal Mart policy of vigorously defending every damage lawsuit brought against them no matter what the actuaries say. In effect Wal Mart spends more to defend the suit than it would cost to settle. By doing this attorneys (ambulance Chasers) know that a suit against will be long and expensive so they do not take cases against Wal Mart.

By very publicly prosecuting persons who lie on their 4473, we will stop others from knowingly falsifying their application. These convictions are not flashy but they have teeth.

Al Capone was never convicted for violation of the Volstead act nor was he convicted for any of the numerous assaults, murders or racketeering activities which he was involved.

He was convicted of INCOME TAX EVASION. Or a Tom Cruse said in the Firm. It anin't sexy but it has teeth.
 
The Owl, I would like clarification from you on two points:

1) Are you suggesting that it was proper for Flynn to avoid giving a direct answer, in terms of numbers or percentages of prosecutions?

2) What is your position on proposed Universal Background Checks, in light of your argument that LE is already overtasked given current budget limitations?
 
The Owl said:
LE doesn't do paperwork prosecutions because they don't have the time or resources to do so. Pursuing charges against someone who fails a background check is absurd.
Click to expand...
Are you old enough to be aware that the Feds finally nailed Al Capone on an income tax charge, rather than a criminal charge for any of his various "business endeavors"? (ltc44 beat me to it)

As I posted above, the chief's statement is a logical fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top