Posted on 08/19/2004 10:30:34 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
No gun-toting felon bent on committing a crime is likely to be suddenly dissuaded by a marketing slogan on a billboard or radio ad. So there may be that silly side to local implementation of the national Project Safe Neighborhoods program. But cracking down on criminals who use firearms is serious and sound law enforcement policy.
The campaign grew out of Richmond, Va., and its Project Exile, encouraged by gun-rights groups, among others. Richmond's gun-related homicides fell markedly under the program.
Meanwhile, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has nearly tripled its prosecution of gun crimes since 1997, shifting its prosecution focus to individual gun users -- such as felons in possession of firearms -- from regulation of gun dealers. Last January, the ATF moved from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department, which should mean more ATF attention to battling street crime.
The $740,000 from the Justice Department is for more than an ad campaign. It will help local counties hire prosecutors to pursue cases in federal and state courts.
Federal laws allowing longer prison sentences in gun crimes have been far too infrequently applied. It's encouraging to hear U.S. Attorney John McKay and King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng say they're stepping up the enforcement and prosecution of these laws.
Question for the crowd: Is illegal possession of a weapon alone a "gun crime" that would bring the harsher penalty, or does illegal possession have to be combined with an independant misdemeanor or felony in order for the sentence enhancements to kick in?
I would think the addition of malice, or forethought would bring a harsher penalty.
Kind of like owning a rock, and throwing that rock at someone.
The last thing we need is a Justice Dept. stepping up its enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun laws. But I guess it's in line with the precepts of "compassionate conservatism."
Because of the high number of repeat offenders and because of the state's 3-strikes law, I feel that both approaches to publicizing harsher sentences for those that use firearms in a crime is just fine. I especially feel this way, since under 3-strikes so many criminals are trying to play victim and ask to plea bargin third stikes down to non-strikes.
I want them to know the consequences and then to have them locked up and the key thrown away to violent career crimnals.
My thought is this, the law could be used as a tool to make unconstitutional gun laws already on the books more stringent. If something more than mere illegal possession is needed (e.g. possession of marijuana while in illegally in possession of a firearm), then it may be an effective crime deterrent that doesn't infringe on our Second Amendment rights.
Fpor somebody who does not have a felony conviction, a domestic violence conviction, or an outstanding do,mestic restraining order, Federal law only applies to situations where guns are used to commit crimes or i connection with drug crimes.
I am with ya on that, but I was just answering the question as was asked of us.
The trouble with the program is that, although it is sold to voters and politicians as a way of getting violent criminals off the streets - murderers and rapists - in fact, the law makes no distinction betwenn them and nonviolent felons, including people who forged checks to buy food, or were nonviolent drug offenders.
Neither does it make any distinction between presently-active career criminals and people with a single 30-year-old felony conviction, who have made a successful 25 year effort at straightening their lives out. All of the above face 10 years in jail for possessing a single round of live 22 short ammunition in their car, with no discretion allowed by the judges, and no discretion shown by zealous BATFE agents and police chiefs, who collect the convictions proudly like so many notches on a stick, irrespective of the value of the lives and families they destroyed by gaining these convictions.
Although compromise gun rights groups like the NRA support it, serious gun rights groups like JPFO and GOA strongly oppose it.
Thanks for the info.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.