Posted on 09/27/2006 11:25:22 AM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com
In the wake of Charleston's 17th homicide, Mayor Joe Riley is calling for warrantless searches of offenders on probation, costly investments in the criminal justice system, and changes in state laws aimed at keeping gun-using criminals behind bars.Charleston Mayor Joe Riley is proposing a number of changes to state laws, including:
--Mandatory sentences for illegal firearm possession, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.
--Prohibiting those convicted of dealing drugs, or any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail, from possessing firearms.
--Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.
--Possession of a firearm during a drug offense, other than simple possession, would itself be an offense, with a mandatory five-year sentence.
--Allow probation officers to conduct warrantless searches.
--Increase the punishment for assault and battery with intent to kill to a mandatory minimum term of 10 years. There is currently no mandatory minimum.
--All offenders would have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Currently, the 85 percent rule does not apply to all offenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at charleston.net ...
If you live in a Safe School/No Gun zone and you have firearms in your home would be illegal firearms possession.
The any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail has a couple of troubling items. 1) a person sentenced to 1 year for tax evasion, or similar crimes, should not be stripped of Second Amendment right, and 2) it says 'carrying a punishment of one year or more', so does that mean that if a person is convicted of a crime that carries a one year or more penalty but is only sentenced to 60 days, for instance, he still looses his Second Amendment right?
Your tax evasion example is stripped of their right under current laws, same for what Martha Stewart was convicted of. The laws right now are that if the conviction of a crime that could carry a year or more, you lose your right. Even if you don't serve a day, but get probation, you still lose your right.
That's insane. Theoretically, government could extend all school zones to where they touched giving a city or county a blanket 'no gun zone', thereby converting law abiding citizens into criminals.
same for what Martha Stewart was convicted of.
Poor Martha!
Even if you don't serve a day, but get probation, you still lose your right.
That was my point. Over zealous lawmakers, especially ones with a gun control agenda, could begin slowly changing the minimum sentences to one year or more of many crimes that are currently less than one year in order to be able to round up more firearms.
"That's insane. Theoretically, government could extend all school zones to where they touched giving a city or county a blanket 'no gun zone', thereby converting law abiding citizens into criminals."
All part of the plan, right now it is something like 500 feet. They won't just do that, but will extend it gradually until they have done just that. BTW, I know houses that fall within that zone. I don't know if the owners have firearms, I hope not.
"Poor Martha!"
You may not like her, but she did not do anything violent or that would give a common sense reason to take away the right. Which was my point.
"That was my point. Over zealous lawmakers, especially ones with a gun control agenda, could begin slowly changing the minimum sentences to one year or more of many crimes that are currently less than one year in order to be able to round up more firearms."
Yep that is exactly it. Speeding ticket, sentence could be 5 years but if you pay a $1000 fine you can stay out of jail/prison....oh and turn in your guns because you are deprived of the right to have them.
Ummm, no. They would prohibit convicted felons and insane people from possessing guns. There are contemporary writings to this effect -- can't recall who, but I've seen at least one such writing from a major founding father (i.e. somebody along the lines of Jefferson, Madison). But it's just common sense, and I'm sure countless examples can be found in legal/political writings of that era.
This was an era when it was simply understood that common sense ruled, and that nothing in the law was intended to trump common sense. Back then, if an irrationally babbling adult was found sitting in their own urine on a street corner, police were free to pick the person up and deposit him/her in an insane asylum, despite the person's protests that s/he wanted to stay on the street corner sitting in their own urine. Now police can't do this because we have endless cranks who will sue on behalf of these people, claiming their constitutional rights are being violated.
I couldn't agree more... : ) <<< me
You can't be a cop until you turn 21 anyhow.
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.