One thing I do not hear mentioned much in the current (or past) gun debates concerns penalties for folk who are found to own guns which were not obtained legally, or who use them in illegal manners. Just about the only mention is when gun advocates say there are plenty of existing gun laws which are not enforced. I’ve found myself wondering exactly what laws are these that are not being enforced.
It seems to me that strengthening and enforcing laws on illegal gun use is at least as likely to deter gun violence as just about any attempts to regulate specific weapons/magazines. And it seems that proceeding along such a “law and order” approach would be more likely to receive bipartisan support than attempts to ban specific weapons.
The obvious analogy would be mandatory sentencing guidelines for drugs (which I abhor - BTW). Does anyone know of a good source of information for the statutory penalties for various gun violations, and how consistently they are enforced? I assume it would vary widely from state to state, but what types of penalties would I likely face if I were just discovered to have an unlicensed handgun in my car during a routine traffic stop? Or on my person when arrested for burglary? Would I face a greater penalty if I had an “assault weapon” with hundreds of rounds, as opposed to a handgun with a single clip?
It seems to me that such an approach would be at least as likely to have an effect as what I hear currently being debated. It also seems as though it would be less subject to the accusation of “affecting law abiding citizens, rather than criminals.”
Hmm, 139 views and not a single response. So, would anyone be so kind as to explain to me how I am completely missing the boat here? Because I’m having a tough time caring enough to even form an opinion over something I consider as plintless as banning a certain size magazine.
Straw purchases are worth 10 years in the federal pen and $10k in fines. Too bad they are rarely enforced. NFA violations are equally as harsh. You will find very few gun owners complaining about either other than they are rarely enforced.
In 2010 80,000 people failed NICS background checks. 44 were charged with a crime. Again a number you will hear many gun owners complain about. If I have to go through a check, at least prosecute the a holes who fail it assuming they lied on the 4473 form during the purchase process. What is the point of the push for “universal” background checks if the Feds won’t do anything about the fails?
It isn’t just the non-enforcement of gun laws that is the problem. It’s the under enforcement of other laws too. For example, here in Wisconsin armed robbery has a maximum penalty of 40 years. I routinely see judges hand down 3 year sentences for it.
And it’s the same for most other serious crimes. Repeat offenders are getting a fraction of what they could get, concurrent terms for multiple offenses, early release, even probation. And these are the ones committing the majority of violent crimes. I’ve dealt with offenders both on the street and in the jail. They think the system is a joke. Why? Because it is!
Lengthy mandatory sentences for drug possession/usage. I consider our “war on drugs” a sham, the product of politicians looking to score easy points rather than doing anything useful, and exploited by countless folk eager to profit from incarcerating large portions of our population.
Why are gun laws not enforced more aggressively? Couldn’t as much profit be made from incarcerating a weapons violator as a stoner?
I own no guns, and I generally have little sympathy for the NRA, but it seems to me that stepping up enforcement would be more effective in accomplishing something meaningful instead of dithering over what is or isn’t an assault weapon, or what to do about video games. Why is this not a greater portion of the current debate?
There is this faulty belief that there are not enough laws controlling guns, and that more regulation is necessary because of the dearth of gun laws,
It is easier to pass laws than it is to enforce them, and it’s a political act to be seen “doing something”, and
When gun rights advocates express the opinion that things could be accomplished merely by enforcement of existing laws we are accused of deflecting and dissimulating, trying to justify why more laws shouldn’t be passed.
The US has both the world’s highest incarceration rate (at least among countries with available statistics) and one of the higher crime rates. While correlation doesn’t prove causation, in fact, there is evidence that long prison sentences are counterproductive:
If found with a gun you shouldn’t have, but didn’t use in a crime, probation without a criminal record makes more sense. However, if the convict blows off meeting with probation officer, then jail makes sense. Maybe for a weekend.
They may not use probation as I suggest for non-violent gun crimes, but there is a model for this in Hawaii:
What are the relative sentences imposed for those two different activities?
Plus, maybe people (ie, juries) are not all that riled up about someone simply possessing a gun illegally if they haven’t actually used it to commit a crime. The “serious” drug arrests, though, are for possession with the intent to sell. Now, whether the person was really planning to sell is somewhat immaterial since the laws are written that possession of “x” amount automatically constitutes intent to sell.
Nonsense. A guy that gets 40 years for committing robbery isn’t going to commit any crimes outside of the facility he’s locked up in for 40 years. Period. The revolving door system we have doesn’t work, and street thugs have no incentive to go straight because they know they aren’t going to do serious time for serious crimes.
I’m not talking about drugs. I’m talking about more serious crimes like theft, robbery, burglary, and battery. The problem with mandatory sentences is that judges can be free to where the sentence takes place. A 40 year sentence that is set up as 3 incarcerated and 37 on probation is not the answer to serious crimes.
Well, I succeeded in fighting some of my own ignorance. There are hefty mandatory minimums for using guns during violent crimes, and the MMs for drugs involve pretty hefty quantities.
I think what I was thinking about was drug offenders being caught up under “three strikes” programs. Back to google…
The more I think of it, tho, the more I’m thinking that stepped up enforcement needs to be a major part of any attempt to address America’s current gun situation. Likely in combination with increased restrictions on sale/purchase (private sales and quantity purchases). Enforcement of existing (or strengthened) laws seems the only wayy to address the guns currently out there. And unless that is addressed, tweaking new purchases will have only limited effect.
Access to major weaponry is currently highly restricted. I can’t just go down to the corner store, buy a bazooka, and keep it in my home. As a non enthusiast, it makes sense to me that certain types of guns - AR 15s for example, be pretty tightly regulated. Let folk buy them, but require background checks and limit the manner and locations in which they can be used, kept, and sold.
If that is what you think, your ignorance has not yet been vanquished. Can you explain your thought process behind adding more restrictions to a gun that functions like any other semi auto rifle, and uses intermediate sized ammo?
The crux of the thread is the question, “Even though gun rights supporters keep harping about lack of enforcement of current laws, we don’t need no more stinkin’ laws, are gun laws actually not enforced? Where? Why?”
I guess I would encourage pretty substantial penalties for ANY illegal act regarding a gun. If you own a gun, you should be required to show that it was legally purchased, and any manner in which you possess/carry a gun should be in full compliance with all applicable laws.
Thanks JX.
I acknowledge my ignorance regarding firearms is vast. So I retract my prior comment regarding AR-15. While I personally do not appreciate the need/desire to own such a device, and I don’t personally respect a person’s desire to do so absent some hefty regulation, I don’t know/care enough to stake out and defend any particular position.
Just looked here re: handgun possession penalties.
I assume the NRA opposes universal requirement of ownership registration?
I used to have a state FOIA when my kid was a minor, was involved in Rev War reenactment, and I would at times purchase and transport muskets and black powder.
And I’ve often thought the appropriate response to such requirement was for everyone who COULD own guns to register - whether they owned or not. That way the jackbooted thugs wouldn’t know which doors to kick down when they sought to confiscate…
What would you prefer? 139 posts all saying either a) Not interested in the topic (which would be warnable as ‘threadshitting’, so you won’t see it, b) I don’t know any sources, so I’ll come back when you get more responses, or c) people just stay out of it until someone with some actual knowledge on the subject shows up with something worth commenting on?
I think the mods would rather not see 3 pages of a) and b) before the c) ones start commenting.
ETA: I’m one of the 139, I chose c). Now that there are responses, I’m reading the thread. Happy now?