federal gun law

[jb_farley]

So there’s this law that’s been advertised in Philadelphia a lot for like the last year or so, calling attention to the new penalties exacted for illegal possession of a gun. There’s minimum sentencing guidelines and everything, and the gist of it is that if you are a felon or have been convicted of drug offenses, then the law will crack down on you.

now don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe in the right to bear arms, and have just as strong a belief that this is not an inalienable right; that is, it has its limits just as all other rights do. In order to cut down on gun violence and deaths, we must do something to make sure that guns are not in the hands of dangerous people.
but here’s another way to look at it. since crime rates and conviction rates are higher in areas of poverty, and since many people want to arm themselves against that kind of violent criminal activity (a desire of both law-abiding folk and criminals, I assure you), this law is giving the government (the federal government, mind you) carte blanche to imprison more and more of the impoverished citizenry. which also has the distinct advantage of completely disenfranchising said citizenry.

so do the evil aspects of this law overweigh the beneficial, or vice versa? is there a better way, a more just way, to go about decreasing the amount of gun violence? what say you all?

[pldennison]

since crime rates and conviction rates are higher in areas of poverty, and since many people want to arm themselves against that kind of violent criminal activity (a desire of both law-abiding folk and criminals, I assure you), this law is giving the government (the federal government, mind you) carte blanche to imprison more and more of the impoverished citizenry. which also has the distinct advantage of completely disenfranchising said citizenry.

You hit it right on the head, jb. I’ve been reading the book More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott, Jr., and he discusses this very issue extensively. His studies of county-level crime data from 1977-1992 led to the conclusion that one of the biggest factors leading to the reduction of violent crime is the adoption at the state level of nondiscretionary (or “shall-issue”) concealed handgun permit laws. Yet, ironically, the residents in the most densely-populated, poorest (usually minority) counties, whose violent crime rates tend to show the largest decreases in response to shall-issue laws, are the ones who are most likely to have their right to bear arms taken away from them. And, just as you describe, when these people do decide to try and protect themselves by carrying a handgun, they are often arrested and jailed for breaking these laws. It’s just wrong.

[Freedom]

The war on drugs fits in here somewhere. All those non-violent offenders convicted of felony drug charges are restricted from ever owning a firearm again. I am willing to bet the areas you are talking about have more than their fair share of people affected by this loss of their right to bear arms.

Do we really want to punish a 50 year old for a non-violent crime he commited 30 years ago?

[jb_farley]

depends on who you mean by “we”. Me? hell no, and I take it you neither*

but I’m sure that there are a lot of people who would say, “Damn straight!” Same people who want to throw you in jail for being addicted to drugs.

[jb_farley]

• is that sentence in any way grammatical? It sounds remarkably awkward, but I can’t tell, and it was the best way to phrase my point.

[Al_Mondroca]

*Originally posted by jb_farley *
**So there’s this law that’s been advertised in Philadelphia a lot for like the last year or so, calling attention to the new penalties exacted for illegal possession of a gun. There’s minimum sentencing guidelines and everything, and the gist of it is that if you are a felon or have been convicted of drug offenses, then the law will crack down on you.

now don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe in the right to bear arms, and have just as strong a belief that this is not an inalienable right; that is, it has its limits just as all other rights do. In order to cut down on gun violence and deaths, we must do something to make sure that guns are not in the hands of dangerous people.

**

That’s the problem. We can’t, really. We can punish criminals when we catch them with guns. But we can’t–I mean, literally can’t–prevent them from arming themselves. Guns are a five-hundred-year-old technology. It’s much too easy to manufacture them; if the legal supply of commercially manufactured guns were effectively stifled, you’d see criminals turning to “roll your own” weapons. Or smuggling. The War on Drugs has been every bit as much a success as a ban on guns would be.

**but here’s another way to look at it. since crime rates and conviction rates are higher in areas of poverty, and since many people want to arm themselves against that kind of violent criminal activity (a desire of both law-abiding folk and criminals, I assure you), this law is giving the government (the federal government, mind you) carte blanche to imprison more and more of the impoverished citizenry. which also has the distinct advantage of completely disenfranchising said citizenry.

**

Yup. A friend of mine has commented for years on the systematic way that the growing number of “felony” crimes is turning millions of people into permanent non-voters, and how an unusually large percentage of those permanent non-voters are poor or black or both.

**so do the evil aspects of this law overweigh the beneficial, or vice versa? is there a better way, a more just way, to go about decreasing the amount of gun violence? what say you all? **

Yes–repeal all laws restricting ownership and carrying of guns (yes, even for ex-felons; if we don’t trust him, why is he out of jail?), and concentrate enforcement on those who USE weapons in crimes of violence.

[oldscratch]

Also, let people with “mental health problems” carry guns. Right now they can be banned from doing so too.

[jb_farley]

yup. clinically depressed here, so you won’t see me packing at the next doper gathering.

They’ll get my zoloft when they pry it from my cold dead hand.

[ExTank]

Inalienable:

inalienable (adjective)

[probably from French inalienable, from in- + alienable alienable]

First appeared circa 1645

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <~ rights>

– inalienability (noun)

– inalienably (adverb)

Obviously, most of our cherished rights aren’t literally inalienable; criminals [felons] lose the right to vote, to own/purchase/possess/transfer firearms, or leave the country (legally, at least).

But, in the spirit of the wording of the Declaration of Independence, they are fundamentally inalienable to all law-abiding citizens.

JB: the law I believe you are speaking of is probably the local version of Project Exile, first modeled in Richmond, Virginia.

It called for a minimum 5-year Federal sentence, no parole, for anyone caught using, carrying or otherwise possessing a gun in the commission of a crime.

Whether or not the scope of the law allows that illegally carrying a concealed firearm is the crime is unknown to me.

Violent crime dropped dramatically in Richmond, over the year or so that the program was tested.

My problem is that it makes no distinction for first-time offenders, or for cold-stop police searches.

There was a case recently, in Miami IIRC, where a young, inner-city minority was stopped and searched by the police.

He was found to have in his possession a handgun; he had a minor rap sheet (no felonies), and was doing nothing other than hangin’ in the hood. In other words, they had no probable cause for stopping this man.

It was tossed on 4th Amendment grounds, with (strangely enough) unanimous support from the NRA and the ACLU.

Since Pennsylvania has “Concealed Carry” Laws, there is nothing stopping non-felons from gettin a CCP, thus obviating the risk of getting caught with a gun: you’re legal!

ExTank