One Good Reason for Gun Control; To Convict Felons

Gun control has become a big issue in this campaign, for a variety of reasons. One is the recent shootings. A second is Obama’s probably unconstitutional executive order. Generally I think gun control is useless since someone who is enough of a criminal to shoot someone won’t care about fastidiously obeying gun laws.

There is only one reason I favor background checks and a paper trail for gun purchases; that is to give the police the ability to be the sole witnesses in certain gun incidents. In this story,Fight over Instagram password leads to gunfire in Jersey City, a boyfriend was enraged that his girlfriend wouldn’t yield her Instagram password. The article stated that “(t)he 17-year-old, who the city is not identifying because he is a minor, was arrested at about noon yesterday for making terroristic threats, aggravated assault for knowingly pointing a firearm and three other weapons charges.”

Now there is a very good chance that neither the girlfriend nor her mother will want to testify for the following reasons:

[li]When the boyfriend is free on bail or after he serves any (likely light) sentence he may be a bit threatening or intimidating;[/li][li]The boyfriend and girlfriend may “make up”[/li][li]The girlfriend and mother may have other legal problems and may not want to appear in Court; and/or[/li][li]The girlfriend and mother may have employment or other time constraints and could lose their jobs if they have to appear in Court.[/li][/ol]
In these circumstances the officer’s testimony alone should be sufficient to obtain a conviction on the weapons’ charges. The threats and assault charges require the girlfriend’s and mother’s cooperation, which may not be readily forthcoming.

Sort of the way Al Capone ultimately ent to jail on tax charges, weapons charges are useful ways of incarcerating people who ought to be convicted.

Nope. Not even in the top ten.

Another one. You’re either a legally registered firearm owner or you’re not. Fast and easy to prove who bought the gun and therefore responsibility.

Take the San Bernadino shooting. Enrique Marquez Jr could have been put in jail immediately as the firearms owner and/or straw buyer. No faffing around trying to round up additional proof or give the perp a chance to go on the lam. It was Enrique’s firearm and instead of the several days before charging him, could have taken Enrique off the street immediately.

Philly Guy is correct in that most attempted illegal purchases of guns are never prosecuted. 44 out 80,000 in 2012. I wish they were. Lying on form 4473 in itself carries a five-year penalty.

Making something illegal for the purpose of locking people up and therefore eliminating the problem? Brilliant! I mean it’s working for drugs, right?

People should be sentenced, if at all, for each offence fairly and singularly, not for extraneous technicalities.

And ‘terroristic’ ? Give me a break.

Really! Why had no one thought of this before?

He hasn’t even issued the order yet, and you’re already sure it’s “probably unconstitutional”?

Jail? Capone went to f’ing Alcatraz.

You may not like Ayn Rand, but she nailed that particular point a long time ago.

I don’t see how Obama’s Executive Order is unconstitutional. The rules about background checks are created by the BATFE already and as such are subject to change administratively so long as they don’t deprive people of their Constitutional rights, which background checks do not. If a person isn’t eligible for ownership, that doesn’t change even if there is no background check requirement, they just take possession of a weapon illegally.

What the rule change will do is remove all doubt, and more importantly provide cover for a seller because they won’t have to worry about the police knocking on their door when a nutter uses the weapon they sold in a cash deal to kill someone.

I find no reason to oppose what Obama did. That said, let’s not get carried away here. We shouldn’t be contemplating how we can manufacture criminals.

What the heck is that? :confused: The term itself sounds bureaucratic & tyrannical.

just a nitpick bit there was no rule change. Clarification maybe. But any transaction that needed an FFL before still does and vice versa. Private party cash sales in states that allow them aready unchanged and still good to go.