Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm - Page 2
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 129

Thread: Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm

  1. #11
    I think it sounds like a great idea! In theory. Aside from the fact that you can't always define a known gang member........just how do they plan to enforce this? Oh yeah, they can't. It'd be just as easy to break up the gangs.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by CarryNM View Post
    This is a bit of a sticky wicket to say the least. Most states say no felony convictions,no domestic violence, and it goes on and on. IF they have no felony convictions etc. they have the legal right to possess a CCL, but being known to have ties to gangs with bad members in my mind should preclude them from getting a license. The law is the law, and if folks do not like it, they must vote. I and My Wife both have CCL, and are proud to be able to serve in this fashion. Knowing a gang member had a CCL definitely would keep me from shopping or frequenting any location where he/she and their friends went.
    WHAT is this "serve in this fashion" you speak of?????? Surely it cannot be that you 2 consider yourselves some kind of "protectors of the realm" or some such nonsense is it????

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    ....answer.... "I would ask for a law prohibiting the ownership or possession of any firearm by any person KNOWN to be an active member of a 'criminal' gang."
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Wannabe's don't really warrant the attention that a known, violent gangster does.
    I like your line of demarcation better than the cop's answer. Guilt by association is anathema to a free society. However, if someone is a known violent criminal and they have a criminal record that backs up that knowledge, then parole and probation conditions kick in and associations are fairly strictly enforced in that case (at least in some jurisdictions).

    I have a huge problem with the way criminals' 2A rights are dealt with in general in this country. Heck, I have a huge problem with the way all of our rights are dealt with these days. I don't think that a "felony" is, in and of itself, a good reason to deny the rights of non-violent criminals for the same reason BuddhaKat alluded to earlier. Someone who has never demonstrated a propensity for violence should enjoy the same rights after serving his/her time as he/she had before committing a non-violent crime. His/her family, and even he/she him/herself should be afforded every opportunity to defend against predators just like anyone else.

    Back in the 80's I worked with an older guy (like around my age now, 58) who had gotten a rap for two freakin' joints in the 50's. He did 5 years for two joints, lost his right to vote and his right to own or be in possession of a gun. It wasn't a huge deal for him, but when he told me the story, I was incredulous. If it had been 10 or 15 years later that he got caught with two joints in CA, he would've gotten a ticket, yet the change in the laws didn't go retroactive to restore pot-felons' rights.

    To me, the default position should always freedom. It has to be an unequivocal and egregious act to justify taking someone's rights away. It doesn't surprise me at all that a cop would think simple association is such an act, but it does disgust me to no end. He should have his badge revoked before another borderline kid should have his rights revoked by his god-complex arrogance. That's my take.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    It is VERY simple.... If you cannot be trusted in society without supervision, you should still be incarcerated.... If you havent done anything to deserve continued incarceration, then you should have all of your "rights" whether others THINK you are a danger or not.... That is one of the side effects of a free society. It doesnt matter if you dont "like" that some people you are afraid of or dont "feel" that they deserve to have the tools to defend themselves (yes, they can use them wrongly, but SO CAN YOU!!!)

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by CarryNM View Post
    This is a bit of a sticky wicket to say the least. Most states say no felony convictions,no domestic violence, and it goes on and on. IF they have no felony convictions etc. they have the legal right to possess a CCL, but being known to have ties to gangs with bad members in my mind should preclude them from getting a license. The law is the law, and if folks do not like it, they must vote. I and My Wife both have CCL, and are proud to be able to serve in this fashion. Knowing a gang member had a CCL definitely would keep me from shopping or frequenting any location where he/she and their friends went.
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    WHAT is this "serve in this fashion" you speak of?????? Surely it cannot be that you 2 consider yourselves some kind of "protectors of the realm" or some such nonsense is it????
    I noticed that line too, but to tell you the truth, the more troubling thing said there is that CarryNM apparently thinks that gang members give one good crap whether or not they're issued a license to carry. Newsflash: Even if known and active gangstas were fast-tracked through the permission-slip process, they would not avail themselves of it. They're criminals. By definition, it's what criminals do. They ignore laws.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    116
    Good discussion. IMHO the crux of this issue is freedom versus safety. If you are unwilling to protect you and your, and choose to delegate this responsibility to someone else (the state), you are relinquishing your freedom of choice for supposed safety provided by someone else. For myself, I am willing to let the gagbangers test my resolve or ability in exchange tor the state staying the 7734 out of my freedom. Who said those willing to forsake their freedom for safety will soon have neither freedom nor safety/
    ________

    DRNurse1

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Peggy Reist View Post
    I think it sounds like a great idea! In theory. Aside from the fact that you can't always define a known gang member........just how do they plan to enforce this? Oh yeah, they can't. It'd be just as easy to break up the gangs.
    From what I was told, identifying gang members is a huge priority in the fight against gang crime. Surprisingly, the RGU has a lot of face to face contact with a lot of the gangs around here. I suppose you could look at it as a situation where the cops are cool to the gang members as long as they're staying out of trouble. Everything changes when the gangsta's step out of line. The cops get all business like then.

    As far as validating whether someone is actually a gang member or not, well, they don't guess. Like I said above, they don't want to waste resources. A lot of what gangsters do is chronicled in their graffiti and tattoos, plus, they're all about earning respect on the street. That translates to blabbing about your accomplishments. Flagging someone as an active member of a criminal gang is much more that just seeing someone talking to another known gang member. It's not something they do lightly. Bear in mind, they're not talking about taggers, graffiti artists, and a small group of friends, they're talking about honest to gawd criminal enterprises. In fact, they've actually prosecuted several of them around here under the RICO Act. I wouldn't want these guys to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun any more than I'd want someone being investigated for potential terrorist activities. When someone goes on that watch list they're not buying a legit gun either.

    As far as enforcement goes, it's simply a matter of "Oh, you're a known gang member in possession of a gun. You get a free trip to jail."
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I like your line of demarcation better than the cop's answer. Guilt by association is anathema to a free society. However, if someone is a known violent criminal and they have a criminal record that backs up that knowledge, then parole and probation conditions kick in and associations are fairly strictly enforced in that case (at least in some jurisdictions).

    I have a huge problem with the way criminals' 2A rights are dealt with in general in this country. Heck, I have a huge problem with the way all of our rights are dealt with these days. I don't think that a "felony" is, in and of itself, a good reason to deny the rights of non-violent criminals for the same reason BuddhaKat alluded to earlier. Someone who has never demonstrated a propensity for violence should enjoy the same rights after serving his/her time as he/she had before committing a non-violent crime. His/her family, and even he/she him/herself should be afforded every opportunity to defend against predators just like anyone else.

    Back in the 80's I worked with an older guy (like around my age now, 58) who had gotten a rap for two freakin' joints in the 50's. He did 5 years for two joints, lost his right to vote and his right to own or be in possession of a gun. It wasn't a huge deal for him, but when he told me the story, I was incredulous. If it had been 10 or 15 years later that he got caught with two joints in CA, he would've gotten a ticket, yet the change in the laws didn't go retroactive to restore pot-felons' rights.

    To me, the default position should always freedom. It has to be an unequivocal and egregious act to justify taking someone's rights away. It doesn't surprise me at all that a cop would think simple association is such an act, but it does disgust me to no end. He should have his badge revoked before another borderline kid should have his rights revoked by his god-complex arrogance. That's my take.

    Blues
    That's why I think there has to be a way to get off the list. It doesn't happen very often, but every once in a while a gangsta gets his **** together and drops out of the lifestyle. Good for them. Hell, I've been drug free for 30 years now, I'd hate to be branded as a druggie for life because of something stupid I did when I was a kid. (In fact, I'm MASSIVELY​ anti-drug now.)
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Well, you and I are in the same gang then my brother, except for the Christian part. I think CarryNM hit the nail on the head by calling this a sticky wicket. Does a gang member sitting down to supper with his wife and kids have a legitimate right to defend himself and his family when his house suddenly comes under fire from a rival gang? Let's say we take the attitude of 'screw the gangsta', the wife and kids certainly have a right to live. They're innocents. Makes ya think.
    Everyone has a right to defend themselves. But we aren't talking about the right to self-defense. We're talking about gun possession. Those are two different things. If the gang member meets the same criteria as everyone else, he can legally possess a firearm. It's as simple as that. But that's where you seem to miss a very important point. If the gang member doesn't meet the same criteria as everyone else, he will still possess a firearm. It's still as simple as that. If you and that cop think a new law making illegal what is already illegal is going to change anything, you need your heads examined. Those people will carry guns whether you pass a hundred new law or put them on double secret probation, and you're a fool if you think otherwise.
    .
    This course that I'm going through makes me privy to some information that's not generally available to the public, but the question of identifying a gang member did come up and I can say that as far as our RGU is concerned, there is a definite criterion that must be met before someone is put on their list. Wannabe's are separated from the real thing.
    That might be okay if cops made the laws. Do you know anywhere where that happens? Politicians make laws and politicians establish the criteria. Without a finite, empirical way to measure a criteria, such as a felony conviction, you'd be left with arbitrary conditions. Arbitrary conditions can and do change, especially when politicians are involved. You and your cop obviously haven't thought this through.
    .
    Here in NV, we're a 'Shall Issue' state, as long as we pass the FBI NCIC check. But that only pertains to a CCW. I have to think that if Homeland Security can put people on a 'no-fly' list willy-nilly, a person who's name is on that list is going to fail the NCIC check. Fail the check, no CCW, period. What if we had a Gang Member list much the same as the no fly list? States would be able to enact legislation saying if you're on this list, you can't possess a gun. The only thing I would want to see is a clear set of criteria to legally label a person as a gang member, (thus placing restrictions on their rights), and make sure there is a way for that person to get off that list if they decide to leave the lifestyle behind.
    It's a NICS check, not NCIC. Using something like the no fly list is the last thing you want. There is no way to determine why you are on the list, or even if you really are on it. There is also no way to get your name removed from it, if it's really there in the first place. In short, there is no due process whatsoever. Flying is not a constitutional right, but firearm ownership is. You're advocating the denial of a God given right that is guaranteed by the Constitution not to be infringed, based on a list that is totally secret and completely bereft of any due process whatsoever and completely lacking any avenue of defense or appeal. That's about as un-American as you can get.
    .
    According to the RGU officers, there's not a lot of hard core gang members that want to actually leave the lifestyle. I think that if people want to be a criminal, they should be treated like the scumbags they are.
    I agree, but you've lost your mind if you think such a law would bother them. It would however bother lots of innocent people who'd be caught up in a legal quagmire caused by a statute that was never designed with them in mind. You want to help with the gang problem? Fight to fix our revolving door justice system.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  11. #20
    Innocent till proven guilty. Due process. These are the thoughts that come to mind. I think back on that Tom Cruise movie where he would arrest people BEFORE they committed a crime. Sticky wicket indeed. When the gansta type are convicted THEN take away their right to bear arms. Until then, watch but verify.
    Typos are for the entertainment of the reader. Don't let it go to your head!

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast