Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm - Page 4
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 129

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by tionico View Post
    nice in theory, but consider how things are actually done with the NICS and No FLy lists now. Many totally innocent persons are on those lists, can't find out why, nor do anything to get off them. Those who hold the keys to put a name on are too corrupt. The two lists you mention PROVE conclusively the wong thinking of "making a list". They forget to "check it twice", and make no real provision for redress when one is wrongly put on it. How many veterans are having their rhghts to arms taken because someone decided they need help to manage their finances, and thus are "mentaly incompetent"? It IS happening,

    LE in general are far to quick to want a "list" to "fix" their own laziness or incompetence. Consider James Holmes, the Cinemark Theater shooter. His personal psychiatric doctor had been warning local LEO for a month he was a danger and should be restricted. No one in/near Denver/Aurora wanted to be bothered,. so he killed a bunch of innocents.
    No, the present laws are more than adequate: in fact, most should be repealed. They have the tools t find those who are armed and should not be. What they need to do is work with the prosecutors (who are also far to lazy, on average) and press for maximum penalties whenever possession laws are violated. EVERY CASE of felon in possession MUST be pressed for conviction (NO PLEA BARGAINS) and maximum penalties. Only when these clowns are facing years of hard time for unlawful posession will they think twice about doing it. You bring these thoughts back to the class and see what they think.. my bet is they'll pop back with excuses and reasons why it won't work. OK, ask them how many incidents in the past year their department members have found people in violation of possession laws such as felon in possession. THEN ask how many of thise cases actualy had the perpetrator charged and brought to trial for THAT violation. If they're honest, and their department is typical, the gun charges are almost always bargained away by the prosecutor to get convictions on drug charges and resultant jail time.. more federal money from War on Drugs funding. As ever, follow the money.
    I don't know that I consider LE as a whole lazy or incompetent. Not perfect for sure, but by and large hard working and professional. Most cops around here have degrees in criminal justice, etc. Your comment does make me think of the one episode of Cops where a cop down in the south was chasing a perp and the perp wrecked. The cop gets on the radio and informs dispatch "He dun wrecked out". I just cringe thinking about that.

    I too disagree with the secrecy behind the no fly list. People aren't notified when they're placed on it. They can't contest being on it, and they can't force the government to take them off of it. I'll join the ranks of those that cry foul. That there is a problem doesn't mean there can't be a solution. We talked about it. Establish a legal criteria that must be met before someone is eligible to be listed. The legislature sets that standard. (Ok, that assures it'll get fubar'd). Notification that you've been placed on that list. I would think that notice would also state that you no longer can be in possession of a gun. Give the person on the list an ability to contest being placed there and if found to have been wrongly so, force the removal from the list. Set an automatic expiration date contingent upon staying out of trouble and no further documented gang activity.

    To me, this addresses the issue of only picking on bad guys and unfairly picking on innocents.

    As to the issue of enforcing the laws on the books, you're preaching to the choir. I don't like the revolving door on the court and the jail. Fortunately we're blessed with an aggressive ADA when it comes to gang crime. But he can only do so much. There's more work to be done for sure. However, my issue here doesn't have anything to do with a felon in possession, or a parolee in proximity to a felon, etc. We have laws regarding that and they are enforced. My concern is, when the police make contact with a known gangsta, someone they've had plenty of contact with, someone that's told them on video when he was last busted he belongs to MS13, has MS13 tattooed all over his body, but has only been busted for possession of less than an ounce of pot before. What are they going to do when they search his car and find a joint and a Glock? Well, his previous arrest record doesn't prohibit him from being in possession of a gun. NV law doesn't prohibit a law abiding citizen from stashing a loaded handgun in their car, so no law broken there. Currently, what HAS to happen is he'll get a ticket for the pot and then get his gun back. Not enough probably cause to even check ballistics. Known, validated, criminal gangsta actually has the police hand him his gun back and he gets to go on his merry way. It might have been the very gun used to murder someone the day before, but without probable cause, they can't even check.

    So what changes with a GIP law in place. GIP gets busted for being a GIP who's name is on the list. Gun seized and off the streets. Gun checked for ballistics. Gangsta goes to jail and is off the street. Might be for a night, might end up for longer. Next time gangsta gets busted for having a gun, he breaks the more serious law of being a felon in possession. (Yes, I think the GIP law should be a felony). More trouble for the gangsta and he goes away for a much longer time. Streets safer, one gangsta at a time.

    I wish I could spend more time with the RGU, but that part of the class of over. I would like to say for the record, these cops were more concerned about the socio-economic conditions as having more to do with the reasons behind the crime. Make life better for these folks and the problem will get a lot better. I don't know that the prospect of going to prison concerns them that much. It's like a family reunion for them. It's also a badge of honor and respect.
    "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

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    I don't consider law enforcement to be lazy or incompetent. Far from it. I number many friends among their ranks. But what these guys are proposing here is the criminalization of a constitutionally protected right. I don't see how anyone can defend that, much less champion it.
    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

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    I don't consider law enforcement to be lazy or incompetent. Far from it. I number many friends among their ranks. But what these guys are proposing here is the criminalization of a constitutionally protected right. I don't see how anyone can defend that, much less champion it.
    Well I certainly have never said I want this and only this.

    Do criminals have a right to possess a gun? Well, some here would say yes. Fair enough. I don't agree with them. Fair enough too.

    Do I want to chip away at a right? Meeeeeehhhhhhhhh, not so much. Dangerous turf for sure. That doesn't mean I'll put my head in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem. The quote DRNurse1 was alluding to above is appropriate. The actual quote; "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." weighs heavy on me always. Thus-----discussion. Healthy and interesting if you ask me.
    "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

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    So your idea for utopia is one where there's no police whatsoever then? Maybe morph the police into something along the lines of the cops in the movie Demolition Man. Remember the line by the cop. "So much violence. We're not equipped to deal with something like this". In your ideal world the cops would be toothless and thus useless. Though I do have to admit, I wouldn't mind being frisked by Lt. Huxley.
    1) I am not talking about Utopia. I'm talking about the Constitution and your complete and utter ignorance of its meaning(s). Rhino covered the absurdity of your idea of "due process" quite well, but that's just one among many concepts contained in that document that you have no earthly idea of.

    2) I have no police whatsoever in my life. Don't need 'em and don't want 'em barking out orders to show me your papers because a freakin' light bulb burned out on my license plate. I do everything I can to keep cops out of my life, which makes me a responsible, law-abiding citizen, not a cop-hater, a Utopian or someone in need of a tin foil hat. If I don't speed or drive erratically, I am not feeling particularly "protected" when I come upon an unconstitutional DUI stop that makes me late for work for no legal rationale that includes probable cause, yet I can be yanked out of my car and have it searched with no recourse if I say, "You have no legal authority to pull me over. I'd like to be on my way. May I go now?"

    3) Never saw Demolition man. I prefer the real world where the rule of law applies to everyone, cop and un-oathed citizen alike. There is nothing toothless or useless about the toolbox known as "The Constitution of the United States of America" unless you're a dictator wannabe who can't be bothered with such irrelevant antiquities.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Some are criminals and I fiercely support their vigorous prosecution.
    No you don't. You fiercely support giving them more unconstitutional tools with which to harass people who have not committed a crime that they can make a due process case against them for! Somehow I doubt the Framers intended for a burned out tail-light to be the 4th Amendment-compliant probable cause that cops use to search, seize, prosecute and convict someone carrying a gun when they wrote the 2nd Amendment just two Articles prior!

    This is obviously WAY over your head. Self-responsibility, self-reliance and unapologetic adherence to both the letter and spirit of the law that is the Constitution are tin-foil-hat and Utopian flights of fantastical delusional fancy in your world.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Most, and I mean 99.999% of the cops in this country are as honest as a day is long.
    Yeah, and where did that number come from? Eric Holder is going to "investigate" an individual by the name of ummm....Eric Holder for his Justice Dept. illegally targeting journalists for doing their jobs under the protections of the 1st Amendment. My bet is that he will say his Justice Dept. is 99.999% pure as the wind-driven snow when all is said and done. Your estimate has exactly as much validity to it for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Funny thing is, I started carrying a gun in public out of concern for my safety because of the rampant gang activity in the areas I frequent. So to reiterate, I carry a gun to protect myself from criminal gangs. Who are you guarding against? Criminal cops me thinks.
    I will defend me and mine from anyone who tries to victimize me and mine. That includes gangstas, cops (sorry for being redundant), burglars, armed robbers, rapists, child molesters, whomever. I'll guarantee you that if a gang of out of control cops picks me or mine to be the next Kelly Thomas because they don't like our protective-of-our-rights "attitudes," I will still die like Mr. Thomas did, but I'll be damned if I'll go out without inflicting some heavy bruising by testing whatever bit of body armor is closest to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Where the hell did that come from?
    It came from you lamenting the po' po' pitiful cop having to follow the law and let someone who they had no case on go. Like I said, this stuff is WAY over your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    The purpose of the thread is to discuss a known problem and possible solutions.
    If bigger, more intrusive, more powerful government is the answer, you're asking the wrong question(s).

    If the worst among us can have their rights trampled upon on the whim of either cops or politicians who write unconstitutional laws so they can go a' tramplin', then my rights are every bit as much at risk. My rights are not up for discussion, no matter how stealthily you attempt to cover the attempt in flowery "we're jus' talkin' here, friend, nothing to get worked up about" kind of disingenuousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    The healthiest thing we can do as a nation is to get involved.
    When you get involved in the protection, preservation and expansion of freedom, you and I will get as healthy as can be together. As long as you're working the opposite side of that coin though, you are the enemy. Sorry if my bluntness offends, but like I said, my rights are not up for discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    The 'system' would be booking, jail, bail, court, prison, and parole/probation. System is a metaphor. Try to keep up.
    The "system" you were talking about was booking, jail, bail, court, prison, and parole/probation on the basis of nothing more probative than the associations of an individual.

    I'm keeping up just fine, thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Ol' Thom didn't have a problem picking up a gun to remove a little tyranny.
    Man, your hair must really be mussed up from all the founding, constitutional concepts whizzing right over your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Times are a little different now. We really can't take the law into our own hands. We have opted instead to charge a smaller group with that task, with a long list of constraints placed on them.
    Indeed. That list includes the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. The 1A gives the right to video-tape LEOs in public doing their jobs according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling by refusing to hear another appeal. Would you like me to post 50 or so examples (out of a nearly endless list from which to choose) of people getting arrested at least, and many times getting beat up, tazed, pepper-sprayed, fined, having their cameras seized and worse to demonstrate how cops cannot be trusted to abide by those constraints on their own? Pick an Amendment. Endless examples of 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th violations are everywhere around the interwebs. I guess if one closes their eyes to it, it doesn't count though. Well, my eyes are wide open, and it all counts to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Protect us, but with one hand tied behind their backs.
    Still lamenting that the po' po' pitiful cops have to follow the law, eh?

    That said, cops' duty is not to protect us, an admittedly grossly vapid ruling by SCOTUS in at least two modern cases, Deshaney v. Winnebago County in '89, and Castle Rock v. Gonzalez in '06.

    Even if they did actually have such a duty though, under the rubric of "protecting" us, you would give them authority to prosecute us for our associations.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Crime by association. Yes, that is the sticky wicket.
    No, that is the crime of abuse of power under the color of authority. Try to keep up.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    It's been discussed and I think we all agree that some constitutional protections are warranted.
    "Some" constitutional protections are "warranted"????? You have obviously been too busy replying to a couple or three of us, and not reading the replies that have come in-between. Hardly anyone agrees with you about "some" constitutional protections being warranted, which unequivocally states that you think that "some" of the ones presently in place are unwarranted. And you're under the delusion that "we all agree" on that?

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    I think there's been some reasonable suggestions made to insure that non-com's are protected. Don't think for a second that I don't want that. As far as Nazi Brownshirts, I haven't met any in our LE departments. What I heard was a lot of dialog from them about the importance of respecting peoples rights. They talked about probable cause and making sure they comply with the legal requirements.
    1) What are "non-com's" in the context of this paragraph?

    2) You only quoted one officer, based the title of the thread on that one officer's quote, and commented on only that officer's quote in your OP. Now I'm supposed to respond to what that officer or his comrades said that you didn't quote?

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Your inference that cops just want to willy-nilly kick down peoples doors in the middle of the night without a warrant, drag them into the street and execute them is just something out of the fantasy narrative you desperately want to believe is prevalent in the law enforcement community.
    Absolutely, unambiguously wrong. I desperately want to believe that cops can and do follow the law, protect The People's rights without angst or attempts to manipulate the law to get around the constitutional constraints that they break every time they make up a rationale to harass somebody, and I sincerely and desperately want to believe that all people, cop or otherwise, are intrinsically good and trustworthy. But to give into those desperate desires is what would be the "fantasy narrative" here, so I choose to view the world, including cops, for what it/they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Ya know, I never really felt like I had any of my freedoms violated.
    I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell ya!

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    In fact, I never had a single instance in which I felt like DHS was even interested in knowing anything about me.
    Then you're either one of them, or a known groupie of LE, or an utter fool.

    I'm going to run out of characters here, so I'll spare you the commentary on the rest. Partly because we're both repeating ourselves here, but mostly because it just whizzes right over your head anyway. Enjoy your delusions.

    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...

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Uhhhmmmmm Budadude? You are the most Constitutionally IGNORANT person EVER on this forum.... No, Really!!!!!! There have been some real doozies in the past (and a few still post now), but budadude, You have surpassed them 1000 times over..... Please get a clue before posting again, You have already proven that you know absolutely NOTHING about what you are talking about, so no-one is going to agree with you anyway... Dont go away mad, just........

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    So in other words, they're just looking for an excuse and they want a law to create it for them. The classic police state mentality. You don't need a gun law for that. You can make up any law you want.
    Or.......There is a loophole that wily and crafty gangsters exploit in order to continue their criminal endeavors and cops would like to close it in order to provide a reasonable and safe environment in which innocent little girls don't get shot in the face from a stray bullet fired by a gangsta in some exceptionally stupid retaliation incident. That happened the other day btw. It happens every day all across the nation. I'm not pushing for a police state, I'm pushing for gangsters to get pushed off our streets. I'm sure they'll find a happy home in the neighborhoods of those here that don't see a problem with armed gangsters that haven't been convicted of killing anyone (yet).
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    As would I, but criminalizing that which isn't criminal just to create an excuse for an arrest is tantamount to tyrannical government overreach. It's exactly the kind of governmental abuse our founders were trying to escape when they created this nation.
    Organizing for the purpose of furthering a criminal enterprise has LONG been established as a crime. As far as I know it dates back to at least the 20' here in the United States alone. The RICO act really put some teeth into organized crime, but that's Federal and it's quagmired in it's own complexities.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    From their standpoint I'm sure they do, but that wasn't the point I was making. They don't write the laws or establish the conditions. The criteria you specify isn't measurable or finite. It's subjective and open to interpretation. The politicians who write the laws and the courts who try to interpret them are going to twist things far differently from what you and your cop friend are idealizing. The real world just doesn't work the way it works in your fantasies.
    So, knowing full well there's a serious loophole, we shouldn't do anything then?

    Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm-article-2116924-123b3c61000005dc-229_308x185.jpg

    Look at the face of the person you would sacrifice and tell me who's rights are more important.

    I'm not advocating that we throw people in jail because they belong in a criminal gang. But the only fantasy here is the one in which people believe that these gangsters are innocents themselves. They're not.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    You'll find lots of agreement on violent offenders, criminals and people who are mentally incompetent but you're going to have a problem arguing that people who have committed no crime should be denied gun rights because that potentially includes every law abiding citizen in the US. All they have to do is tweak the definition in the law a little bit, which is easy since the criteria is so subjective and ill defined. You make it even easier for them if they get to use a secret list. Then they never have to explain anything to anyone.
    I never said people that committed no crimes should be on the list. It seems to me I've taken the approach that it's reasonable to establish a rather detailed set of factors that must be met before anyone could even be placed on the list. What I said was, the cops are pretty darn good at determining who is actually an active member of a criminal gang and who is a wannabe. In furtherance of that, maybe it's reasonable to propose that before anyone can be placed on that list they have to be convicted of a crime and have some kind of caveat about the crime being committed as part of a criminal gang activity or something of the sort. For example, robbing a gas station is bad, robbing a gas station with a gun is much worse. Selling drugs is bad. Selling drugs on behalf of your gang is really bad. Insert your own example here. I'm talking in generalities here, not specifics. You get my point.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Unless I'm mistaken, the topic is "Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm", so a statute is indeed being proposed.
    The last I checked, laws in our state are made my our Legislature and signed into force by the Governor. Keyboard cowboys like me don't make law, but we can talk about it.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    What criteria? You've already stated they've broken no laws. Are you going to base it on who they associate with? That would be criminalizing a God given right guaranteed not to be infringed under the 1st amendment. You seem hell bent on criminalizing God given rights. You just want to justify it by promising to use it only on 'bad' people. How many corrupt governments over the ages have used that excuse?
    Where did I say they've broken no laws? What I said was, they're record is clean enough that they can still be in possession of a gun. PIMPS can carry guns in NV as long as they've never been convicted of a felony, violent crime or have a warrant. Pimps, fielding their ho's for the profit of a criminal gang should have their gun taken away IMO.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    ROFL!!! Telling someone they're on the list constitutes due process in your eyes? You're good for entertainment. I'll give you that.
    Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm-elvis-elvis-cool-hair-smiley-emoticon-000203-large.gif Well Thank You. Thank You Very Much.

    But seriously folks, how bout this:

    Dear Criminal Gangsta Scumbag, You have been convicted by a jury of your peers of the crime of whacking off in public. Furthermore, the jury concluded that your criminal activity was a part of a prohibited organized criminal gang activity, i.e. it was a circle jerk, in violation of NRS blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah. Having been found guilty of the above referenced crime and the commission of that crime as a function of a criminal gang activity, you are hereby notified that pursuant to NRS NRS blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah.GIP, you are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm for a period of two years.

    Feel better now. At least I made you laugh.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    It's something to be scared ****less about, because the day anything even remotely resembling that passes anywhere in the US is the day this country ceases to exist. Even though you've committed no crime, the government is going to declare you a criminal based on who you associate with and remove your God given rights that the Constitution says they have no right to infringe upon. All of this is done with absolutely zero due process and if you want your rights back it is up to you to fight back and attempt to regain what was unconstitutionally taken away from you without due process in the first place, at great expense and trouble of course. Oh, and the politicians who write the laws criminalizing these associations get to decide which ones are bad, such as associating with the eeeeeeevil National Rifle Association maybe. We all know how bad those people are!
    Ok, once more, this is a discussion, not legislation. I want debate. I want contrary opinions. I want people telling me I'm FOS. I'd like someone to say, "Yah fat boy, you might be on to something there. Needs work though."

    A law abiding citizen is a person I'm going to defend to the death here, on any other forum, and everywhere I go in my life. LAC's have nothing to fear from me. What I fear is how quickly people have jumped to the conclusion that I have some interest in taking some freedom away from some deserving soul. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's the criminals I don't give a crap about.

    Now if you're interested in defending the rights of criminals, thugs, drug dealers, gangsta's and NBPP members, Eric Holder has a home for you at the DOJ. In fact, I'm hearing there's about to be an opening at the top.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    The really tragic thing about all this is that anyone can't see how horribly misguided an idea like this is. Their hearts are in the right place, absolutely. Nobody can dispute that. I doubt there's anyone here that wouldn't like to give law enforcement more tools to fight gangs. But the mere fact that any thinking American can't see the glaring danger in such a proposal as this really scares me.
    You're assuming that language is set in stone, written and can not be changed. Jeeze, all I want to do is talk about it. :
    "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

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Well I certainly have never said I want this and only this.
    .
    Do criminals have a right to possess a gun? Well, some here would say yes. Fair enough. I don't agree with them. Fair enough too.
    You weren't talking about criminals. You said the people in question hadn't been convicted of any crime.
    .
    Do I want to chip away at a right? Meeeeeehhhhhhhhh, not so much. Dangerous turf for sure.
    You don't think the 2nd amendment protects a right? If not, you're on the wrong web site.
    .
    That doesn't mean I'll put my head in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem.
    And if you think wanting to protect that right means putting your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem, then you're definitely on the wrong web site.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Or.......There is a loophole that wily and crafty gangsters exploit in order to continue their criminal endeavors and cops would like to close it in order to provide a reasonable and safe environment in which innocent little girls don't get shot in the face from a stray bullet fired by a gangsta in some exceptionally stupid retaliation incident.
    The 2nd amendment isn't a loophole.
    .
    I'm not pushing for a police state, I'm pushing for gangsters to get pushed off our streets.
    You're pushing for a law that grants the government one power that is characteristic of a police state, the ability to criminalize people based on their association and the ability to remove their rights without due process based on that association, an association that can be redefined or reinterpreted at will since it has no clear definition.
    .
    I'm sure they'll find a happy home in the neighborhoods of those here that don't see a problem with armed gangsters that haven't been convicted of killing anyone (yet).
    Maybe we should have you arrested for trying to deny us our constitutional rights, even though you haven't done it yet. Or maybe we should give you a speeding ticket because we think you're going to speed tomorrow or next week. You sound like a speeder to me. How much did that crystal ball cost you by the way? You didn't tell us you were omnipotent. This conversation might have gone much easier if you had just identified yourself as God in the first place.
    .
    Organizing for the purpose of furthering a criminal enterprise has LONG been established as a crime. As far as I know it dates back to at least the 20' here in the United States alone. The RICO act really put some teeth into organized crime, but that's Federal and it's quagmired in it's own complexities.
    And if they've been convicted of it, then their gun rights are already gone, making this conversation moot.
    .
    So, knowing full well there's a serious loophole, we shouldn't do anything then?
    Yet again, the 2nd amendment is not a loophole. Neither is the 5th or 14th, which both contain due process clauses. If you really consider those loopholes, may I suggest North Korea as a new residence for you?
    .
    If that sarcasm bothers you, then perhaps you can cease with the ridiculous suggestions that those of us who want to uphold the constitution and protect our rights are somehow trying to protect gang members.
    .
    I never said people that committed no crimes should be on the list.
    You said, "The officer pointed out that there are known gang members who are committing serious crimes, but are crafty enough to stay just 'legal' to possess a firearm. In other words, they just haven't been caught." That means they have been convicted of no crime, i.e. they have they legally committed no crime since they are innocent until proven guilty. So yes, you said people that committed no crimes should be on the list. Or at least that's the proposal the officer made that you've been supporting.
    .
    It seems to me I've taken the approach that it's reasonable to establish a rather detailed set of factors that must be met before anyone could even be placed on the list.
    You've established no factors whatsoever. The only thing you've given us is 'if the cops say he's a bad guy'. That's highly subjective hearsay, not a quantifiable, measurable or verifiable legal factor.
    .
    What I said was, the cops are pretty darn good at determining who is actually an active member of a criminal gang and who is a wannabe. In furtherance of that, maybe it's reasonable to propose that before anyone can be placed on that list they have to be convicted of a crime and have some kind of caveat about the crime being committed as part of a criminal gang activity or something of the sort.
    That's already a criteria. Those convicted of felonies are already denied gun rights.
    .
    For example, robbing a gas station is bad, robbing a gas station with a gun is much worse. Selling drugs is bad. Selling drugs on behalf of your gang is really bad. Insert your own example here. I'm talking in generalities here, not specifics. You get my point.
    Yeah. Good thing we already revoke gun rights for that kind of stuff, huh?
    .
    The last I checked, laws in our state are made my our Legislature and signed into force by the Governor. Keyboard cowboys like me don't make law, but we can talk about it.
    Read my post again. You claimed you weren't proposing a statute, but that's exactly what you and the cop you talked to are doing. It's what the title of this thread is, a proposal for a new statute. I said nothing about your legislature or governor.
    .
    Where did I say they've broken no laws? What I said was, they're record is clean enough that they can still be in possession of a gun.
    I already explained that above. The statement you posted from the cop said they had been convicted of no felonies, which means legally they had not committed any because they are innocent until proven guilty. Or are you and the cop proposing to change the presumption of innocence in our legal system too?
    .
    PIMPS can carry guns in NV as long as they've never been convicted of a felony, violent crime or have a warrant. Pimps, fielding their ho's for the profit of a criminal gang should have their gun taken away IMO.
    It wouldn't break my heart, but when you give the government the power to confiscate guns without the commission of a felony just because they don't like a certain group or class of people then you have opened the door to tyranny. I'm not doubting your intentions at all. I know you want to fight gangs and that's a very noble idea. But the solution you're proposing is the suspension of our constitutional rights. If the solution to the gang problem was as simple as what you're proposing we would have done it a long time ago. It just isn't that simple.
    .
    Ok, once more, this is a discussion, not legislation. I want debate. I want contrary opinions. I want people telling me I'm FOS.
    Well......
    .
    I'd like someone to say, "Yah fat boy, you might be on to something there. Needs work though."
    .
    A law abiding citizen is a person I'm going to defend to the death here, on any other forum, and everywhere I go in my life. LAC's have nothing to fear from me. What I fear is how quickly people have jumped to the conclusion that I have some interest in taking some freedom away from some deserving soul. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's the criminals I don't give a crap about.
    The proposal the cop gave you, as it was posted here, targets people who have not been convicted of crimes. By definition that makes them law abiding citizens. Regardless of who they associate with or what we may think of them because of their activities, they are grouped with the rest of us in that legal category. In order to target them, you have to target law abiding citizens. There is no other choice legally. I'm sure you'd like to attach all manner of other qualifiers or conditions that you feel would single 'them' out and leave 'us' alone, but it still won't change the fact that the government now has the power to target law abiding citizens and remove their gun rights, and maybe even without due process. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the concept of legal precedent, but opening that door would be a fatal first step to the total surrender of all our gun rights.
    .
    Now if you're interested in defending the rights of criminals, thugs, drug dealers, gangsta's and NBPP members, Eric Holder has a home for you at the DOJ. In fact, I'm hearing there's about to be an opening at the top.
    I'm not sure if Century 21 has an office in North Korea. Maybe you should check.
    .
    You're assuming that language is set in stone, written and can not be changed. Jeeze, all I want to do is tal;) about it. :
    We did. Heart's in the right place, but a really bad idea.
    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

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Greggatshack View Post
    How many "gangs" have been convicted of being criminal? Is it even possible to convict the whole gang of a crime? Wouldn't you have to establish proof of individual involvement?
    I think the Klan, as a group, was successfully prosecuted in a federal civil suit. Assets were seized. But the local homey is hard to pin down.
    .
    In the ghetto if a guy has no record and wants a permit it must be granted. He seems a much lower risk when compared to Flaco, who's buying the gun on the street. Flaco has tattoos on his face and a rap sheet. He's not getting his gun legally.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  10. #39
    Yep, sure is a slippery slope and one that will not ever be passed as law. Why? Too many people with too much power are involved in gangs. If you do not know who I am talking about, maybe these words will remind you: St. Valentine's Day Massacre. There is only one way the people will ever regain the Freedom that was finally ratified by the original 13 colonies, 223 years ago tomorrow (May 29,1790); it will require the same allegiance as it did then.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Once you limit who does and does not have rights within this country, then no one will have any rights.

    Ever heard of a gang member gone straight? I have. Many times. Shall they no longer have the right to defend themselves for the rest of their lives? At what point when they go straight would they ask permission for their rights back?

    I also believe that once a person has paid their debt to society for the crimes they have committed then should return back to full citizen status. If they are still a danger to society, why were they let out in the first place.
    "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 (maybe)

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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