Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm - Page 7
Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 129

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by ark steve View Post
    If we look at what they are really trying to do with "gun control" they don't want to disarm the criminals, they want to disarm everybody else. If they passed a law like that they could next call the NRA, or USA Carry a gang, and all of us on the e-mail lists could be instantly on the list, our CCWs revoked, and ordered to turn in our weapons. That is what they want.
    I believe to the core of my soul that there is a significant and powerful segment of our country that wants to permanently and completely disarm law abiding citizens. I believe to the core of my soul that these people are delusional enough to believe taking my gun away will make society as a whole safer. I believe to the core of my soul that criminals don't give a damn if they can legally have a gun.

    I believe to the core of my soul that the battle for our guns has to be won by those of us that the support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I would like to think I'm doing my part.

    Contrary to the labels placed on me by some in this thread, I have a long history of defending the Constitution and the American way of life. THere's more at stake here than just our guns. Our very way of life is under fire.
    "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. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    What's the point? All this time and effort wasted on who can carry what and where. Criminals won't play by those rules in any case.

    It would be much easier to simply punish those few that abuse guns promptly and decisively than fiddle with all sorts of laws and restrictions that get ignored by the few people that are the problem as opposed to us which are not.
    You're absolutely right, criminals don't care. We do punish these people as much as we can, but there's a loophole they're slipping through. Known gang members with a list of convictions as long as your arm can still have a gun as long as they've never been convicted of a felony or a few other specific crimes. What's worse is, even though a know gangsta is encountered (legally), and searched (legally), and a gun turns up (legally), the police can't take it away. The police actually would have to hand the gun back to the gangsta if nothing more serious turns up. If the encounter was with a law abiding citizen and nothing bad turns up, I'm all for him getting the gun back. But a known gangsta? I wanna make his life every bit as hard as he does to the victims of his crimes.

    I suppose in simple terms all I'm asking for is to lower the bar on who can have a gun a little bit. It turns out that my state already has riders on laws that add penalties if a crime involves some sort of criminal gang element. I'm thinking these statutes could be broadened to include GIP's once the gangsta meets the prescribed criterion.
    "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

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNurse1 View Post
    Has this discussion devolved from the OP or what?

    In this edition, help me to understand the difference between the GIP law proposed and the existing "No Fly" lists.

    The No Fly list prohibits access to commercial aircraft when an individual is identified as a member of that list. No restriction on travel, just on the method of travel. If singled out, does one of these prohibited individuals encounter additional detention, illegal search, etc?

    Regarding the GIP law, even with the protections envisioned like a waiting period to contest the entry to the list and a remediation period allowing one to leave the list, the GIP list infringes on Constitutional protections. And, by changing the force of the law to delay removal of the firearm and/ or reinstatement of it, the intent of the law s gutted: removing access to firearms from known gang members. This point alone argues for abandoning the effort to create additional tools for LEO's to remove guns from gangs through additional laws.

    There may be reasons for legislating additional penalties or mandatory sentences for GIP firearms, but a primary offense of GIP should be avoided. Just my additional $0.02
    THANK YOU! Real and honest discussion. You have no idea how glad I am to see 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

  5. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,719
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Our laws are tough and they are enforced, but there is a hole. It's not the gun show loophole, it's the loophole that organized crime can't have their gun taken away, even when we know who the bad actors are and that they're going to use it in furtherance of criminal activity. Now, how to do it it correctly has to be given very serious consideration.
    It can't be done "correctly."

    No matter how many times you say it or how many different ways you say it, you are still talking about disarming people for their legal associations. It is not illegal to be an acquaintance of gang members, or even friends with them. Everything we've read here from you screams that you want to change that, including the way you ended the post I'm replying to. A person is not a criminal until they commit a crime and are able to face their accusers, cross examine them, and have the trier of facts determine that they did indeed commit that crime. To say that "...we know who the bad actors are and that they're going to use it [a gun] in furtherance of criminal activity..." leaves the 5th and 6th Amendments completely out of the equation while imposing punishment for what "we" (which in reality for the purposes of this discussion, is only YOU) know about their bad intentions. That's pre-crime stuff right out of Minority Report!

    The 5th and 6th Amendments say, with emphasis by me:

    V - Provisons concerning prosecution

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

    VI - Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
    That is what makes the proposal lack any and all due process and/or constitutionality.

    Yes, Nevada and all other states and territories can make law that is exclusive to its own jurisdiction, but it has to be worded such that it comports with the federal Constitution. Clearly, taking people's property, passing legal judgments on them without benefit of being able to face their accusers or have a jury of their peers determine the strength of the evidence against them, does not comport with the 5th and 6th Amendment requirements for how people go from citizen to convicted criminal in this country.

    All you have to do to confirm that what your cop friend (or instructor, whatever) proposed is unconstitutional is ask him the next time you see him why such a law doesn't exist already? Ask him to make a constitutional case for it. If he even tries to make such a case, you will know that he just wants more latitude to make his job easier, and he doesn't give one good crap about the Constitution. If he did, he wouldn't hesitate to say, "Well, the question was what would I do if I had my way, not was what I would do constitutional. Clearly, it is not." Then you'd have evidence of an honest cop who gives a crap about the Constitution. Otherwise, he's just looking for the lazy man's way to enforce the quasi-law that he and most cops in this country operate under. Anything goes as long as they can rationalize it in their mind that it serves the "greater good." When it comes to the law, the greater good is only served when it comports with, and adheres to, the Constitution. Otherwise they're just corrupt cops operating in a run-of-the-mill banana republic.

    If you get it now, fine. If not, I'm done, so there's no need to try to explain how I've got it all wrong and all you want to do is talk about it again.

    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. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    You're absolutely right, criminals don't care. We do punish these people as much as we can, but there's a loophole they're slipping through. Known gang members with a list of convictions as long as your arm can still have a gun as long as they've never been convicted of a felony or a few other specific crimes. What's worse is, even though a know gangsta is encountered (legally), and searched (legally), and a gun turns up (legally), the police can't take it away. The police actually would have to hand the gun back to the gangsta if nothing more serious turns up. If the encounter was with a law abiding citizen and nothing bad turns up, I'm all for him getting the gun back. But a known gangsta? I wanna make his life every bit as hard as he does to the victims of his crimes.

    I suppose in simple terms all I'm asking for is to lower the bar on who can have a gun a little bit. It turns out that my state already has riders on laws that add penalties if a crime involves some sort of criminal gang element. I'm thinking these statutes could be broadened to include GIP's once the gangsta meets the prescribed criterion.
    I see what you are saying here but even if they did take the gun away that would not keep the criminal from getting another one. If the criminal was charged and sent to jail at the same time it could make a difference. But usually hardcore criminals are not dragged into the courtroom on mere weapons possession charges since the DAs know they will be back for something "better" anyway. Which actually does make complete sense in a cynic way.
    Knarren und Zigarren!!!

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    *snip*


    it does protect that right once they have served their debt to society and are released back into society.... but obviously you dont believe the truth even when it is repeatedly told to you time and time again... (I know the ex con part is somewhat debatable, I happen to sid eon full rights restoration)

    is proof you don't know what you're talking about, at least as far as Nevada is concerned. Anyone convicted of a felony can not possess a gun. It's the law. By the way Mr. Constitutional authority, it's a state law. A law that's legal because of the 10th Amendment of the Bill Of Rights. So please try to understand, if I don't accept that what you're saying is the final authority on what is the truth on matters of Constitutionality, it's only because of your emphatic efforts to prove that you don't. But you keep telling yourself that because YOU want it to be true it must be so, even though it isn't.

    *snip*
    You know absolutely NOTHING about the subject you are talking about....

    You say that "is proof you don't know what you're talking about".... ok, let us take a look at what you say I was wrong about... You claim that the proof of my wrongness is "laws" that you think are "legal" YET THOSE LAWS ARE 100% UNCONSITUTIONAL!!! How can something that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED without breaking the "law" be infringed and then be legal????

    EVERY example you have given to support your claims is UNCONSTUTIONAL!!!!!

    You should have stopped posting 20 posts ago..............

  8. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    You know absolutely NOTHING about the subject you are talking about....

    You say that "is proof you don't know what you're talking about".... ok, let us take a look at what you say I was wrong about... You claim that the proof of my wrongness is "laws" that you think are "legal" YET THOSE LAWS ARE 100% UNCONSITUTIONAL!!! How can something that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED without breaking the "law" be infringed and then be legal????

    EVERY example you have given to support your claims is UNCONSTUTIONAL!!!!!

    You should have stopped posting 20 posts ago..............
    You can pound around on the laws not being constitutional all day long but if push comes to shove you will find that you can and will be hauled to jail for breaking them. And you will stay there until you get a court to agree with you or the Supreme Court or another higher court in between overturns the decision.

    I personally agree that most firearms regulations are BS and not in accordance to the constitution but what I think and what you think sadly doesn't matter. The laws are there and they will be enforced until they do go away.
    Knarren und Zigarren!!!

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,719
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    You can pound around on the laws not being constitutional all day long but if push comes to shove you will find that you can and will be hauled to jail for breaking them. And you will stay there until you get a court to agree with you or the Supreme Court or another higher court in between overturns the decision.

    I personally agree that most firearms regulations are BS and not in accordance to the constitution but what I think and what you think sadly doesn't matter. The laws are there and they will be enforced until they do go away.
    And I understand what you are saying too, but everything you say above also applied to pre-Revolutionary War laws dictated by King George III. The law was the law until Patriots forced it to change.

    To acquiesce to unjust and/or unconstitutional law is to acquiesce to being a slave. Axeanda45 is obviously not willing to conform his thoughts or words to unconstitutional law because that's the one freedom that only we, as individuals, can maintain no matter how abusive and corrupt our government gets. I personally enjoy it and embrace it as an expression of his free mind, whether or not there exists lower law and Supreme Court decisions that contradict the premises he espouses. I fail to see how the simple and minor act of defiance against constitutional usurpations by voicing consistently-opposing expression is something that should be criticized.

    It is a constant source of disappointment and mystery to me why every single person who considers themselves a 2nd Amendment advocate, or wider constitutional defender, doesn't always speak and write thusly.

    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...

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    You can pound around on the laws not being constitutional all day long but if push comes to shove you will find that you can and will be hauled to jail for breaking them.That is only one of MANY possible outcomes.. And you will stay there OR you can take care of it on the spot it is unlawfully enforced and not ever go to jail in the first place...... until you get a court to agree with you or the Supreme Court or another higher court in between overturns the decision. Why is that the ONLY possible response/solution you people ever come up with? Even when it hasnt worked for generations of trying? I really want to know why you all are so afraid to tell your employees enough is enough....

    I personally agree that most firearms regulations are BS and not in accordance to the constitution but what I think and what you think sadly doesn't matter. It only doesnt matter when you lay down in your own pile of submissive piss and ALLOW yourself to be taken away illegally. The laws are there and they will be enforced until they do go away. OR you can get off of your scared behind and grow a pair and actually do something about it...
    They (bad laws) wont go away UNTIL they (enforcers/thugs and such) refuse to enforce Unconstitutional laws because they are afraid of the 100% justifiable self defense/backlash that their BOSSES (we the people) are imposing on them for their insubordination/unlawful actions...

    If everyone thought like you do, NOTHING will EVER change for the better, it will ONLY get worse...

  11. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    It can't be done "correctly."

    No matter how many times you say it or how many different ways you say it, you are still talking about disarming people for their legal associations. It is not illegal to be an acquaintance of gang members, or even friends with them. Everything we've read here from you screams that you want to change that, including the way you ended the post I'm replying to. A person is not a criminal until they commit a crime and are able to face their accusers, cross examine them, and have the trier of facts determine that they did indeed commit that crime. To say that "...we know who the bad actors are and that they're going to use it [a gun] in furtherance of criminal activity..." leaves the 5th and 6th Amendments completely out of the equation while imposing punishment for what "we" (which in reality for the purposes of this discussion, is only YOU) know about their bad intentions. That's pre-crime stuff right out of Minority Report!

    The 5th and 6th Amendments say, with emphasis by me:



    That is what makes the proposal lack any and all due process and/or constitutionality.

    Yes, Nevada and all other states and territories can make law that is exclusive to its own jurisdiction, but it has to be worded such that it comports with the federal Constitution. Clearly, taking people's property, passing legal judgments on them without benefit of being able to face their accusers or have a jury of their peers determine the strength of the evidence against them, does not comport with the 5th and 6th Amendment requirements for how people go from citizen to convicted criminal in this country.

    All you have to do to confirm that what your cop friend (or instructor, whatever) proposed is unconstitutional is ask him the next time you see him why such a law doesn't exist already? Ask him to make a constitutional case for it. If he even tries to make such a case, you will know that he just wants more latitude to make his job easier, and he doesn't give one good crap about the Constitution. If he did, he wouldn't hesitate to say, "Well, the question was what would I do if I had my way, not was what I would do constitutional. Clearly, it is not." Then you'd have evidence of an honest cop who gives a crap about the Constitution. Otherwise, he's just looking for the lazy man's way to enforce the quasi-law that he and most cops in this country operate under. Anything goes as long as they can rationalize it in their mind that it serves the "greater good." When it comes to the law, the greater good is only served when it comports with, and adheres to, the Constitution. Otherwise they're just corrupt cops operating in a run-of-the-mill banana republic.

    If you get it now, fine. If not, I'm done, so there's no need to try to explain how I've got it all wrong and all you want to do is talk about it again.

    Blues
    Blues,

    Thank you for this post. It is exactly the discussion I was talking about.

    To that end, let my respectfully respond and I hope you will continue to do so as well.

    Firstly, not being lawyers, all we can discuss here are generalities. The intricate details of how a law is written and the standards that must be met for it to be legal and Constitutional are certainly above my pay grade. That being said, in my research on this subject I have discovered that a raft of federal and state laws/regs. regarding the legal definition of a criminal gang, a gang member, and crimes committed in furtherance of criminal gang activity. From that it is clearly evident there is already process for labeling someone as a gang member. Since these laws are present at the federal level and in every state, commonwealth and territory of our country, it is now irrefutable that a legal and Constitutional process of identifying and labeling a person as a member of a criminal gang is already on the books. From what I can tell, the legal requirements aren't as stringent as what you and I would like to see, but I can say, based on that one meeting I had with the RGU officers, they require significantly more than the legal requirement before they will label someone as a gang member.

    So now, knowing what I do now, I can say that all I'd really like to do is lower the threshold on prohibiting gun possession by gangsta's. Right now, the threshold is felonies. maybe lower that to convictions of non-felony crimes, but meeting the threshold of the gang crime riders already on the books.

    As far as why the law doesn't exist already? Well, I would think it's because nobody made it yet. Once again, no laws are perfect. Maybe when the law that keeps guns out of the hands of convicted felons was enacted, the criminal gang problem such as the likes of what we're dealing with today didn't exist.

    But I think you can agree on one thing, the thought of cops being able to write laws is chilling. I'll stick with the naive hope that the people we elect to make our laws would do a better job.

    As far as honest cops go, like I said, the RGU requires a higher standard than legally mandated before they'll call someone a gang member.


    Thank you, thank you, thank you for the discussion. This is good and I appreciate your post.
    "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

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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