Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC Washington)   Virginia State Police are manually checking the records of 2,400 defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity to make sure they are barred from buying guns. Sleep well Virginia, sleep well   (nbcwashington.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Firearm, Kashif Bashir, Virginia State Police, police officer, Alexandria Officer Peter Laboy, Gun, search warrant, News4's Julie Carey  
•       •       •

1302 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2019 at 5:33 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-03-19 02:04:34 AM  
Same old story, states aren't reporting disqualifications to the FBI so people slip through the cracks. There is no penalty to the states for not reporting. There should be.
 
2019-03-19 05:52:28 AM  
It's unconstitutional to not allow insane people to buy machine guns, hand grenades and tactical nuclear weapons.
 
2019-03-19 05:54:14 AM  

feckingmorons: Same old story, states aren't reporting disqualifications to the FBI so people slip through the cracks. There is no penalty to the states for not reporting. There should be.


They should make more laws.  For everybody!
 
2019-03-19 05:59:40 AM  
The guy at the gun counter said they turn away so many people who shouldn't have guns that the police couldn't keep up.
 
2019-03-19 06:17:21 AM  
Given the farkups I've seen with computerized lists...like the No-Fly List...I'm OK with manual checking.  It's not like it's a million records they're looking at...
 
2019-03-19 07:03:59 AM  
Meh it's Virginia... Here you can walk down the street and trip over a person selling their gun.  Really though I have friends that sell/trade guns all the time, it's almost like them wanting to get some strange.
 
2019-03-19 07:06:54 AM  
So...a good thing?
 
2019-03-19 07:14:31 AM  

redcliffe: It's unconstitutional to not allow insane people to buy machine guns, hand grenades and tactical nuclear weapons.


WhAt PaRt oF 'sHaLl NoT bE iNfRiNgEd" DoNt U pEoPlE uNnErStAnD???
 
2019-03-19 07:15:57 AM  
I think Virginia residents likely will sleep better than if State Police were doing fark all about it right now.  Which happens to be the strategy of every other state.
 
2019-03-19 07:19:05 AM  

PunGent: Given the farkups I've seen with computerized lists...like the No-Fly List...I'm OK with manual checking.  It's not like it's a million records they're looking at...


2400 records isn't a lot.  Given a list of the crazy and the ban list I could check em in under a day
 
2019-03-19 07:35:17 AM  
It's a good thing we don't keep a unified electronic record of these kinds of things otherwise...uh...people who shouldn't have guns wouldn't be able to buy them? I guess that's bad? Because Freedom! Apparently? One of you gun guys is going to have to explain that to me.
 
2019-03-19 07:43:32 AM  

Voiceofreason01: It's a good thing we don't keep a unified electronic record of these kinds of things otherwise...uh...people who shouldn't have guns wouldn't be able to buy them? I guess that's bad? Because Freedom! Apparently? One of you gun guys is going to have to explain that to me.


There is a unified electronic list of people who aren't allowed to have firearms.  The FBI maintains it, and every federal firearm licensee is required to check it for every gun they sell.

The problem is that state and local authorities (or even sometimes other branches of the federal government, like military police) don't submit the relevant records to add people to the list.
 
2019-03-19 07:47:06 AM  

Mitch Mitchell: feckingmorons: Same old story, states aren't reporting disqualifications to the FBI so people slip through the cracks. There is no penalty to the states for not reporting. There should be.

They should make more laws.  For everybody!


See this right here folks. This is why ammosexuals are full of shiat. They really don't want ANY laws. Thank you for showing the class. And don't even start with the "we need to work on mental health" that's bullshiat too.
 
2019-03-19 07:48:47 AM  
it's kinda hard firing a gun when your strapped into a straight jacket.

crypticpunk.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2019-03-19 07:58:50 AM  

thirdrail: Meh it's Virginia... Here you can walk down the street and trip over a person selling their gun.  Really though I have friends that sell/trade guns all the time, it's almost like them wanting to get some strange.


As a NoVa resident, this is sad but true.
 
2019-03-19 08:15:09 AM  

donnielove: thirdrail: Meh it's Virginia... Here you can walk down the street and trip over a person selling their gun.  Really though I have friends that sell/trade guns all the time, it's almost like them wanting to get some strange.

As a NoVa resident, this is sad but true.


Honest question, why is it any more sad/strange for people to sell/swap guns among legal buyers than it is for someone who collects cars or anything else?

I mean, I would very much like to see a requirement for background checks on all the swaps, but if everyone's completely above board and legal and there's no reason to deny them a firearm under any other circumstance, why would this be different?

This is why I think an online 4473 w/ automatic NICS check should be made available, or at the very least, every law enforcement agency out there should be required to perform NICS checks and certifications for private sales.
 
2019-03-19 08:20:01 AM  

Bslim: See this right here folks. This is why ammosexuals are full of shiat. They really don't want ANY laws. Thank you for showing the class. And don't even start with the "we need to work on mental health" that's bullshiat too.


I think your sarcasm meter is broken.

While I won't disagree that there are some nutters out there who would prefer no laws at all, they're on the same level as the flat earthers or the sovereign citizen nutters, and just as microscopic of a percentage of the overall gun owning community.

And, for the rest of us, we want laws that make sense. More importantly, we want laws that are actually fully enforced like VA is demonstrating right here, such that the criminals and nutters that do the vast majority of the murdering in this country can be caught and put in jail/a mental hospital before they commit that level of crime.

It makes literally no sense to keep passing more laws and make things more strict when the agencies that are there to enforce the damn law are underfunded, hamstrung, and/or disinterested in prosecuting gun crimes, preferring to use them as leverage to obtain plea deals so that the people who should be in prison aren't.

But yes. Oh boy, you got in a good barb on us ammosexuals, by god, which is what's really important.
 
2019-03-19 08:23:29 AM  

NotThatGuyAgain: PunGent: Given the farkups I've seen with computerized lists...like the No-Fly List...I'm OK with manual checking.  It's not like it's a million records they're looking at...

2400 records isn't a lot.  Given a list of the crazy and the ban list I could check em in under a day


2400 actually does sound like a lot for 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. That's a very low-success-rate defense strategy.
 
2019-03-19 08:25:12 AM  

Voiceofreason01: It's a good thing we don't keep a unified electronic record of these kinds of things otherwise...uh...people who shouldn't have guns wouldn't be able to buy them? I guess that's bad? Because Freedom! Apparently? One of you gun guys is going to have to explain that to me.


User name does not check out.

There is supposed to be unified lists of this sort of thing at both state and federal level. The problem is no one can be bothered to do it, and SCOTUS has long ruled the police have no duty to do anything and furthermore fark you.
 
2019-03-19 08:27:13 AM  

Kit Fister: And, for the rest of us, we want laws that make sense. More importantly, we want laws that are actually fully enforced like VA is demonstrating right here, such that the criminals and nutters that do the vast majority of the murdering in this country can be caught and put in jail/a mental hospital before they commit that level of crime.


To be fair, the people who are on this list have been caught and put in a mental hospital. That's where you go with that defense. Many of them may still be there. The psychiatric profession has no obligation to ever turn you free, once you're adjudged to be cuckoo.
 
2019-03-19 08:48:56 AM  

Kit Fister: donnielove: thirdrail: Meh it's Virginia... Here you can walk down the street and trip over a person selling their gun.  Really though I have friends that sell/trade guns all the time, it's almost like them wanting to get some
Honest question, why is it any more sad/strange for people to sell/swap guns among legal buyers than it is for someone who collects cars or anything else?


Because it's very often not being done legally and above board and the laws have been written in a way to enable straw purchases and make enforcement as difficult as possible.
 
2019-03-19 08:49:38 AM  

This text is now purple: To be fair, the people who are on this list have been caught and put in a mental hospital. That's where you go with that defense. Many of them may still be there. The psychiatric profession has no obligation to ever turn you free, once you're adjudged to be cuckoo.


Right, but that's not universally true of all people who should have been put there and weren't.

So, if someone commits a crime that includes a mandatory charge relating to firearms, and the prosecutor uses that as the first thing to bargain with to get a plea deal, resulting in a person who shouldn't have access to own firearms legally being able to own firearms legally, that's a problem. And those are people that should've been put away and disqualified from gun ownership under the law but weren't prevented because of a lack of enforcing the goddamn law.

See also the Chicago shooter who was legally disqualified from owning a firearm who nevertheless obtained a permit to own firearms in Chicago, and whom the authorities never bothered to visit in person to actually enforce the damn law.
 
2019-03-19 08:50:05 AM  
I though the 'not guilty by reason of insanity' was a super rare thing?  Like a few a year?

That said, passing more laws that basically only serve to inconvenience people who try to follow the law but yet are easily ignored by those who don't care is easy work for legislators.

For instance, it's up to a 10 year sentence for doing a straw purchase in a gun store.  If the gun store seller gets even a whiff of you doing that they will happily show you the door so they don't jeopardize their FFL.  Even someone looking at guns for their wife/husband will be refused a sale until the wife/husband shows up to get the background check.  They don't screw around.
 
2019-03-19 08:52:16 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Because it's very often not being done legally and above board and the laws have been written in a way to enable straw purchases and make enforcement as difficult as possible.


...which is why, in literally the same post you mentioned, I said that there should be universal background checks and means of ensuring that such transactions are only among legal buyers and sellers.

...and which is why in other posts I also repeatedly mention that the ATF and other law enforcement need to be fully funded and given the tools to track illegal sales and transfers, so that they can enforce the law.

So, in other words, it's not a problem so long as everyone is legal and above board, and we need the tools to ensure that's the case.  Or did you miss that half of the post?
 
2019-03-19 09:00:34 AM  

Kit Fister: This text is now purple: To be fair, the people who are on this list have been caught and put in a mental hospital. That's where you go with that defense. Many of them may still be there. The psychiatric profession has no obligation to ever turn you free, once you're adjudged to be cuckoo.

Right, but that's not universally true of all people who should have been put there and weren't.

So, if someone commits a crime that includes a mandatory charge relating to firearms, and the prosecutor uses that as the first thing to bargain with to get a plea deal, resulting in a person who shouldn't have access to own firearms legally being able to own firearms legally, that's a problem. And those are people that should've been put away and disqualified from gun ownership under the law but weren't prevented because of a lack of enforcing the goddamn law.

See also the Chicago shooter who was legally disqualified from owning a firearm who nevertheless obtained a permit to own firearms in Chicago, and whom the authorities never bothered to visit in person to actually enforce the damn law.


This has nothing to do with your first point (vis plea bargains), but is similar to the second -- that Chicago is no more eager to do their damn job than Virginia is.

But the first is incorrect. A plea bargain is just that -- a bargain. A defendant accepts a lesser charge in return for not contesting the lesser charge. You are assuming that all people who accept plea bargains are objectively guilty of the original charge. However, neither economics nor prisoner justice programs support that theory. Many parties who settle a civil trial had better than even odds of prevailing at trial, but the cost of settlement was less than either the expected or the worst-case (depending on their economic rationale) outcomes of a trial, so they accepted a lesser known evil. Criminal defendants make that same economic calculus. This is a long way of saying many of those defendants were not actually guilty of the felony charge, or had better than even odds of being acquitted (you know, being innocent), but took the plea because it was cheaper and/or less risky. The judge also needs to sign off on it. His role is to defend the law.

(In very brief: Prosecutor defends the state. Defense defends the defendant. Judge defends the law. Jury defends the truth.)
 
2019-03-19 09:04:47 AM  

This text is now purple: But the first is incorrect. A plea bargain is just that -- a bargain. A defendant accepts a lesser charge in return for not contesting the lesser charge. You are assuming that all people who accept plea bargains are objectively guilty of the original charge. However, neither economics nor prisoner justice programs support that theory. Many parties who settle a civil trial had better than even odds of prevailing at trial, but the cost of settlement was less than either the expected or the worst-case (depending on their economic rationale) outcomes of a trial, so they accepted a lesser known evil. Criminal defendants make that same economic calculus. This is a long way of saying many of those defendants were not actually guilty of the felony charge, or had better than even odds of being acquitted (you know, being innocent), but took the plea because it was cheaper and/or less risky. The judge also needs to sign off on it. His role is to defend the law.

(In very brief: Prosecutor defends the state. Defense defends the defendant. Judge defends the law. Jury defends the truth.)


If Prosecutors didn't have a notorious and well documented history of using plea bargains and dirty tricks to get convictions in order to pad their records rather than actually objectively applying the law, you might have an argument.

However, objective statistics show that even in cases where the person was caught red handed using a firearm during the commission of a crime, on video, with witnesses, the gun charges are hardly ever prosecuted or applied in favor of sweetheart plea deals.

Seriously look it up. Said crimes and charges are hardly ever taken to trial, no matter how much proof there is.
 
2019-03-19 09:08:34 AM  

Bslim: Mitch Mitchell: feckingmorons: Same old story, states aren't reporting disqualifications to the FBI so people slip through the cracks. There is no penalty to the states for not reporting. There should be.

They should make more laws.  For everybody!

See this right here folks. This is why ammosexuals are full of shiat. They really don't want ANY laws. Thank you for showing the class. And don't even start with the "we need to work on mental health" that's bullshiat too.


Hey B, I think the point was made in the original thread that when you make laws, enforce them.
I think this is what was meant with the above post.
 
2019-03-19 09:10:32 AM  

Kit Fister: However, objective statistics show that even in cases where the person was caught red handed using a firearm during the commission of a crime, on video, with witnesses, the gun charges are hardly ever prosecuted or applied in favor of sweetheart plea deals.


Please point me towards the objective facts about how juries vote.
 
2019-03-19 09:12:32 AM  
I would rather that the police do this now than never at all.
 
2019-03-19 09:15:27 AM  

This text is now purple: Please point me towards the objective facts about how juries vote.


...what, exactly does how juries vote have to do with Prosecutors not bothering to bring the charges, or using them as leverage to obtain plea agreements before the case goes to a jury?

Juries can't vote on charges that aren't brought before them.
 
2019-03-19 09:16:16 AM  

Dimensio: I would rather that the police do this now than never at all.


I would rather that the police do this in every case to ensure that the law is enforced.
 
2019-03-19 09:19:10 AM  
Why are they out of custody?
 
2019-03-19 09:21:33 AM  

Kit Fister: This text is now purple: Please point me towards the objective facts about how juries vote.

...what, exactly does how juries vote have to do with Prosecutors not bothering to bring the charges, or using them as leverage to obtain plea agreements before the case goes to a jury?

Juries can't vote on charges that aren't brought before them.


Juries don't vote on plea bargains at all.

Prosecutors benefit from both success rate and being seen as tough on crime. All else equal, if they are confident of a big charge, they will pursue it. A tendency towards plea bargaining suggests either a huge time crunch (possible) or a lack of confidence in securing the initial charge.

See, defendants are incentivized to fight big charges hard. Those tend to bring about a better class of defense attorney. Said class has a higher success rate than public defenders and phone-book attorneys. These prosecutions are no longer slam dunks.

All this is going towards is that what plea bargains secure is a first-order approximation of what the prosecutor could reliably secure at trial.
 
2019-03-19 09:21:43 AM  

Kit Fister: Dimensio: I would rather that the police do this now than never at all.

I would rather that the police do this in every case to ensure that the law is enforced.


I thought that you did not want any laws at all. Does not compute!
 
2019-03-19 09:24:36 AM  

pedrop357: Why are they out of custody?


Once you are adjudged to be no longer insane, they have to spring you. It's equivalent to the end of your sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson​_​v._Indiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Con​n​or_v._Donaldson

If you were incompetent to stand trial, trial can now proceed. If you were not guilty by reason of insanity, you go free.
 
2019-03-19 09:36:38 AM  

This text is now purple: Kit Fister: This text is now purple: Please point me towards the objective facts about how juries vote.

...what, exactly does how juries vote have to do with Prosecutors not bothering to bring the charges, or using them as leverage to obtain plea agreements before the case goes to a jury?

Juries can't vote on charges that aren't brought before them.

Juries don't vote on plea bargains at all.

Prosecutors benefit from both success rate and being seen as tough on crime. All else equal, if they are confident of a big charge, they will pursue it. A tendency towards plea bargaining suggests either a huge time crunch (possible) or a lack of confidence in securing the initial charge.

See, defendants are incentivized to fight big charges hard. Those tend to bring about a better class of defense attorney. Said class has a higher success rate than public defenders and phone-book attorneys. These prosecutions are no longer slam dunks.

All this is going towards is that what plea bargains secure is a first-order approximation of what the prosecutor could reliably secure at trial.


Which changes nothing about the facts as I stated them: Gun charges are hardly ever brought to trial or prosecuted, and the vast majority of times when they're charged with those mandatory charges, they're the first ones used as fodder to pressure people into taking plea deals instead of going to trial.

And, because of that, it again highlights the fact that gun charges are hardly ever prosecuted or enforced, and it results in a number of people still being allowed to own guns who shouldn't be able to.
 
2019-03-19 09:37:22 AM  

Dimensio: Kit Fister: Dimensio: I would rather that the police do this now than never at all.

I would rather that the police do this in every case to ensure that the law is enforced.

I thought that you did not want any laws at all. Does not compute!


Because clearly while I care that violent people are taken off the streets and kept away from anything more dangerous than a wet noodle, I don't care whether they have guns because they're going to be violent either way.
 
2019-03-19 09:41:57 AM  

Kit Fister: Which changes nothing about the facts as I stated them: Gun charges are hardly ever brought to trial or prosecuted, and the vast majority of times when they're charged with those mandatory charges, they're the first ones used as fodder to pressure people into taking plea deals instead of going to trial.

And, because of that, it again highlights the fact that gun charges are hardly ever prosecuted or enforced, and it results in a number of people still being allowed to own guns who shouldn't be able to.


So here's the flaw in your rationale.

Prosecutors use them as a threat, but mostly an empty one. It's the stick with the plea (lesser charge) as the carrot. It's not a charge reasonably calculated to be a probable success. You might get lucky, but it's the kind of thing where you cross your fingers but don't hold your breath.

You're approaching any charge a prosecutor brings as confirmed guilt. That's not how things work and it's really scary that you think of it that way. I really hope no one ever gets you on their jury.
 
2019-03-19 09:48:01 AM  

NotThatGuyAgain: PunGent: Given the farkups I've seen with computerized lists...like the No-Fly List...I'm OK with manual checking.  It's not like it's a million records they're looking at...

2400 records isn't a lot.  Given a list of the crazy and the ban list I could check em in under a day


You can check one record every 15 seconds for 24 hours straight with no breaks?
 
2019-03-19 09:58:11 AM  

This text is now purple: Kit Fister: Which changes nothing about the facts as I stated them: Gun charges are hardly ever brought to trial or prosecuted, and the vast majority of times when they're charged with those mandatory charges, they're the first ones used as fodder to pressure people into taking plea deals instead of going to trial.

And, because of that, it again highlights the fact that gun charges are hardly ever prosecuted or enforced, and it results in a number of people still being allowed to own guns who shouldn't be able to.

So here's the flaw in your rationale.

Prosecutors use them as a threat, but mostly an empty one. It's the stick with the plea (lesser charge) as the carrot. It's not a charge reasonably calculated to be a probable success. You might get lucky, but it's the kind of thing where you cross your fingers but don't hold your breath.

You're approaching any charge a prosecutor brings as confirmed guilt. That's not how things work and it's really scary that you think of it that way. I really hope no one ever gets you on their jury.


It's a felony to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. If you have sufficient proof that the person did in fact use a firearm during the commission of a crime, but you choose to plead the case down instead of bothering with a trial, and thus end up with a conviction for a crime that is not a felony, or otherwise prohibits owning firearms, then you've just created the circumstance where a person who should not legally be allowed to own firearms is still allowed to because the Prosecutor wanted an expedient win to notch his belt, not enforcing the law as the law demands.

Again, the statistical data upholds this failure to enforce the laws we have, and again leads to the point that we need to be enforcing those laws consistently, and ensuring that those who are committing crimes with firearms are appropriately charged and, if a jury agrees, sentenced to an appropriate sentence and prevented from legally owning firearms in the future.  And, more effort needs to be made to identify illegal dealers and traffickers in guns and prosecute THOSE people as well, along with dirty dealers and straw buyers.

Again, I fail to see how pointing out an obvious point of lax enforcement of the law is controversial here.,
 
2019-03-19 10:46:54 AM  

Kit Fister: It's a felony to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. If you have sufficient proof that the person did in fact use a firearm during the commission of a crime, but you choose to plead the case down instead of bothering with a trial, and thus end up with a conviction for a crime that is not a felony, or otherwise prohibits owning firearms, then you've just created the circumstance where a person who should not legally be allowed to own firearms is still allowed to because the Prosecutor wanted an expedient win to notch his belt, not enforcing the law as the law demands.


That law only kicks in if you can convict on the initial crime and the use of a firearm. You carte blanche assume the conviction is assured. Prosecutors don't plea down assured convictions. The law has no effect on an acquitted defendant.
 
2019-03-19 10:47:37 AM  

Kit Fister: Voiceofreason01: Because it's very often not being done legally and above board and the laws have been written in a way to enable straw purchases and make enforcement as difficult as possible.

...which is why, in literally the same post you mentioned, I said that there should be universal background checks and means of ensuring that such transactions are only among legal buyers and sellers.

...and which is why in other posts I also repeatedly mention that the ATF and other law enforcement need to be fully funded and given the tools to track illegal sales and transfers, so that they can enforce the law.

So, in other words, it's not a problem so long as everyone is legal and above board, and we need the tools to ensure that's the case.  Or did you miss that half of the post?


I apologize. I do see where you said that. The first time I read through your comment it sounded like the usual "but why won't they enforce the rules we have now" schtick. This is a different opinion on this subject than I have come to expect from you.
 
2019-03-19 10:59:29 AM  

This text is now purple: pedrop357: Why are they out of custody?

Once you are adjudged to be no longer insane, they have to spring you. It's equivalent to the end of your sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_​v._Indiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Conn​or_v._Donaldson

If you were incompetent to stand trial, trial can now proceed. If you were not guilty by reason of insanity, you go free.


Which means there is no justification for denying them the right to buy a gun.
 
2019-03-19 11:09:09 AM  

pedrop357: This text is now purple: pedrop357: Why are they out of custody?

Once you are adjudged to be no longer insane, they have to spring you. It's equivalent to the end of your sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_​v._Indiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Conn​or_v._Donaldson

If you were incompetent to stand trial, trial can now proceed. If you were not guilty by reason of insanity, you go free.

Which means there is no justification for denying them the right to buy a gun.


Under the law or under the theory of natural rights?
 
2019-03-19 11:16:21 AM  

Voiceofreason01: I apologize. I do see where you said that. The first time I read through your comment it sounded like the usual "but why won't they enforce the rules we have now" schtick. This is a different opinion on this subject than I have come to expect from you.


Enforcing the laws we have on the books now has nothing to do with my stance on whether I'm comfortable with the idea of firearms sales without a background check.

It is a major problem that the responsible federal agencies are underfunded and otherwise hindered in their ability to adequately enforce the law, and in general Police and Prosecutors do a shiatty job of enforcing laws relating to guns. For example, the Chicago shooter who was given a license to own guns even though he was legally not allowed to own them, and whom the police never bothered to pay a visit to or do anything more than send a letter once they discovered the mistake. Or the guy down in TX who had received a major felony-level punitive discharge from the Military, which failed to bother to report/share with NICS which allowed him to obtain guns. Or the guy who shot up the Church down in, what, NC, who also was a disallowed person that got guns because of a screwup by law enforcement.

That is an actual, legitimate thing.

Selling guns privately, though, is currently legal and following the laws is up to the honesty and due diligence of the seller. There is no tracking, no accountability, and really no way for the seller, no matter how responsible they are, to do any sort of background check on the buyer without an overly complicated and expensive process.  There's also neither an incentive, nor legal requirement, to ensure compliance.

So, in that regard, just saying "why don't we enforce the laws we already have" has no meaning since there is no law (outside of the few states with state laws governing it) to really enforce.

If there's anything I've tried to communicate, it's a consistent belief that we need both more enforcement and better/smarter laws to tackle the problem.  And I've tried to do so factually, and with a knowledge of guns, the gun industry, and the law. As opposed to having a "schtick".

Also, if you have "Come to expect" some kind of far-right nutter drivvel from me, you haven't been paying attention or bothering to read what I write.
 
2019-03-19 11:22:41 AM  

This text is now purple: That law only kicks in if you can convict on the initial crime and the use of a firearm. You carte blanche assume the conviction is assured. Prosecutors don't plea down assured convictions. The law has no effect on an acquitted defendant.


...which, yet again, sets up a strawman argument that I didn't make.

Nowhere did I make any claim or express the belief that the conviction is assured. Nor did I make any assertions about the law applying to acquitted persons.

I made the express and explicit argument that prosecutors fail to follow through or press charges for gun crimes. I also made the assertion that unless you actually go to trial and attempt to obtain a conviction on the charges, you can't claim to be enforcing the laws or prosecuting the infractions.  To do so, you must actually bother to charge people with the crime, and you must also actually take the case to trial, present evidence, and give the Jury the opportunity to convict.

So, again, all your arguments about Prosecutors and assured convictions and blah blah blah have absolutely nothing to do with my point. No one has argued against any of the statements you've made, including me.
 
2019-03-19 12:05:51 PM  

Kit Fister: This text is now purple: That law only kicks in if you can convict on the initial crime and the use of a firearm. You carte blanche assume the conviction is assured. Prosecutors don't plea down assured convictions. The law has no effect on an acquitted defendant.

...which, yet again, sets up a strawman argument that I didn't make.

Nowhere did I make any claim or express the belief that the conviction is assured. Nor did I make any assertions about the law applying to acquitted persons.

I made the express and explicit argument that prosecutors fail to follow through or press charges for gun crimes. I also made the assertion that unless you actually go to trial and attempt to obtain a conviction on the charges, you can't claim to be enforcing the laws or prosecuting the infractions.  To do so, you must actually bother to charge people with the crime, and you must also actually take the case to trial, present evidence, and give the Jury the opportunity to convict.

So, again, all your arguments about Prosecutors and assured convictions and blah blah blah have absolutely nothing to do with my point. No one has argued against any of the statements you've made, including me.


You said this:

Kit Fister: It's a felony to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. If you have sufficient proof that the person did in fact use a firearm during the commission of a crime, but you choose to plead the case down instead of bothering with a trial, and thus end up with a conviction for a crime that is not a felony, or otherwise prohibits owning firearms, then you've just created the circumstance where a person who should not legally be allowed to own firearms is still allowed to because the Prosecutor wanted an expedient win to notch his belt, not enforcing the law as the law demands.


The only reasonable interpretation for your statement and conclusions is that the defendant is guilty and the prosecution has a slam dunk case. The set of facts -- prosecutor has "sufficient proof" and the defendant "should not legally be allowed to own firearms" -- only occurs if my statement is correct.

Prosecutors don't plead these.
 
2019-03-19 12:11:49 PM  
I sleep fine thanks.
 
2019-03-19 12:24:47 PM  

This text is now purple: pedrop357: This text is now purple: pedrop357: Why are they out of custody?

Once you are adjudged to be no longer insane, they have to spring you. It's equivalent to the end of your sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_​v._Indiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Conn​or_v._Donaldson

If you were incompetent to stand trial, trial can now proceed. If you were not guilty by reason of insanity, you go free.

Which means there is no justification for denying them the right to buy a gun.

Under the law or under the theory of natural rights?


Theory of natural rights for sure.  There's really no place for these sort of post-release restrictions in a free society, much less the restrictions or burden on the rest of us due to the limits being placed on these released people.
 
2019-03-19 12:43:18 PM  

This text is now purple: The only reasonable interpretation for your statement and conclusions is that the defendant is guilty and the prosecution has a slam dunk case. The set of facts -- prosecutor has "sufficient proof" and the defendant "should not legally be allowed to own firearms" -- only occurs if my statement is correct.

Prosecutors don't plead these.


In an ideal world they don't.

However, in our justice system, it's volume over quality.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/​a​rchive/2017/05/plea-bargaining-courts-​prosecutors/524112/

https://www.themarshallproject.org/20​1​4/12/26/plea-bargaining-and-the-innoce​nt

Unfortunately, what you're asserting isn't true in many cases in the US.

And, what I said still doesn't assert what you're arguing it does. It makes the assumption that the person is guilty of what htey're charged of, and calls out Prosecutors who have demonstrably shown that they'll push plea deals just to move volume and pad their resumes far far more often than because they don't feel they have a solid case.

It's been in the news, and it's fairly well known.  I'm sorry if my suggesting that Prosecutors are lazy, political animals that put high conviction rates and volume flow above the actual needs and merits of cases, and sacrifice justice and enforcing laws in the process.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report