[news.yahoo.com]

"The longtime owner of a gun show in Eastern North Carolina spent three months in prison in 2005 after getting busted for selling and buying guns without a license." Dealing firearms without a FFL is a federal felony. And he sold plural. THEN.....

"Sherwood Watson Caraway was sentenced Tuesday to one year and one day in prison after he pleaded guilty to owning firearms as a convicted felon, prosecutors in the Eastern District of North Carolina said. Caraway was also ordered to surrender all of his guns and ammunition."

Each felon in posesion of a firearm is another felony in and of itself. " “numerous rifles, shotguns, and handguns," That has to be a minimum of 6, 33 more were found at his daughter's place. Might or might not be able to make those stick. Any with his fingerprints on them would be a slam dunk.

What the hell is wrong with the lazy DAs, and Judges who let repeat federal criminals get a slap on the wrist?

---

********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

The real problem is that there are 390,000,000 guns in the U.S.. Each one is capable of killing someone.

I believe it is an unstoppable tidal wave of death and injury.

If one of our resident firearm advocates believes gun control laws won't solve much then banning all firearms is the only logical answer.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

Quote
Spock
If one of our resident firearm advocates believes gun control laws won't solve much then banning all firearms is the only logical answer.

This is the only logical conclusion stemming from Racer X's post. Who knew that he would finally come up with something reasonable.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

No, the issues are the DAs, and judges not charging criminals to the fullest extent of the law, and the judges handing out slaps on the wrists.

Why aren't they going away for multiple decades instead of multiple months?

And banning firearms sure isn't going to cause the DAs to grow spines, and judges to be harsher.

It was already illegal for this guy to have these firearms. Banning them outright won't make them illegaler.

---

********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Quote
Spock
If one of our resident firearm advocates believes gun control laws won't solve much then banning all firearms is the only logical answer.

Sounds like a reading comprehension issue on your part. You ignored the key word NEW

The current ones aren't being used to their fullest extent already. A whole new crop to under utilize won't be useful.

---

********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Spock
If one of our resident firearm advocates believes gun control laws won't solve much then banning all firearms is the only logical answer.

Sounds like a reading comprehension issue on your part. You ignored the key word NEW

The current ones aren't being used to their fullest extent already. A whole new crop to under utilize won't be useful.

Thats irrelevant since you just demonstrated that the old ones don't work either. If you think that this is purely an issue with DAs and judges, then this problem extends throughout all of the jurisdictions in all 50 states and the Federal government because the problem is everywhere in the US. Are you seriously proposing that if all of those jurisdictions simply changed out all of their judges and DAs then the problem would go away? That is simply delusional.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

No, the question is finding out WHY when someone commits dozens of felonies, they only get months instead of decades. This has been going on for years and years.

If it is a sentencing guidelines issue, they really need to be overhauled. If its a political issue, then working in the DAs office, or being a federal prosecutor needs to be revamped so there can't be any influence.

---

********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2021 11:45PM by Racer X.

It's crime prevention vs. crime clean-up, you simply have less clean-up to do if you engage in prevention. Prevention might entail encroaching on gun rights so that's a non-starter in the gun world.

The laws on the books in my state are pretty good. Now they just need to enforce them fully, with no free passes.

I skimmed the sentencing guidelines for Washington, and as long as you don't get caught committing felonies more often than every decade, past crimes aren't taken into account. So every 121 months, you are golden. You aren't a repeat offender.

---

********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Quote
davester

Quote
Spock
If one of our resident firearm advocates believes gun control laws won't solve much then banning all firearms is the only logical answer.

This is the only logical conclusion stemming from Racer X's post. Who knew that he would finally come up with something reasonable.

Yes, ban them all.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

The Law only works as 'designed' when it is enforced and adjudicated equally and fairly. And it's our current 'system' of justice that is badly damaged. Politics and corruption is entrenched, and there is a distinct difference in how adjudication happens based on the wealth of the defendants.

It's a self-perpetuating loop. The legal profession enriches itself in an organized manner by designing laws (which is a lot like making sausage, but with dollar bills as the floor sweepings). Those with funds can bypass the law. The business of making and selling weapons is riddled with corruption and illegal acts. And it's deeply frustrating to those of us, like Racer X, who take shooting as a hobby.

Access and ownership of guns should not be a 'one issue voter' polarizing political problem. Laws that exist should be properly enforced. The flow of illegal gun purchasers and sellers should be cut off as the laws intended.

Enforcement and adjudication needs to be stepped up, and lives will be saved.

No one wants new laws.
We all want better laws.

1. Think of them, and TREAT them, as replacement laws and you’ll begin to understand what makes a better law as opposed to just a chaotic jumble of random things that can never do anything.

2. Laws don’t exist in a vacuum and the best ones are self-policing. Instead of wishing for an army of others to perfectly police laws it’s best to have the same people who would otherwise commit crimes self-police. This can be done directly (change their way of thinking) or indirectly (remove temptation/opportunity.)

Here’s what’s ironic about that Yahoo news article.

“There’s enough rules and regulations on the books right now to take care of what needs to be taken care of. The gun shows ain’t the problem, and the gun stores ain’t the problem.”

Who wrote that? Racer X? Good guess, but it was the guy convicted of breaking an existing law he claims should be good enough to stop violence, because of course if he sells highly toxic chemicals it’ll never be his fault how someone uses them in soup.

So does that mean Caraway laments his own sentencing wasn’t harsher? Doubtful, because it’s ALWAYS someone else’s fault, it’s always someone else’s responsibility.

mmm...small and strokeable

Allow all guns. If there really are 390,000,000 guns in this country, anti-gun laws won't help.

Instead, regulate ammunition.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2021 09:31AM by S. Pupp.

Quote
S. Pupp
… Instead, regulate ammunition.

The Gillette razor refill model LOL!

We need to get off the ban guns stage - it isn't going to happen, stop deluding yourself. The second amendment is not going to be interpreted the way you want. While a new constitutional amendment could nullify the second, that is not going to realistically occur in my or my son's lifetime.

Remember that there are just as many people supporting gun ownership as against it. Further, the vast majority of gun owners are never going to cause any issue, they are law-abiding citizens.

Crackdown hard on violators and perhaps some of the problems can be overcome. Beyond that and you are fooling yourself.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.”
-- François de La Rochefoucauld

Growing older is mandatory. Growing up is optional.

Quote
Steve G.
...mmm...small and strokeable

That's why I enjoy this side of the forum so much - for the thoughtful, well-reasoned, keen, and insightful arguments I can read here...not like other forums where folks tend to just do one-liner drive-by posts.

Quote
SDGuy

Quote
Steve G.
...mmm...small and strokeable

That's why I enjoy this side of the forum so much - for the thoughtful, well-reasoned, keen, and insightful arguments I can read here...not like other forums where folks tend to just do one-liner drive-by posts.

Hey, mine's got pictures!

Quote
SDGuy

Quote
Steve G.
...mmm...small and strokeable

That's why I enjoy this side of the forum so much - for the thoughtful, well-reasoned, keen, and insightful arguments I can read here...not like other forums where folks tend to just do one-liner drive-by posts.

This problem can be rectified by placing about two people on "ignore".

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

As a responsible gun owner and user, though not so much over the last few years, I see room for some responsible gun legislation.

But better laws aren't any better if they're not enforced.

I agree with Racer about current gun laws not being enforced nearly enough.

One aspect of any law, and it's a big one, is deterrence.

Good laws have to be enforced to be of any value.

The 'use a gun' enhancement in CA is a joke.

I haven't followed it for a long time, but the presence of a gun, even of only brandished, once required a mandatory 10yr sentence.

I recall many instances of it not even being charged.

Mandatory.

Sure.

That said, I personally would oppose the banning of firearms, or the tacit banning that some countries do – you can own a gun, but can't possess it.

It has to remain in an accredited facility, usually a gun range.

But you get full visitation rights.

Well, during business hours, anyway.

---

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

It would be nice if people would stop saying, "No one wants to ban all guns". I don't know why someone would say this. Well, I guess a new cousin would be "No one wants new laws". Well, that's not true.

Quote
deckeda

Quote
S. Pupp
… Instead, regulate ammunition.

The Gillette razor refill model LOL!

Bullet Control!
[www.youtube.com]

Better still -
[www.youtube.com]

and part 2
[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2021 04:27PM by Z.

I think if the "use a gun enhancement" becomes a shall enforce, instead of may enforce, will force the DAs and judges to step up and be VERY selective on plea bargains. Take the "use a gun enhancement" and remove it from being able to waive it.

Sure, you turn in your crew at the chop shop, we waive the carjacking charge, but no one can waive the firearms charge. Oh, you are already a convicted felon? That's now an extra charge of felon in possession. Can't waive that either. So you do 10 instead on 11.

Take the choice away from the DA and the judge.

I know for a fact if you get caught speeding in a school zone in Washington State, you can't get it reduced or dismissed. Period. Judges/magistrates do not have the authority to do that.

---

********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Turning sentencing over to politicians rather than Judges has never been shown to work unless you're in the private prison business and looking to keep your cells full.

Quote
RAMd®d
As a responsible gun owner and user, though not so much over the last few years, I see room for some responsible gun legislation.

Not so much

Quote
SDGuy

Quote
Steve G.
...mmm...small and strokeable

That's why I enjoy this side of the forum so much - for the thoughtful, well-reasoned, keen, and insightful arguments I can read here...not like other forums where folks tend to just do one-liner drive-by posts.

Like this?

Quote
RgrF

Quote
SDGuy

Quote
Steve G.
...mmm...small and strokeable

That's why I enjoy this side of the forum so much - for the thoughtful, well-reasoned, keen, and insightful arguments I can read here...not like other forums where folks tend to just do one-liner drive-by posts.

Like this?

I watched it at least a dozen times, laughing harder each time. I’m sure they were using blanks or the injured ammosexual would have probably dropped like a stone.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2021 06:48PM by Speedy.