TS has left a new comment on your post "Private Sellers":
MikeB, I am responding to the "Meaning of Draconian" thread here because that one might be a little stale.
MikeB: "TS told us about the California gun owner who failed to turn his allen wrench a couple times and became a felon as a result. "I’d call that “cruel”. How about you, MikeB?"
I wouldn't say "cruel" as much as "excessive." I'd even call it abuse of power on the part of the cop."
I read about this on a police officer’s forum. Many of the other cops were calling him out on it, calling it “excessive” and mean. The thing is, he was following the letter of the law, and I have a much bigger problem with the law that allows him to make that arrest, than the cop who didn’t give the gun owner a pass. This is why we protest laws like this. We shouldn’t have to leave it up to the discretion of a cop to be a “nice guy”. I wouldn’t think CA’s “assault weapons ban” is draconian if it weren’t for the fact that they make it a felony. That is life altering. Not only do you go to jail, but you lose your gun rights forever, lose your job, lose your whole career, hell- maybe even lose your marriage... that’s draconian.
One thing that comes to mind right away is this, if something is against the law, the people doing that thing are responsible for their actions. They can choose to do it or not. If they choose to do it, only they are responsible for the consequenses. This is different from the many cases of shared responsibility we often talk about when the offenders are kids or impaired adults. Generally speaking, people make choices and to call the laws "draconian" is to shift the focus from those people to the laws themselves.
What do you think?
What about the point TS made when he said, "We shouldn’t have to leave it up to the discretion of a cop." We need clear laws that can be enforced in all situations, says TS.
Is that practical? Is there really such a thing as clear laws that can be applied in all situations? Don't we need to rely on police discretion? Isn't that part of the trust we place in our law enforcement people?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mitigating the effects of out of control cops is why there is a legal system.
ReplyDeleteAnd lawyers.
On the other hand, there are law which society has created as rules we should live by. Living by them is part of being a civilised society.
You can use the avenues which society has given you to change them.
If not, there are other States in the US you can move to if you disagree with them.
It isn't bein a slave to government, but being a part of society.
Of course, you're making the huge assumption that TS's story is accurate.
ReplyDeleteGunloons have no shortage of apocryphal myths that paint themselves as victims. Case in point, FFLS who are prosecuted by the ATF for typographical errors. To hear the gunloons' version, FFLs are convicted of felonies for failing to dot an "i" or not crossing a "t." Of course, reality is very much different: FFLs engaged in illegal weapon transfers often doctor paperwork to cover their tracks.
Similarly, I doubt very much that someone forget to make a few turns with an allen wrench causing him to be prosecuted.
--JadeGold
If not, there are other States in the US you can move to if you disagree with them.
ReplyDeleteWould you say that to Black in the South prior to their civil rights victories?
Should we just roll over and let our Constitutional rights be trampled, or should we fight for them?
Well, I did some digging and found the forum thread which I referred to (lest Jadegold call me a liar). They go into pretty good detail about Prince style vs. bullet buttons used in off-list receivers and what exactly caused the guy to get cuffed.
ReplyDeletehttp://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125566
Here is the post from SoCalSheriff that started the topic:
“Well, as a self proclaimed "gun nut" I would say I am one of the few who knows the difference. In fact, I often have my partners asking me to come to their calls when they locate a weapon for a variety of reasons.
Here's the deal. Even if you encounter the wrong officer, your worst case is confiscation of the weapon and a night in jail. But if the weapon is truly in compliance, the case will be thrown out and the weapon returned. Just make sure its in compliance. Also keep in mind it must have a 10 round magazine. If you can fit 11 in it, its a no go.
I hooked a guy the other day for an off-list lower / bullet button kit. He had the kit installed, but not properly. thus allowing the weapon to fuction "normally." His excuse of "I can fix that with an allan wrench" did not keep him from going to jail.”
Mike W once more waves his ignorance like a flag.
ReplyDeleteYou have to understand that to socially arrested individuals like Mike W, unconstitional means 'things I don't like.' And constitutional means 'things I like.'
We know Fat Tony Scalia has said, in Heller, that the opinion did not undercut laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
--JadeGold
TS's reference demonstrates pretty clearly that the guy was trying to get away with having a detachable mag.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, set screws don't usually work themselves loose, Second, as the forum points out, using a dab of locktite will basically guarantee it doesn't.
Look, if I cheat on my taxes is it really a good excuse for me to say that I can fix them by pressing a couple of keys on my keyboard?
--JadeGold
Jadgold, since when do you agree with Scalia? To quote you; is it the difference between 'things I don't like' and 'things I like'?
ReplyDeleteJadgold: “TS's reference demonstrates pretty clearly that the guy was trying to get away with having a detachable mag.”
Since we like to read into stories here, I would say he thought he was in compliance since he answered “yes” to having weapons in the car and agreed to a search on the spot. That sounds to me like a guy who didn’t know he had a screw loose. But that is of course not the point of my original post. The point is that a loose screw is the difference between being completely legal and a possible life-altering felony conviction. Even with the stupid assault weapons ban, I would think a more appropriate penalty would be simple confiscation with a fine on top of it. The gun owner would be out thousands of dollars, but would at least be allowed to keep his normal life. Tell me Jadegold, are you just happy to see any gun owner go to jail?
Jadegold: “Look, if I cheat on my taxes is it really a good excuse for me to say that I can fix them by pressing a couple of keys on my keyboard?”
Excuses aren’t the point. My point would be if you claimed a $100 deduction when you actually only donated $50, should you have to serve Martha Stewart jail time?
Lastly Jade, note that when called out on the accuracy of a story, I came back with the source.
Jadegold: “The ruling in the SC is what it is. And the ruling says things like registration, licensing, bans on certain weapons, bans of where they might be carried, etc.--are all constitutional.”
ReplyDeleteThe Heller case wasn’t analyzing “Assault Weapons”. As such, Scalia stated that the Heller decision does not affect dangerous or unusual weapon bans. There would need to be a separate case to determine if so called “assault weapons” are more dangerous or unusual than any other semi-automatic. The gunloons will argue that they are simple “common use” weapons, and the antis will argue that a pistol grip on a rifle turns it into a weapon of mass destruction. Yes, as of now AWBs are constitutional, albeit draconian if you throw someone in jail over a screw loose.
Jadegold: “WRT a possible felony conviction--let's review the facts. The gunloon felt he needed a firearm which really has no practical use for hunting, self-defense, or competitive shooting. He further compounded the situation by turning it into an assault weapon, which as we know is great to go to war with but has little use otherwise. We're not talking about cheating on taxes to the tune of $50.”
This is exactly the answer I expected out of you. You are more than happy to throw gun owners in jail without committing acts of violence, yet you’ll claim gun control targets violent criminals and the average gun owner is unaffected. This is why we fight for our rights.
If you don’t like the bullet button case, lets look at another gray area- the SKS. The standard SKS is not an “assault weapon” even by the VPC/Brady/CA definition. It contains a fixed 10 rd magazine (the legal limit), and would have to be converted to a detachable magazine in order to be illegal. The fixed magazine has a spring at the bottom of it that pushes the next round into the chamber. After loading 10 rounds, it is necessary by design to be able to push down a little more so that you could close the bolt without loading a round into the chamber. Sometimes that spring is weak enough (whether by manufacturing tolerances or wear and tear) that you could load the 11th round in. Felony. But you have no problem with that, right Jade? Because anyone who would own an SKS is a domestic terrorist that deserves to be incarcerated.
I don’t know of anyone being arrested in this case as with the bullet button, but it is scary that the law would allow it.
And the ruling says things like registration, licensing, bans on certain weapons, bans of where they might be carried, etc.--are all constitutional.
ReplyDeleteActually it said nothing of the sort. Those things weren't at issue in the case and were thus were not ruled on.
Back to the original point, at least my original point, I still say "draconian" is too strong and "cruel" is even worse for describing gun control laws.
ReplyDeleteMikeb: I still say "draconian" is too strong and "cruel" is even worse for describing gun control laws.
ReplyDeletePerhaps some gunowner advocates abuse the term, but gun laws CAN be "draconian." By the standards of American gunowners, Britain's gun laws are indeed "draconian."
We'll quit misusing the word "draconian" when you quit misusing the word "loophole". Deal?
ReplyDelete