Tough on Crime? Yeah, surrre.
DAYTONA BEACH --
Police in one Volusia County city want to find you if you purchased a certain type of gun in a specific year.
Most area gun shops said they continuously cooperate with the State Attorneys Office and police, especially in the hunt for a serial killer.
But when they received a letter from Police Chief Mike Chitwood, they said wait a minute.
One thing I noticed in the comments to that story is the gun owners who were all so outraged at the "list" idea didn't make any car comparisons. When the police are investigating a murder and the suspects car is known the list of folks who own that type of car is readily available.
ReplyDeleteThis story points out two things for me. One, a comprehensive and available gun registry should be maintained, and two, all transfers of guns should require background checks and generate adjustments to the registry.
"This story points out two things for me. One, a comprehensive and available gun registry should be maintained, and two, all transfers of guns should require background checks and generate adjustments to the registry."
ReplyDeleteWhich is what we don't want, hence the "outrage".
There is the possibility though that there is a reason this hit the media other than to harass law abiding gun owners. Possibly the police wanted the killer to know they had something like the gun info.
While working for newspapers in the early '90s, more than once local law enforcement brought a press release to be published and ran on TV and radio. These press releases had more of a strategic purpose in mind than simply updating the public. On one occasion they were looking for a killer. They released a wrong description and later said that the suspect was reported two states away. They wanted the real target of the investigation to relax and come out of hiding. It worked.
Not saying that is the case here but the police have to resort to all kinds of tricks to catch a serial killer.
Problem is, Fat Tony Scalia said in Heller that registraion isn't unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteSo, basically, you have a bunch of gunloons who don't want what amounts to a very limited and finite list of gunowners *and* are willing to allow a serial killer to continue to operate.
Thus, we have it: whenever you hear about gunloons saying that we need better enforcement of the laws or that we need to get tougher on crime and criminals--we understand that this excludes laws and criminals involving firearms.
MikeB: “This story points out two things for me. One, a comprehensive and available gun registry should be maintained,..”
ReplyDeleteTo me this story points out that a comprehensive lists isn’t necessary. The information is already there, but kept by the FFLs and available for individual tracing. The gray area comes in when police ask for a list as opposed to one serial number. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a specific list being generated for this case, or ones like it. It could however set a precedent that is ripe for abuse by anti-gun chiefs of anti-gun mayors. Maybe a judge could sign off on it case by case.
Keep in mind, if it weren’t for gun controllers constantly scheming for ways to reduces guns and gun ownership- no one would be concerned about a registry.
TS's last comment is beyond silly.
ReplyDeleteApparently, "gun controllers" are responsible for allowing a serial killer to run free.
TS demands the police produce a serial number. And how do we trace a gun's serial number when the only evidence may be a bullet or shell casing?
OK, gun bans as a policy consideration are off the table.
ReplyDeleteNow, people are arguing that items which when used correctly can result in death or serious injury shouldn't be registered.
Unfortunately, as JadeGold pointed out, the holding in Heller and McDonald both allow for registration of firearms.
In fact, as I like to point out, SCOTUS judicially amended the document to now read that The right of the people to keep arms in their homes may be reasonably infringed.
Laci
I'm surprised no one has made a comment about the Chitwoods (Junior and Senior):
ReplyDeletehttp://iliveindelawarecounty.blogspot.com/2007/11/mike-chitwood-versus-second-amendment.html
They are known for attention grabbing.
Laci
Jade: “TS demands the police produce a serial number.”
ReplyDeleteMy quote: “Personally, I don’t have a problem with a specific list being generated for this case, or ones like it.”
What the hell is your problem? I mean really… what is your problem?
Laci: “OK, gun bans as a policy consideration are off the table.”
ReplyDeleteIt is just ban on all handguns that are off the table. Chicago still banned thousands of handguns in their new ban list (with full discretion to ban whatever they want in the future), and we still see backdoor bans, de facto bans for the poor, and bans on “assault weapons”, etc…
Personally I would compromise a registry to truly take all bans (maybe post NFA) off the table everywhere. No need to worry about confiscation if all bans are unconstitutional.
I can’t wait to see what Jade spins my quote into…
More on the chitwoods:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/copping_to_it-38395159.html
TS, you should look up Heller post-Heller where he was refused registration for one of his firearms (high cap mag).
"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40
Oops, looks like registries are in and you're screwed.
Of course, most of you didn't realise that because they said it was "an individual right".
Ever wonder why the only people who are truly screaming are REAL constitutional scholars.
Laci: “you should look up Heller post-Heller where he was refused registration for one of his firearms (high cap mag).”
ReplyDeleteI know- you and I have discussed that right here. That pretty much blows your comment about bans being off the table, since DC still has major bans on handguns (albeit no longer inclusive of all handguns). Pro-gun folks still have to fight bans.
Scalia: “…the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
This gets highlighted a lot from you people. First of all, I agree with Scalia here, so there is no need to keep throwing it in my face. Secondly, it is an extremely lose statement. This could mean that the 2nd amendment is not a right to keep mortars for the purpose of scaring pigeons off your deck. The 2nd amendment had always been interpreted with limitations, and Scalia’s statement reaffirms that. It did not change anything in your favor.
Laci: “Oops, looks like registries are in and you're screwed.”
You still have to get it passed through congress, dude. Registration has always been on the table pre-Heller.
As I said, I don’t have a huge problem with registries as long as the gun control side was compromising- like taking ALL bans off the table. Then you guys can use the argument that bans aren’t happening, there is nothing for gun owners to worry about, and maybe they’ll be inroads made for policies that can truly help fight crime.
TS said, "Keep in mind, if it weren’t for gun controllers constantly scheming for ways to reduces guns and gun ownership- no one would be concerned about a registry."
ReplyDeleteYou're presuming a lot there. I say the reason some of us what a workable registry has nothing to do with reducing guns. This is demonstrated by the story which you said shows there's no need since the info is already there, but it shouldn't depend on the cooperation of the FFL guys. The police should already have it.
About reducing the number of guns out there, we propose many other restrictions, call them bans if you want, but this registry idea is only about investigating crime.
5 million Glocks are in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteAssuming every Glock owner owns two, that makes one in every thirty people a Glock owner.
If this crime were committed with a Glock, that would make sixteen thousand suspects living in the Daytona Beach metro area.
Yes, that narrows it down a bit. A workable registry is a pipe dream--no country, city, state has ever shown any registry an effective tool for solving crime.
So, TS, are you saying that everybody should be able to acquire a gun? This would include criminials, the insane, terrorists, and other people who really shouldn't even dream about owning firearms.
ReplyDeleteRegistration doesn't equal a ban.
And if you can't meet the qualifcations, then maybe you shouldn't think about owning a gun.
Of course, I iamgine that you leave your doors unlocked since criminals can get in a house anyway.
Laci
"So, TS, are you saying that everybody should be able to acquire a gun? This would include criminals, the insane, terrorists, and other people who really shouldn't even dream about owning firearms."
ReplyDeleteI don't know what TS will say but I would say that.
If you are a criminal, you should be in jail. If you have paid your debt to society and served your sentence, you should be a regular citizen again. Just end plea bargain nonsense and early release.
If you are a terrorist, then you should be dead or in prison for committing acts of terrorism.
If you are insane to the point you are that much a threat to society, you should be in a rubber room somewhere.
If you are none of the above and are a free citizen, then you should be able to exercise your basic civil rights including those guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
MikeB: “About reducing the number of guns out there, we propose many other restrictions, call them bans if you want, but this registry idea is only about investigating crime.”
ReplyDeleteBut you can understand where the paranoia comes from when a guy like you says “we need to reduce the number of guns in the country by half”, and then another day you say “We need full registration so the police know where every gun is… but it will only be used for solving crime.” I am not as afraid of registration as most gun owner, but the history of gun control as thrown trust out the window.
My main objection is cost/benefit. About 6 months ago I asked you if you come across articles about the California registry solving crimes. If so, include them in your posts along with your murders and school shootings. We can look to CA as an example for cost/benefit.
The Second Amendment only guarantees that you will be from from the establishment of a standing army.
ReplyDeleteI suggest you read state constitutional provisions regarding the right to bear arms and see where the right is explicitly mentioned.
Since there is no explicit right mentioned to owning a deadly weapon in the Second Amendment, it does not exist.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
BTW, plea bargaining and such is guaranteed under the US COnstitution's Amendments 4,5,6, and 7.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 defence.
I can get the felonies dropped because I am a super lawyer.
The criminals have rights too! It's in the Constitution! I defend their constitutional rights.
You just help them get guns!
Live with it!
Laci
Laci: “So, TS, are you saying that everybody should be able to acquire a gun? This would include criminials, the insane, terrorists, and other people who really shouldn't even dream about owning firearms.”
ReplyDeleteWow, you are as bad as Jadegold in terms of making up what your opponent says. Where did I say that? In fact it was only three days ago where you made this very same leap with the “do you lock your doors at night?”
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/07/law-abiding.html
Do you do this behavior in the courtroom too?
Laci: “The criminals have rights too! It's in the Constitution! I defend their constitutional rights.”
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It’s a core principle of a free nation. It is taking the stance that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to lock up an innocent one. Likewise, it is better for criminals to be armed than deny the right to self-defense to the public.
"Since there is no explicit right mentioned to owning a deadly weapon in the Second Amendment, it does not exist."
ReplyDeleteThat's your superlawyer argument? The right to keep and bear arms doesn't let you keep and bear arms?
I seemed to miss the "right to plea bargain" in your 4,5,6,and 7th amendment explanation.
Likewise, it is better for criminals to be armed than deny the right to self-defense to the public.
ReplyDeleteThank you, you have proven my point that the "pro-gun" side doesn't care about crime prevention, crime fighting, or anything else.
It would prefer that convicted felons are able to easily acquire firearms:
Fuck the consequences of that policy.
Laci
Oh yes, and I notice how you all howl when you are asked to pay your fair share in taxes for society's cost of your "right".
ReplyDeleteI would like to receive a living wage for my court appointments, but that is only a portion of the cost of arrest, prosecution, incarceration of a gun criminal.
Likewise, society's cost in hospitalisation and treatment of gun violence victims.
Quite frankly, if you don't mind enabling criminal activity, then you should pay for it.
Fuck "your right", pal.
Society has its own concerns which far outweigh "your right".
Laci
"Society has its own concerns which far outweigh "your right".
ReplyDeleteWas that Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin or Vladimir Lenin that said that?
I'm sure it was some no good dead commie.
Laci: “Thank you, you have proven my point that the "pro-gun" side doesn't care about crime prevention, crime fighting, or anything else.”
ReplyDeleteIn turn that would mean you don’t care about the public. What are the consequences of helpless people dying- disarmed by their government?