What's your opinion? Is there anything wrong with registering gun offenders in this way? Shouldn't the police have all the tools possible at their disposal?In Prince George’s County — where hundreds of people were shot last year and 64 of them died — people convicted of gun crimes may soon be required to register, regularly check in with police and submit to home visits from officers.All nine members of the County Council have signed on as co-sponsors of a bill requiring the registry, and a vote is expected in early June. The effort to make the county’s streets safer has been pushed by the police, who say that for too many people, carrying a firearm illegally is a rite of passage and getting caught is a minor inconvenience.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
It's bad enough in America that it's not a one-strike-you're-out rule regarding gun crimes, but they aren't already on a registration list?? Of course this makes sense.
ReplyDeleteHey, here's a better idea... Don't let them own guns at all!!
Oregonian, how would you achieve that? Are you admitting now that you oppose private ownership of firearms altogether?
DeleteIn general, I say that once a criminal serves his sentence, that should be it. All rights restored. Some crimes would require harsher penalties to make sure that enough is served, but when a person is put back into society, he should be a full citizen again.
There is already a list. It is called "known felons". The solution is just to keep them in jail. Then we won't have to worry about home visits.
DeleteAs usual, you distort my meaning, Greg. I'm not against all gun owners. But the simple fact remains that those who commit crimes, particularly ones so violent as to involve a gun, are highly likely to commit crimes again. Your faith in the justice system somehow solving all the criminal's impulses isn't representative of the high recidivism rate. It doesn't surprise me that you are pro-criminal in this way.
DeleteAs for Mr. Anonymous suggesting they should be kept in jail, I'm all for strict sentencing, but we are already at one of the highest prison rates in the world, and your desire to forever imprison every violent criminal, a la Communist China, isn't likely to happen here. In the meantime, we need to do all we can to keep from allowing them access to guns.
Why just “gun crimes”, Baldr? You said “…particularly ones so violent as to involve a gun…” but would you call armed robbery with no shots fired worse than a violent beating that leaves the victim dead or in a coma? That is not even getting into the “gun crimes” that have no violence whatsoever, like the example I gave below and the transportation law example from Anonymous.
Delete@ TS: Whether they fired the gun or not, they clearly have used it to intimidate and may likely fire it in the future, and thus should not be allowed to be armed in the future. Furthermore, studies have shown that simply possessing a gun increases the gunholder's likelihood of escalating a conflict. Obviously they can harm people in other ways (beating, knifing, etc), but any way they can be disarmed to reduce the potential lethality the better. Why even take the chance?
DeleteIs armed robbery with a gun and no shots fired a worse offense to you than beating and kicking a person into a coma and then taking their wallet? Do we need to take extra precautions with the first perpetrator over the second? That is what I am asking.
DeleteOregonian, I've never seen you offer a good word about any gun owner, so you'll have to forgive me when I don't believe you. I have little faith in the prison system, but the principle remains that if we believe a person is ready to return to society, that person needs to be entirely ready or not get released. I suspect that you support returning voting rights to felons. That's a right that comes with huge responsibility. If you do support that, how can you deny other rights to the same person?
DeleteI note that you carefully avoided that point being made below. What about the laws that make it a crime to have a gun in the trunk that isn't also in a case? What about transferring guns to a relative when a person is going to be out of town? Can't you acknowledge that the laws regarding those actions are stupid? There are many laws in many jurisdictions that aren't about safety. They're about making gun ownership difficult for the person who wants to stay within the law. Criminals, the people that you don't worry about, naturally don't care about the laws and do as they please. And you say that I'm pro-criminal.
@Baldr
Delete"Furthermore, studies have shown that simply possessing a gun increases the gunholder's likelihood of escalating a conflict."
Which studies?
And you skipped right over how you feel that an armed robbery with no shots fired is more violent than a beating that leaves someone crippled or dead. Do you want to put people convicted of violent fist crimes on a list and give them home visits to make sure they never ball their fists again?
Anyway, every violent crime involving a firearm is a felony, so it's illegal for them to purchase guns in the future. Adding them to a separate list and adding home visits on top of their (usually) lengthy time on parole seems rather silly to me when were they to be caught carrying a gun again, they'd be facing felony charges again.
YOu know, all this tough talk about keeping criminals in jail is bullshit. For one thing, it's not practical in the country that already leads the world in incarceration rate. Secondly, it doesn't address the equally problematic situation of so-called lawful gun owners going bad.
DeleteTry as you will to separate yourselves from the criminal gun owners, and pretend you're not all getting your guns from the same sources, no one whose got half a brain is convinced.
1. Quit putting drug users in prison, and there'd be plenty of room for violent criminals. Simple.
Delete2. Why don't you do us all a favor and put up some proof of your claims? Give us evidence, not guesses and not feelings, but evidence as to how many good gun owners go bad as opposed to how many gun crimes are committed by people with a criminal record.
Define "gun crime". Are you talking about using a gun while commiting a violent act (robbery, attempted murder, etc...)? If that is what you mean then I agree. Although that information should already be available to police without creating another "list".
ReplyDeleteIf you are including non-violent offenses (such as when the wind blows your cover garment up and exposes your legally carried concealed weapon, which will get you charged for brandishing a weapon in Florida), then I disagree.
And "Baldr", felons are already prohibited from owning or carrying a firearm, so it IS a "one-strike-you're-out" issue. What you don't seem to get is that criminals do not follow the law, so creating a new law does not affect them in the least.
Jim it's not anything like "one strike" for most disqualified felons. Prior to picking up their felony, how many other incidents of misuse of guns do you think the average one has? How many have been arrested for violent misdemeanors? How many have dropped a gun or had a negligent discharge.
DeleteNo, the bar is set way too high when only a felony conviction disqualifies someone.
Dropping a gun or accidentally pulling the trigger is much different from shoplifting or domestic violence. What we see here is that you, as always, are conflating criminals with good gun owners.
DeleteBy the way, even if a criminal gets a plea deal, if the crime could have resulted in a sentence of a year or more, that person loses the right to own a gun.
I never said shoplifters should lose their gun rights.
DeleteYour second paragraph is bullshit. Do you just make shit like that up 'cause it sounds good?
No, that's the law. Are you seriously arguing with me about this? Anyone who is convicted of a crime that could have a sentence of a year or more loses gun rights. Are you unaware of this?
DeleteYou're talking like that's the law everywhere in every state. Can you be more specific?
DeleteIn most states it takes a solid felony, not a misdemeanor that COULD result in a one-year sentence.
Mikeb, your ignorance about this subject never ceases to amaze me. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a Federal law, anyone who has been convicted of an offense punishable by a term of more than one year is a prohibited person.
DeleteSeriously, why don't you study the laws before you propose adding more?
About your own state, nothing about that bullshit you're trying to pass as fact. The other states are more or less the same.
Deletefrom :
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_pro_per-government-gun-laws-prohibited-persons
"law provides that no person shall possess or own any firearm who has been convicted of a felony, adjudicated mentally ill, or committed involuntarily to any mental institution. No person under the age of 18 shall possess a handgun except in limited circumstances. It is illegal to furnish a firearm or other deadly weapon to a minor (under 18) without the consent of a parent or guardian, or to furnish a handgun or prohibited weapon to a felon, or to knowingly sell, rent, or transfer a firearm to a person prohibited by State or Federal law."
Federal law makes my statement correct. Federal law makes anyone who is convicted of a crime that can carry a sentence of more than a year a prohibited person. State law doesn't have to duplicate Federal law.
DeleteDon't bother responding. You're impossible.
or to knowingly sell, rent, or transfer a firearm to a person prohibited by State or Federal law.
DeleteThis is where it is covered. Even if Arkansas didn’t have a line that said “anyone who is prohibited by federal law is also prohibited by state law”- you could still be busted by the feds.
This is just another case of gun registration leading to people registration.
ReplyDeleteIs this a public registry the way sex offenders are? If not, it seems all this does is strip them of their fourth amendment rights along with their second. Also, I’m with Jim in that there are a lot of stupid laws in Maryland that could lead to a “gun crime” being committed- like if your muzzle brake suppresses a little too much flash.
These efforts are not intended to strip them of their rights, they're intended to protect other innocent people from them.
DeleteThe problem is, the bill does not target those carry guns illegally. It covers *any* violation of *any* of Maryland's confusing and poorly written gun laws. That includes the lawful gun owner going to the range with his gun unloaded and locked in the trunk of his car -- because MD says the gun should also be in a holster or a case. It includes the lawful gun owner who takes his guns to his father's house for safekeeping when he goes on a business trip -- because MD law says that guns can only be transported to the range, the gun dealer or the gunsmith.
ReplyDeleteWho are you kidding.
Delete"That includes the lawful gun owner going to the range with his gun unloaded and locked in the trunk of his car"
Do you really think there are many of them? I don't.
Many of who? Gun owners? According to Gallup, 47% of Americans have guns in the households. Lawful gun owners who transport their guns to the range? That's what ranges are for. Gun owners who transport the gun in the trunk of the car? Or gun owners who don't have it in a holster or case in the trunk of the car? I confess that I make sure mine is in a case, but then, I'm a lawyer.
DeleteThe gun boards are full of people trying to figure out how to comply with Maryland gun law to do the most mundane things. For example, if you and your friends or family go to a shooting event at the range, can you stop for food or gas on the way home if there are guns in the trunk of your car? Does the handgun in the trunk have to be in a locked case, or just a case? If the handgun is in the trunk, can the ammunition also be in the trunk or does it have to be somewhere else? What if you don't have a trunk in your vehicle? If you want to see how much confusion is out there, jump on a board and search for "law."
In your lawyerly experience, are there many arrests and convictions for that kind of bullshit? How do those numbers compare to real gun offenses?
DeleteIt is also illegal to carpool with friends to the rifle range which are often well outside of town. Not very green of them.
DeleteI am a MD resident and have a handgun felony on my record.This law will effect me directly.I've worked really hard to change my life,and would like the right to own a firearm to protect my family.I pay 100% of my taxes and would like 100% of my rights.If I'm such a danger,why'd they let me out?
ReplyDeleteI feel for ya, but I'm sure you're aware of how rare a case you are. Most people who have "a handgun felony" on their record, especially the ones that did a little time, don't get better they get worse.
DeleteI wouldn't be too opposed to a 10 year rule, something like that. With a proven track record of changed behavior, reinstatement could be considered.
Nah, on second though that's not long enough. Let's make it 20.