CDZ Gun Control

[Wry Catcher]

Note. I no longer respond to 2aguy because I can't fix stupid, and in particular someone who is mendacious and stupid as is he.

For the record I have explained the practical application of licensing a dozen or more times,

Agree – responding to such an individual is a pointless waste of time; it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are no 'better' than the rights enshrined in the First – as both are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Disagree with regard to licensing as a comprehensive condition to firearm possession; licensing is appropriate on a voluntary basis, such as to carry a concealed weapon or to acquire firearms as a collector, but it is not justified as a general requirement in order to purchase, obtain, own, or possess a firearm.

Licensing requirements and associated fees are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, of course, where opposition to licensing requirements must be pursued through to political process until such time as the case law changes.

Licensing is required to drive a car, perform surgery, practice the law, etc. Why is it any different to require someone who wants to own a deadly weapon to obtain a license?

And not ONE of those activities is a Right. Not one. Licensing DESTROYS Rights. Which is no doubt why you desire it so much. Individual Rights are anathema to a totalitarian such as yourself. We all know that.

Calm down, the 2nd is ambiguous. Poorly written and easy to comport to everybody's POV.

Here's some more food for thought.

General welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

And don't forget, Use a gun, go to prison legislation, and the enhancement when a gun is present in any crime, adding years to a sentence.

Sounds great!

The following is how your idea translates to the real world in a US city plagued by gun violence.

____________________________

St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.

Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.

So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

__________________________

So, how does your idea square with the reality of the liberal revolving door justice system?

First, that's not how it works in CA. A person convicted of a felony, vis a vis what we call a wobbler, can never have the Felony removed from CII* (CA Rap Sheet) which also includes the dates of arrest and conviction plus the charge at detention and final disposition and sentence.

* Rap Sheets in California

A person convicted of a wobbler (a crime which may be filed as a felony or a misdemeanor) can have the Felony Charge reduced (via 17 PC) by the court if he or she has successfully completed probation. However, the rap sheet remains unaltered and a prison committment will remain a felony unless the person can obtain a rare Governors Pardon or Certificate of Rehabilitation (also rare).

Also, in CA, a Pre Sentence Report submitted by the Dept. of Probation will list all prior offenses as well as a social study, victim statements and a sentencing recommendation, which then is submitted to the attention of the judge at the time sentence is pronounced.

Ummm, nope. You're wrong. A good friend of mine who at the time was an Alameda County Deputy was walking out of a shop on patrol, in uniform, when he got coldcocked by a guy he put in prison. The man broke my friends jaw and thought he had him. Unfortunately for him my friend is one tough SOB and he was able to subdue the perp. The perp had just assaulted a peace officer, was a felon, and was carrying a gun, while on probation.

He should have been immediately violated back to prison for 9 years based on the assault on a peace officer charge. He was released the next day so your assertion is absolute bullshit. Feel free to ask me the name of the SO involved privately and I will give it to you so you can look up the case.

XXXX happens, but I wonder if the over crowding at Santa Rita created the situation?

The perp should have had a probation hold placed on him, which would have prevented the SO from releasing the jerk on bail or OR. If on parole he would have also had a hold put on him and most likely scheduled for a Morrissey Hearing, required to violate parole and return the parolee to finish his term.

Due process prevents an immediate return to prison, but the perp could and should have been held for the minimum 48 hours of judicial time and the DA should have then prepared the complaint/information allowing the court to hold the jerk by denying or setting a very high bail.

I know of situations where inmates were released because they had the same or a similar name to someone else with a release order.

The facts as you laid out would never have allowed for a release had people done their jobs, but people screw up and one data point does not make your case.

This happened before Santa Rita got overbooked. No, this is not people not doing their jobs. This is a systemic failure of the GOVERNMENT to do its job. I remember when the gangbanger from Richmond shot up the County Fair in P town. IIRC 16 people were hit and the DA decided that Assault with a Deadly Weapon was all that was warranted. There was massive uproar and he finally upped the charges to attempted murder but only because there were gangbangers as targets.

I wrote a letter to the Oakland Trib castigating the DA for basically saying that the gangbangers were higher valued citizens than the regular people based on his decision. The guy is a flaming asshole. I really ripped into him. I have friends who were ADA's at the time and they couldn't believe what he was doing to the department.

So no, it is systemic, and it is your fault (among others) for supporting that sort of idiocy.

 

[westwall]

Note. I no longer respond to 2aguy because I can't fix stupid, and in particular someone who is mendacious and stupid as is he.

For the record I have explained the practical application of licensing a dozen or more times,

Agree – responding to such an individual is a pointless waste of time; it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are no 'better' than the rights enshrined in the First – as both are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Disagree with regard to licensing as a comprehensive condition to firearm possession; licensing is appropriate on a voluntary basis, such as to carry a concealed weapon or to acquire firearms as a collector, but it is not justified as a general requirement in order to purchase, obtain, own, or possess a firearm.

Licensing requirements and associated fees are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, of course, where opposition to licensing requirements must be pursued through to political process until such time as the case law changes.

Licensing is required to drive a car, perform surgery, practice the law, etc. Why is it any different to require someone who wants to own a deadly weapon to obtain a license?

And not ONE of those activities is a Right. Not one. Licensing DESTROYS Rights. Which is no doubt why you desire it so much. Individual Rights are anathema to a totalitarian such as yourself. We all know that.

Calm down, the 2nd is ambiguous. Poorly written and easy to comport to everybody's POV.

Here's some more food for thought.

General welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not ambiguous unless you don't understand the English Language. It is exceptionally clear, and is easy to understand. Were it not it would have been destroyed decades ago.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And don't forget, Use a gun, go to prison legislation, and the enhancement when a gun is present in any crime, adding years to a sentence.

Sounds great!

The following is how your idea translates to the real world in a US city plagued by gun violence.

____________________________

St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.

Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.

So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

__________________________

So, how does your idea square with the reality of the liberal revolving door justice system?

First, that's not how it works in CA. A person convicted of a felony, vis a vis what we call a wobbler, can never have the Felony removed from CII* (CA Rap Sheet) which also includes the dates of arrest and conviction plus the charge at detention and final disposition and sentence.

* Rap Sheets in California

A person convicted of a wobbler (a crime which may be filed as a felony or a misdemeanor) can have the Felony Charge reduced (via 17 PC) by the court if he or she has successfully completed probation. However, the rap sheet remains unaltered and a prison committment will remain a felony unless the person can obtain a rare Governors Pardon or Certificate of Rehabilitation (also rare).

Also, in CA, a Pre Sentence Report submitted by the Dept. of Probation will list all prior offenses as well as a social study, victim statements and a sentencing recommendation, which then is submitted to the attention of the judge at the time sentence is pronounced.

Ummm, nope. You're wrong. A good friend of mine who at the time was an Alameda County Deputy was walking out of a shop on patrol, in uniform, when he got coldcocked by a guy he put in prison. The man broke my friends jaw and thought he had him. Unfortunately for him my friend is one tough SOB and he was able to subdue the perp. The perp had just assaulted a peace officer, was a felon, and was carrying a gun, while on probation.

He should have been immediately violated back to prison for 9 years based on the assault on a peace officer charge. He was released the next day so your assertion is absolute bullshit. Feel free to ask me the name of the SO involved privately and I will give it to you so you can look up the case.

XXXX happens, but I wonder if the over crowding at Santa Rita created the situation?

The perp should have had a probation hold placed on him, which would have prevented the SO from releasing the jerk on bail or OR. If on parole he would have also had a hold put on him and most likely scheduled for a Morrissey Hearing, required to violate parole and return the parolee to finish his term.

Due process prevents an immediate return to prison, but the perp could and should have been held for the minimum 48 hours of judicial time and the DA should have then prepared the complaint/information allowing the court to hold the jerk by denying or setting a very high bail.

I know of situations where inmates were released because they had the same or a similar name to someone else with a release order.

The facts as you laid out would never have allowed for a release had people done their jobs, but people screw up and one data point does not make your case.

This happened before Santa Rita got overbooked. No, this is not people not doing their jobs. This is a systemic failure of the GOVERNMENT to do its job. I remember when the gangbanger from Richmond shot up the County Fair in P town. IIRC 16 people were hit and the DA decided that Assault with a Deadly Weapon was all that was warranted. There was massive uproar and he finally upped the charges to attempted murder but only because there were gangbangers as targets.

I wrote a letter to the Oakland Trib castigating the DA for basically saying that the gangbangers were higher valued citizens than the regular people based on his decision. The guy is a flaming asshole. I really ripped into him. I have friends who were ADA's at the time and they couldn't believe what he was doing to the department.

So no, it is systemic, and it is your fault (among others) for supporting that sort of idiocy.

I'm not arguing that systemic failures of government don't exist, but more of that below. I posted a response to a singular incident you reported upon and what might might have explained the outcome which enraged you.

You offer no explanation other than Government bad; not one idea on how to make government work more effectively. That's something I thought about often and worked on during my 32-year career in LE.

It's so easy to be a Monday morning QB, and whine "ain't it awful", but none of that works to create change.

 

[westwall]

Sounds great!

The following is how your idea translates to the real world in a US city plagued by gun violence.

____________________________

St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.

Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.

So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

__________________________

So, how does your idea square with the reality of the liberal revolving door justice system?

First, that's not how it works in CA. A person convicted of a felony, vis a vis what we call a wobbler, can never have the Felony removed from CII* (CA Rap Sheet) which also includes the dates of arrest and conviction plus the charge at detention and final disposition and sentence.

* Rap Sheets in California

A person convicted of a wobbler (a crime which may be filed as a felony or a misdemeanor) can have the Felony Charge reduced (via 17 PC) by the court if he or she has successfully completed probation. However, the rap sheet remains unaltered and a prison committment will remain a felony unless the person can obtain a rare Governors Pardon or Certificate of Rehabilitation (also rare).

Also, in CA, a Pre Sentence Report submitted by the Dept. of Probation will list all prior offenses as well as a social study, victim statements and a sentencing recommendation, which then is submitted to the attention of the judge at the time sentence is pronounced.

Ummm, nope. You're wrong. A good friend of mine who at the time was an Alameda County Deputy was walking out of a shop on patrol, in uniform, when he got coldcocked by a guy he put in prison. The man broke my friends jaw and thought he had him. Unfortunately for him my friend is one tough SOB and he was able to subdue the perp. The perp had just assaulted a peace officer, was a felon, and was carrying a gun, while on probation.

He should have been immediately violated back to prison for 9 years based on the assault on a peace officer charge. He was released the next day so your assertion is absolute bullshit. Feel free to ask me the name of the SO involved privately and I will give it to you so you can look up the case.

XXXX happens, but I wonder if the over crowding at Santa Rita created the situation?

The perp should have had a probation hold placed on him, which would have prevented the SO from releasing the jerk on bail or OR. If on parole he would have also had a hold put on him and most likely scheduled for a Morrissey Hearing, required to violate parole and return the parolee to finish his term.

Due process prevents an immediate return to prison, but the perp could and should have been held for the minimum 48 hours of judicial time and the DA should have then prepared the complaint/information allowing the court to hold the jerk by denying or setting a very high bail.

I know of situations where inmates were released because they had the same or a similar name to someone else with a release order.

The facts as you laid out would never have allowed for a release had people done their jobs, but people screw up and one data point does not make your case.

This happened before Santa Rita got overbooked. No, this is not people not doing their jobs. This is a systemic failure of the GOVERNMENT to do its job. I remember when the gangbanger from Richmond shot up the County Fair in P town. IIRC 16 people were hit and the DA decided that Assault with a Deadly Weapon was all that was warranted. There was massive uproar and he finally upped the charges to attempted murder but only because there were gangbangers as targets.

I wrote a letter to the Oakland Trib castigating the DA for basically saying that the gangbangers were higher valued citizens than the regular people based on his decision. The guy is a flaming asshole. I really ripped into him. I have friends who were ADA's at the time and they couldn't believe what he was doing to the department.

So no, it is systemic, and it is your fault (among others) for supporting that sort of idiocy.

I'm not arguing that systemic failures of government don't exist, but more of that below. I posted a response to a singular incident you reported upon and what might might have explained the outcome which enraged you.

You offer no explanation other than Government bad; not one idea on how to make government work more effectively. That's something I thought about often and worked on during my 32-year career in LE.

It's so easy to be a Monday morning QB, and whine "ain't it awful", but none of that works to create change.

No, it is not ONE incident. It is systemic across all of Alameda County and hell the rest of the Bay Area. Wherever government is very powerful it is likewise grossly incompetent when it comes to actual protection of the civilian population. They go out of their way to ensure that violent felons are continuously on the street. All the while going after the middle class sods who do something stupid but not violent.

I have many, many friends in the law enforcement community but I have a very low opinion of the judicial system which is a failure in virtually every aspect.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Note. I no longer respond to 2aguy because I can't fix stupid, and in particular someone who is mendacious and stupid as is he.

For the record I have explained the practical application of licensing a dozen or more times,

Agree – responding to such an individual is a pointless waste of time; it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are no 'better' than the rights enshrined in the First – as both are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Disagree with regard to licensing as a comprehensive condition to firearm possession; licensing is appropriate on a voluntary basis, such as to carry a concealed weapon or to acquire firearms as a collector, but it is not justified as a general requirement in order to purchase, obtain, own, or possess a firearm.

Licensing requirements and associated fees are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, of course, where opposition to licensing requirements must be pursued through to political process until such time as the case law changes.

Licensing is required to drive a car, perform surgery, practice the law, etc. Why is it any different to require someone who wants to own a deadly weapon to obtain a license?

And not ONE of those activities is a Right. Not one. Licensing DESTROYS Rights. Which is no doubt why you desire it so much. Individual Rights are anathema to a totalitarian such as yourself. We all know that.

Calm down, the 2nd is ambiguous. Poorly written and easy to comport to everybody's POV.

Here's some more food for thought.

General welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not ambiguous unless you don't understand the English Language. It is exceptionally clear, and is easy to understand. Were it not it would have been destroyed decades ago.

I understand rules and English very well, it comes with a U. degree from CAL, and a Master's from SFSU.

Here's some food for thought, for those of you who really want a thorough analysis and not my opinion or Westfall's.

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

 

[Wry Catcher]

First, that's not how it works in CA. A person convicted of a felony, vis a vis what we call a wobbler, can never have the Felony removed from CII* (CA Rap Sheet) which also includes the dates of arrest and conviction plus the charge at detention and final disposition and sentence.

* Rap Sheets in California

A person convicted of a wobbler (a crime which may be filed as a felony or a misdemeanor) can have the Felony Charge reduced (via 17 PC) by the court if he or she has successfully completed probation. However, the rap sheet remains unaltered and a prison committment will remain a felony unless the person can obtain a rare Governors Pardon or Certificate of Rehabilitation (also rare).

Also, in CA, a Pre Sentence Report submitted by the Dept. of Probation will list all prior offenses as well as a social study, victim statements and a sentencing recommendation, which then is submitted to the attention of the judge at the time sentence is pronounced.

Ummm, nope. You're wrong. A good friend of mine who at the time was an Alameda County Deputy was walking out of a shop on patrol, in uniform, when he got coldcocked by a guy he put in prison. The man broke my friends jaw and thought he had him. Unfortunately for him my friend is one tough SOB and he was able to subdue the perp. The perp had just assaulted a peace officer, was a felon, and was carrying a gun, while on probation.

He should have been immediately violated back to prison for 9 years based on the assault on a peace officer charge. He was released the next day so your assertion is absolute bullshit. Feel free to ask me the name of the SO involved privately and I will give it to you so you can look up the case.

XXXX happens, but I wonder if the over crowding at Santa Rita created the situation?

The perp should have had a probation hold placed on him, which would have prevented the SO from releasing the jerk on bail or OR. If on parole he would have also had a hold put on him and most likely scheduled for a Morrissey Hearing, required to violate parole and return the parolee to finish his term.

Due process prevents an immediate return to prison, but the perp could and should have been held for the minimum 48 hours of judicial time and the DA should have then prepared the complaint/information allowing the court to hold the jerk by denying or setting a very high bail.

I know of situations where inmates were released because they had the same or a similar name to someone else with a release order.

The facts as you laid out would never have allowed for a release had people done their jobs, but people screw up and one data point does not make your case.

This happened before Santa Rita got overbooked. No, this is not people not doing their jobs. This is a systemic failure of the GOVERNMENT to do its job. I remember when the gangbanger from Richmond shot up the County Fair in P town. IIRC 16 people were hit and the DA decided that Assault with a Deadly Weapon was all that was warranted. There was massive uproar and he finally upped the charges to attempted murder but only because there were gangbangers as targets.

I wrote a letter to the Oakland Trib castigating the DA for basically saying that the gangbangers were higher valued citizens than the regular people based on his decision. The guy is a flaming asshole. I really ripped into him. I have friends who were ADA's at the time and they couldn't believe what he was doing to the department.

So no, it is systemic, and it is your fault (among others) for supporting that sort of idiocy.

I'm not arguing that systemic failures of government don't exist, but more of that below. I posted a response to a singular incident you reported upon and what might might have explained the outcome which enraged you.

You offer no explanation other than Government bad; not one idea on how to make government work more effectively. That's something I thought about often and worked on during my 32-year career in LE.

It's so easy to be a Monday morning QB, and whine "ain't it awful", but none of that works to create change.

No, it is not ONE incident. It is systemic across all of Alameda County and hell the rest of the Bay Area. Wherever government is very powerful it is likewise grossly incompetent when it comes to actual protection of the civilian population. They go out of their way to ensure that violent felons are continuously on the street. All the while going after the middle class sods who do something stupid but not violent.

I have many, many friends in the law enforcement community but I have a very low opinion of the judicial system which is a failure in virtually every aspect.

Well thanks for sharing you opinion, my experience suggests your opinions are wrong.

 

[2aguy]

Note. I no longer respond to 2aguy because I can't fix stupid, and in particular someone who is mendacious and stupid as is he.

For the record I have explained the practical application of licensing a dozen or more times,

Agree – responding to such an individual is a pointless waste of time; it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are no 'better' than the rights enshrined in the First – as both are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Disagree with regard to licensing as a comprehensive condition to firearm possession; licensing is appropriate on a voluntary basis, such as to carry a concealed weapon or to acquire firearms as a collector, but it is not justified as a general requirement in order to purchase, obtain, own, or possess a firearm.

Licensing requirements and associated fees are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, of course, where opposition to licensing requirements must be pursued through to political process until such time as the case law changes.

Licensing is required to drive a car, perform surgery, practice the law, etc. Why is it any different to require someone who wants to own a deadly weapon to obtain a license?

Because owning a gun is a Right.......and requiring people to pay to exercise a Right is unconstitutional. That is why when the democrats put poll taxes on the ability to vote, to keep blacks from voting, that it was found unconstitutional. If you have to pay a fee to get a license to own or carry a gun, and you don't have enough money to do so....you cannot exercise your Right......we get bitched at for asking people to show a photo i.d. to vote, and i.d. that will be provided for free, and even where an agent of the government will come to your home to supply you with your i.d. free of charge....

Then you say we need to pay in order to exercise the right to self defense.

Also.....you have shown no reason why a license is necessary. You fail to answer basic questions about licensing and then say that you did answer the questions.

 

[2aguy]

Note. I no longer respond to 2aguy because I can't fix stupid, and in particular someone who is mendacious and stupid as is he.

For the record I have explained the practical application of licensing a dozen or more times,

Agree – responding to such an individual is a pointless waste of time; it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are no 'better' than the rights enshrined in the First – as both are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Disagree with regard to licensing as a comprehensive condition to firearm possession; licensing is appropriate on a voluntary basis, such as to carry a concealed weapon or to acquire firearms as a collector, but it is not justified as a general requirement in order to purchase, obtain, own, or possess a firearm.

Licensing requirements and associated fees are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, of course, where opposition to licensing requirements must be pursued through to political process until such time as the case law changes.

Licensing is required to drive a car, perform surgery, practice the law, etc. Why is it any different to require someone who wants to own a deadly weapon to obtain a license?

Again....try responding to these points....from post #191

No he actually hasn't. He has yet to address the actual questions I raise. What does licensing gun owners who will not commit crime with guns, who have no history of criminal activity do to stop gun crime or mass shooters?

Criminals will not get gun licenses to use their guns to commit crimes....right?

Mass shooters will get a license to own a gun and then take that license and shoot people...right?

If I don't have a gun license but am a law abiding citizen and never commit a crime with a gun...what was the point of forcing me to get a license for my gun?

At a police stop:

--I am a law abiding citizen without a criminal record. I carry a gun without a license. As many cops are doing now he asks me if I have a gun on my person....I say yes. The cop runs my name and date of birth, there is no criminal record, so they let me go on my way.

What difference would forcing me to have a gun license make in that encounter?

--I am a felon. I am carrying a gun without a license. As a convicted felon, it is already against the law for me to own, let alone carry a gun. A police officer stops me for a traffic violation, and asks me if I have a gun on my person. I say no, lying. He runs my name and date of birth and finds out I am a convicted felon and goes on to search me...he finds the illegal gun, and can automatically arrest me.

What would licensing law abiding citizens change in that encounter?

I am a law abiding citizen. I have many guns and never use them to commit crimes. What would forcing me to get a license do?

I am a citizen with guns...I take one of them and commit a crime...I am caught by the police, arrested, go through a trial and I am convicted of the crime. What would making me get a license change about that outcome?

See.....Wry Catcher cannot explain exactly what licensing gun owners will do.

The Primary reasons to license gun owners is to increase the price of owning a gun, and to create a situation where a law abiding gun owner, who does not use their guns to commit crimes is vulnerable to becoming a felon due to failing to fill out paperwork. If you forget to renew your license, and are stopped by a police officer who sees you have failed to renew your license...you are now a felon...you will be sent to a prison, fined heavily, lose your job, lose your chance of getting another decent job, have your guns conficated and lose your right to own or carry guns in the future.

And you have not used your gun to commit one crime. You failed to fill out paperwork on time.

That is the real purpose of licensing gun owners.

 

[2aguy]

Note. I no longer respond to 2aguy because I can't fix stupid, and in particular someone who is mendacious and stupid as is he.

For the record I have explained the practical application of licensing a dozen or more times,

Agree – responding to such an individual is a pointless waste of time; it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are no 'better' than the rights enshrined in the First – as both are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Disagree with regard to licensing as a comprehensive condition to firearm possession; licensing is appropriate on a voluntary basis, such as to carry a concealed weapon or to acquire firearms as a collector, but it is not justified as a general requirement in order to purchase, obtain, own, or possess a firearm.

Licensing requirements and associated fees are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, of course, where opposition to licensing requirements must be pursued through to political process until such time as the case law changes.

Licensing is required to drive a car, perform surgery, practice the law, etc. Why is it any different to require someone who wants to own a deadly weapon to obtain a license?

And not ONE of those activities is a Right. Not one. Licensing DESTROYS Rights. Which is no doubt why you desire it so much. Individual Rights are anathema to a totalitarian such as yourself. We all know that.

Calm down, the 2nd is ambiguous. Poorly written and easy to comport to everybody's POV.

Here's some more food for thought.

General welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, the 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous, you guys intentionally act as though it is because you do not agree with it.

 

[2aguy]

Note. I no longer respond to 2aguy because I can't fix stupid, and in particular someone who is mendacious and stupid as is he.

For the record I have explained the practical application of licensing a dozen or more times,

Agree – responding to such an individual is a pointless waste of time; it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are no 'better' than the rights enshrined in the First – as both are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Disagree with regard to licensing as a comprehensive condition to firearm possession; licensing is appropriate on a voluntary basis, such as to carry a concealed weapon or to acquire firearms as a collector, but it is not justified as a general requirement in order to purchase, obtain, own, or possess a firearm.

Licensing requirements and associated fees are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, of course, where opposition to licensing requirements must be pursued through to political process until such time as the case law changes.

Licensing is required to drive a car, perform surgery, practice the law, etc. Why is it any different to require someone who wants to own a deadly weapon to obtain a license?

When you charge a fee for a Right you deny that right to those who can't pay......the exact purpose of Poll Taxes and the right to vote....

Guide to the Constitution

Beginning in 1889, Southern states reintroduced the poll tax as a method of disenfranchising black voters. As delegate Carter Glass declared during the Virginia constitutional convention of 1902, the tax was designed "with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate." Additionally, poll taxes had the effect of disenfranchising the poor in general, including whites; later, it fell upon many women after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.

--------

The Court noted that the Twenty-fourth Amendment, like the Fifteenth, "nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of impairing the right guaranteed." Continuing, the Court also found that the Twenty-fourth Amendment applies to "onerous procedural requirements" which effectively handicap, impede, or impair the "exercise of the freedom by those claiming the constitutional immunity."

The drafters of the amendment carefully limited its scope to federal elections. Two years after its ratification, the Supreme Court announced that the use of poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even though it seemed evident that the conclusion was at odds with the original understanding of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, a position emphasized in the dissents of Justices Hugo L. Black and John M. Harlan. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966). In Harper, the Court dealt with a Virginia statute requiring the payment of a poll tax not to exceed $1.50 as a precondition for voting, an amount that Virginia argued was minimal and thus not a significant burden on the right to vote.

Admitting "the right to vote in state elections is nowhere expressly mentioned," the Court nevertheless invalidated the statute because "it is enough to say that once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Court, explained: "[A] state violates the Equal Protection Clause... whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payments of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax."

The logic of the Court's opinion has made the Twenty-fourth Amendment virtually superfluous, as Justice John M. Harlan observed in his dissent.


Replace the Right to Vote, and the decisions the Courts made with the Right to bear arms......and you see why licensing is not possible, or Constitutional....

 

[2aguy]

Licensing gun owners violates the 14th Amendment equal protection under the law........Just as it did for voting.

Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Court, explained: "[A] state violates the Equal Protection Clause... whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payments of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax."

Charging people a fee to exercise the right to own or carry a gun is a violation no different than when it is done to violate voting rights.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yawn, late night last night, and now we're off to my youngest son's in-laws for Prime Rib. My wife made a Cheese Cake and yesterday we made Rum Balls and Biscotti, so i'm sure to put on a few pounds this night even before the other sides made by my daughter-in-law, her mother and sister make their rounds about the table.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

 

[westwall]

Agree – responding to such an individual is a pointless waste of time; it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are no 'better' than the rights enshrined in the First – as both are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Disagree with regard to licensing as a comprehensive condition to firearm possession; licensing is appropriate on a voluntary basis, such as to carry a concealed weapon or to acquire firearms as a collector, but it is not justified as a general requirement in order to purchase, obtain, own, or possess a firearm.

Licensing requirements and associated fees are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, of course, where opposition to licensing requirements must be pursued through to political process until such time as the case law changes.

Licensing is required to drive a car, perform surgery, practice the law, etc. Why is it any different to require someone who wants to own a deadly weapon to obtain a license?

And not ONE of those activities is a Right. Not one. Licensing DESTROYS Rights. Which is no doubt why you desire it so much. Individual Rights are anathema to a totalitarian such as yourself. We all know that.

Calm down, the 2nd is ambiguous. Poorly written and easy to comport to everybody's POV.

Here's some more food for thought.

General welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not ambiguous unless you don't understand the English Language. It is exceptionally clear, and is easy to understand. Were it not it would have been destroyed decades ago.

I understand rules and English very well, it comes with a U. degree from CAL, and a Master's from SFSU.

Here's some food for thought, for those of you who really want a thorough analysis and not my opinion or Westfall's.

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

Here's food for thought from a non biased POV.


"It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory.1 Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller2 confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars – that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment,3 an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts.4 Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription.5 Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense."

Annotated Constitution Prototype

 

[westwall]

Ummm, nope. You're wrong. A good friend of mine who at the time was an Alameda County Deputy was walking out of a shop on patrol, in uniform, when he got coldcocked by a guy he put in prison. The man broke my friends jaw and thought he had him. Unfortunately for him my friend is one tough SOB and he was able to subdue the perp. The perp had just assaulted a peace officer, was a felon, and was carrying a gun, while on probation.

He should have been immediately violated back to prison for 9 years based on the assault on a peace officer charge. He was released the next day so your assertion is absolute bullshit. Feel free to ask me the name of the SO involved privately and I will give it to you so you can look up the case.

XXXX happens, but I wonder if the over crowding at Santa Rita created the situation?

The perp should have had a probation hold placed on him, which would have prevented the SO from releasing the jerk on bail or OR. If on parole he would have also had a hold put on him and most likely scheduled for a Morrissey Hearing, required to violate parole and return the parolee to finish his term.

Due process prevents an immediate return to prison, but the perp could and should have been held for the minimum 48 hours of judicial time and the DA should have then prepared the complaint/information allowing the court to hold the jerk by denying or setting a very high bail.

I know of situations where inmates were released because they had the same or a similar name to someone else with a release order.

The facts as you laid out would never have allowed for a release had people done their jobs, but people screw up and one data point does not make your case.

This happened before Santa Rita got overbooked. No, this is not people not doing their jobs. This is a systemic failure of the GOVERNMENT to do its job. I remember when the gangbanger from Richmond shot up the County Fair in P town. IIRC 16 people were hit and the DA decided that Assault with a Deadly Weapon was all that was warranted. There was massive uproar and he finally upped the charges to attempted murder but only because there were gangbangers as targets.

I wrote a letter to the Oakland Trib castigating the DA for basically saying that the gangbangers were higher valued citizens than the regular people based on his decision. The guy is a flaming asshole. I really ripped into him. I have friends who were ADA's at the time and they couldn't believe what he was doing to the department.

So no, it is systemic, and it is your fault (among others) for supporting that sort of idiocy.

I'm not arguing that systemic failures of government don't exist, but more of that below. I posted a response to a singular incident you reported upon and what might might have explained the outcome which enraged you.

You offer no explanation other than Government bad; not one idea on how to make government work more effectively. That's something I thought about often and worked on during my 32-year career in LE.

It's so easy to be a Monday morning QB, and whine "ain't it awful", but none of that works to create change.

No, it is not ONE incident. It is systemic across all of Alameda County and hell the rest of the Bay Area. Wherever government is very powerful it is likewise grossly incompetent when it comes to actual protection of the civilian population. They go out of their way to ensure that violent felons are continuously on the street. All the while going after the middle class sods who do something stupid but not violent.

I have many, many friends in the law enforcement community but I have a very low opinion of the judicial system which is a failure in virtually every aspect.

Well thanks for sharing you opinion, my experience suggests your opinions are wrong.

What experience? You have not presented anything here that refutes MY experience with the legal system in the Bay Area. I am happy to bring in any of the ADA's you wish, Glen Duren is a very good friend of mine and has been for decades. He is now retired but was a ADA in Alameda Country for decades. I would hazard a bet that his experience is far more substantial than yours.

 

[Abatis]

First, that's not how it works in CA. . . .

Well, #1, I'm not talking about what happens after people get a felony conviction; I'm talking about pre-trial / no trial programs that see felonies reduced and convictions eliminated upon completion of probations. I'm talking about the process before the case comes before a judge for sentencing.

I'm glad to hear that Cali is so efficient that it has no issue with recidivism.

 

[Abatis]

The people themselves are that entity – they decide the laws and measures enacted to regulate firearms; and when the people err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those adversely effected are at liberty to seek relief in the courts, and have such measures invalidated in accordance with Constitutional jurisprudence and the rule of law.

Except as we have seen for CCW, the person given the power to deny or approve is often an unelected police chief, a political appointee, who's personal prejudices (or the political agenda of the politician who put him in) influence who shall be granted a license.

 

[Abatis]

This fails as a straw man fallacy, as it is in fact a lie – the problem is most on the right refuse to take any meaningful action at all to address the issue of gun violence, most refuse to seek out common ground, and to find actual solutions separate and apart from partisan politics; indeed, the problem is that most on the right have sought to contrive 'guns' into a political issue.

No, it's true and we only need to look at the last go-round in Congress post Newtown. Republicans were shut out of the process but for Toomey. Gun owners (and their evil instrumentality the NRA) were depicted as the primary perpetrators of the suffering of the victim's families (if not the direct cause of it).

And please, never forget that there are plenty of politicians with (D) after their name that vote against gun control because their constituents are pro-gun rights.

 

[Abatis]

The criminal justice system is not 'liberal,' and the notion of 'hug-a-thug' is as moronic as it is racist.

LOL

As a resident of Philadelphia for nearly 30 years I know what a hug-a-thug justice system is and the utter devastation decades of liberal rule can wreak on a city (in multiple areas of public "service", not just justice).

 

[Abatis]

There is NO principle of conferred powers in COTUS, it is an opinion which has no force of law..

At this point you should be dismissed as a competent voice to discuss anything to do with the Constitution, rights and the law.