Why can't we propose our own gun control laws?

[Stupid]

Why can't we propose some real gun control laws?

- A person, who commits a felony involving a firearm or a high capacity magazine, would receive mandatory 25 years without parole.

- A person, who commits a first degree murder involving a firearm or a high capacity magazine, would receive mandatory life sentence without parole.

- A convicted felony, who ever touches or in possession a firearm or a high capacity magazine, receives mandatory 25 years without parole.

"Involving" means if a gun or a magazine is present with or without the knowledge of criminal.

[jayinsat]

[Teamless]

while I like a stricter, no bull law, I do not like the High-Capacity Magazine notation, read below and you would understand.
First, - what is a high capacity magazine? Anything over 10 rounds? 15 rounds, etc.

Second, I am driving my car and have a friend whom I have known for 10 years with me.

I get pulled over for a tail-light out, come to find out, he, unknown to me, has a rap sheet, is on parole, or whatever, the cop searches him and the car due to some PC.

My friend had put his stash of cocaine, which I had no knowledge of, under the seat, and now it is in my car, so my possession.

I have my M&P9 with 17 rounds on my hip, and if that is over the high capacity limit, I am now mandatory 25 years, because the gun was on me, even if it was not used in the commission of a crime.
Now, if I only had my SW Bodyguard 380 in my pocket, with 6 round magazine, there would be no gun violation.

This is why I do not like High-Capacity limits on magazines.
Especially when we all know, if I have 1 17 round mag, or 2 10 round mags, the only time savings for the innocents is the mag change, so they have been spared 10 seconds,before I can then discharge another 10 rounds in 3 seconds.

Oh and what does the criminal care if he has a high-capacity magazine, he is a criminal. ONLY law abiding citizens are going to be sure they are not breaking any laws.

The magazine is not criminal, the person who commits the crime is, so I do not want to be penalized for being a good guy.

[txmatt]

We have laws along these lines, and the result is people serving very long sentences for non-violent crimes because there was a gun somewhere.

If someone uses a gun in the furtherence of a crime, by all means, throw the book at them. However, the mere presence of a firearm, particularly as you say, without the knowledge of the person commiting the crime, in and of itself should not warrant 25 year automatic sentences, IMHO.

[G.A. Heath]

I don't think that we should have a more serious penalty for a crime because of the presence of a specific tool (firearm). Any penalty for a crime should consider the crime itself, if any tool (meaning weapon in this case: Firearm, Knife, Club, ect.) was used, if the crime was premeditated, and if the actor was mentally competent. To say that a mugging is more serious because a criminal had a firearm with a 15 round magazine instead of a knife or 10 round magazine in the same weapon is irrational.

[gringo pistolero]

I think it's disgusting to suggest a savage who beats someone to death with their bare hands should get a lighter sentence because they didn't use a gun.

[Stupid]

I don't think that we should have a more serious penalty for a crime because of the presence of a specific tool (firearm). Any penalty for a crime should consider the crime itself, if any tool (meaning weapon in this case: Firearm, Knife, Club, ect.) was used, if the crime was premeditated, and if the actor was mentally competent. To say that a mugging is more serious because a criminal had a firearm with a 15 round magazine instead of a knife or 10 round magazine in the same weapon is irrational.

Convicted criminals need to distance themselves from guns.

[Stupid]

while I like a stricter, no bull law, I do not like the High-Capacity Magazine notation, read below and you would understand.
First, - what is a high capacity magazine? Anything over 10 rounds? 15 rounds, etc.

Second, I am driving my car and have a friend whom I have known for 10 years with me.

I get pulled over for a tail-light out, come to find out, he, unknown to me, has a rap sheet, is on parole, or whatever, the cop searches him and the car due to some PC.

My friend had put his stash of cocaine, which I had no knowledge of, under the seat, and now it is in my car, so my possession.

I have my M&P9 with 17 rounds on my hip, and if that is over the high capacity limit, I am now mandatory 25 years, because the gun was on me, even if it was not used in the commission of a crime.
Now, if I only had my SW Bodyguard 380 in my pocket, with 6 round magazine, there would be no gun violation.

This is why I do not like High-Capacity limits on magazines.
Especially when we all know, if I have 1 17 round mag, or 2 10 round mags, the only time savings for the innocents is the mag change, so they have been spared 10 seconds,before I can then discharge another 10 rounds in 3 seconds.

Oh and what does the criminal care if he has a high-capacity magazine, he is a criminal. ONLY law abiding citizens are going to be sure they are not breaking any laws.

The magazine is not criminal, the person who commits the crime is, so I do not want to be penalized for being a good guy.

Firstly, you need to know your friends. If he stashes a bag of coke in your car, regardless who did it, it makes you a criminal as per today's law.

[Stupid]

My point is why can't we propose laws that actually are going to make a difference? Instead of letting those who don't care about us creating laws, maybe we should do something meaningful?

[gringo pistolero]

Convicted criminals need to distance themselves from guns.

I don't think there's much danger to society if somebody convicted of tax fraud or littering owns a gun. On the other hand, violent criminals are dangerous even if they don't have guns. The violent criminals need to be kept at a distance from good people. Exile for repeat offenders would be thousands of more times effective than misguided gun control.

[Stupid]

Convicted criminals need to distance themselves from guns.

I don't think there's much danger to society if somebody convicted of tax fraud or littering owns a gun. On the other hand, violent criminals are dangerous even if they don't have guns. The violent criminals need to be kept at a distance from good people. Exile for repeat offenders would be thousands of more times effective than misguided gun control.

Let's add exile in the law. I'll let the lefties to tune the proposal.

[Teamless]

Firstly, you need to know your friends. If he stashes a bag of coke in your car, regardless who did it, it makes you a criminal as per today's law

Precisely, but should I be sentenced to 25 years automatically for that?
No, and that is my concern

[MoJo]

There are already too many laws, enforce the ones already on the books and impose stiff sentences.

[G.A. Heath]

I don't think that we should have a more serious penalty for a crime because of the presence of a specific tool (firearm). Any penalty for a crime should consider the crime itself, if any tool (meaning weapon in this case: Firearm, Knife, Club, ect.) was used, if the crime was premeditated, and if the actor was mentally competent. To say that a mugging is more serious because a criminal had a firearm with a 15 round magazine instead of a knife or 10 round magazine in the same weapon is irrational.

Convicted criminals need to distance themselves from guns.

Ok, what about a convicted criminal who has served their time and applied to get what rights they can restored and have behaved for decades? Or what about someone who was convicted of a what collar crime and has never been violent? Not all convicted criminals are still bad guys, some have actually reformed and do good things.

It appears to me that you want to pass legislation so that we are doing something. So how about instead of deciding that an 11 round magazine makes an aggravated assault more vile than a 10 round magazine lets approach this in a more realistic manner.

First Lets identify what the problem is. Then lets look at what we can do in the short and long term to correct it. Then lets decide how we can proceed with correcting it w/o infringing on peoples rights. Finally lets proceed once we have Steps 1, 2, and 3 worked out and are good to go.

[Stupid]

I don't think that we should have a more serious penalty for a crime because of the presence of a specific tool (firearm). Any penalty for a crime should consider the crime itself, if any tool (meaning weapon in this case: Firearm, Knife, Club, ect.) was used, if the crime was premeditated, and if the actor was mentally competent. To say that a mugging is more serious because a criminal had a firearm with a 15 round magazine instead of a knife or 10 round magazine in the same weapon is irrational.

Convicted criminals need to distance themselves from guns.

Ok, what about a convicted criminal who has served their time and applied to get what rights they can restored and have behaved for decades? Or what about someone who was convicted of a what collar crime and has never been violent? Not all convicted criminals are still bad guys, some have actually reformed and do good things.

It appears to me that you want to pass legislation so that we are doing something. So how about instead of deciding that an 11 round magazine makes an aggravated assault more vile than a 10 round magazine lets approach this in a more realistic manner.

First Lets identify what the problem is. Then lets look at what we can do in the short and long term to correct it. Then lets decide how we can proceed with correcting it w/o infringing on peoples rights. Finally lets proceed once we have Steps 1, 2, and 3 worked out and are good to go.

That's too complicated and too rational. Let the lefties sort out the details. We just need to propose something outrageous and ridiculous but make it sound nice.

We should call the law "Mass Shooting Prevention Act" or "Gun Violence Reduction Act."

I just don't understand why we can't counteroffer our version of the law? Why do we have to be on defense?