4 ms·

It really puzzles me why existing gun laws that everyone agrees on aren't enforced. How are there so many repeat offenders that are violent with guns? It seem

It really puzzles me why existing gun laws that everyone agrees on aren't enforced. How are there so many repeat offenders that are violent with guns? It seems to be some kind of trend to make guns a white-collar crime or something. Like, if you don't file the right paperwork before loaning someone a pistol at the range, then it's a crime; but if you mug someone its the gun's fault.

duped 4y ago
Because Republicans refuse to fund or empower any law enforcement agency to enforce the law or study how well they're enforcing it and the impacts of it, at least at the federal level. The gun problem is synonymous with the Republican problem.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  I'm an independent, I've only ever voted for Democratic candidates, etc. Because blaming Republicans is just a canned argument at this point, can you unpack the mechanism a bit more? Are Democrats trying really hard to fund ATF, FBI, etc and Republicans are blocking it? Can you substantiate this claim with examples? I don't necessarily doubt it, but without substance this just reads like vapid flamebait.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    All they'd have to do is fund the prosecutors since they currently only prosecute like 3% of the known gun crimes federally. Semi-sarcastically, defunding the ATF might actually help (see Ruby Ridge, Waco, walking guns at the border, full autos stolen from ATF agents, etc). If you know anyone who has worked with federal LE, ATF and DEA will typically show up at the top of their "cowboy" list.
- chmod600 4y ago
  How do Republicans take the blame for Chicago or other revolving-door blue jurisdictions?
- braincat31415 4y ago
  I don't see it this way. You just have to see what criminals get away with in Chicago. There is almost no prosecution of gun crimes. People get laughable sentences or none at all.
robonerd 4y ago
> It really puzzles me why existing gun laws that everyone agrees on aren't enforced. Ask people if they want gun laws enforced, and they say yes. Ask people if they like it when prosecutors charge a guy with 30 crimes for committing one act of armed robbery, and many start singing a different tune.
- parineum 4y ago
  This conversation started from straw purchases though. I think what people get annoyed with is that, when someone is charged with a crime, the most serious crime involved often _requires_ other crimes to be committed in process so, by charging for necessary precursors to crime, you're effectively just increasing the penalty for the main crime. In this case though, straw purchases _are_ the main crime and there is a real lack of enforcement for that particular crime.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > I think what people get annoyed with is that, when someone is charged with a crime, the most serious crime involved often _requires_ other crimes to be committed in process so, by charging for necessary precursors to crime, you're effectively just increasing the penalty for the main crime. Such a subcrime would be a "lesser included offense"; you can charge for both offenses, but you can't get a conviction on both of them at once.
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      That's not quite correct. A lesser included offense (LIO) must have a strict subset of elements of the greater offense and/or a less culpable mens rea. For example, possession of cocaine is an LIO of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; homicide by reckless and wanton disregard of human life (felony murder/third degree murder) is an LIO of homicide by malice aforethought (premeditated murder/capital murder/first degree murder). In other words, LIOs are those offenses which are logically necessary to commit the larger offense. Charging both an offense and its LIOs is what, in our jurisdiction, we call multiplicity. What this discussion touches on is not multiplicity but unreasonable multiplication of charges (at least in my jurisdiction we call it that). The test here is not the logical question of whether one necessitates the other by definition; it's the factual question of whether the offenses are part of substantially the same transaction. For example, a prosecutor might charge perjury, fraud, and larceny, wrt someone swearing to some materially false fact and fraudulently obtaining someone else's property with intent to permanently deprive them of it. These three offenses are not subsets of one another, but are closely related; it isn't logically necessary to commit perjury to commit fraud, in the abstract, but in a particular case that might be the mechanism by which one commits fraud. In my jurisdiction, UMC charges can stay on the charge sheet (perhaps the jury finds guilt on one but not all?) but, if convicted of more than one, they are merged for sentencing.
corey_moncure 4y ago
Because they will be found unconstitutional if challenged; the finesse is in getting the laws to stay on the books to have what effect they can, and to appease the voters who support those laws, while avoiding enforcement situations that would result in a direct challenge. It's the cat and mouse game that goes on between the branches of government. Also see why some gun laws are written in an extremely obfuscated and convoluted manner, for example the law that became a point of contention in State v. Rittenhouse.
- dfxm12 4y ago
  Because they will be found unconstitutional if challenged Abramski v. United States suggests that SCOTUS recognizes that straw purchases are illegal. Although, I guess the current SCOTUS isn't above ignoring precedent that is popular with the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States
  - quxbar 4y ago
    Yeah, the court has proven precedent is entirely a matter of simple majority.
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    > Although, I guess the current SCOTUS isn't above ignoring precedent that is popular with the people. I assume you are referring to roe v wade, which is a case of where the precedent was wrong ín the first place (Abortion was pretty much banned everywhere in common law, so there was no precedent of it being an unenumerated right, for example) and was kept as a precedent because it was a precedent (ignoring the lack of underlying constitutionality)
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      > which is a case of where the precedent was wrong Isn't this always the court's opinion when it overturns precedent?

duped 4y ago

Because Republicans refuse to fund or empower any law enforcement agency to enforce the law or study how well they're enforcing it and the impacts of it, at least at the federal level. The gun problem is synonymous with the Republican problem.

throwaway894345 4y ago
I'm an independent, I've only ever voted for Democratic candidates, etc. Because blaming Republicans is just a canned argument at this point, can you unpack the mechanism a bit more? Are Democrats trying really hard to fund ATF, FBI, etc and Republicans are blocking it? Can you substantiate this claim with examples? I don't necessarily doubt it, but without substance this just reads like vapid flamebait.
- giantg2 4y ago
  All they'd have to do is fund the prosecutors since they currently only prosecute like 3% of the known gun crimes federally. Semi-sarcastically, defunding the ATF might actually help (see Ruby Ridge, Waco, walking guns at the border, full autos stolen from ATF agents, etc). If you know anyone who has worked with federal LE, ATF and DEA will typically show up at the top of their "cowboy" list.
chmod600 4y ago
How do Republicans take the blame for Chicago or other revolving-door blue jurisdictions?
braincat31415 4y ago
I don't see it this way. You just have to see what criminals get away with in Chicago. There is almost no prosecution of gun crimes. People get laughable sentences or none at all.

robonerd 4y ago

> It really puzzles me why existing gun laws that everyone agrees on aren't enforced. Ask people if they want gun laws enforced, and they say yes. Ask people if they like it when prosecutors charge a guy with 30 crimes for committing one act of armed robbery, and many start singing a different tune.

parineum 4y ago
This conversation started from straw purchases though. I think what people get annoyed with is that, when someone is charged with a crime, the most serious crime involved often _requires_ other crimes to be committed in process so, by charging for necessary precursors to crime, you're effectively just increasing the penalty for the main crime. In this case though, straw purchases _are_ the main crime and there is a real lack of enforcement for that particular crime.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > I think what people get annoyed with is that, when someone is charged with a crime, the most serious crime involved often _requires_ other crimes to be committed in process so, by charging for necessary precursors to crime, you're effectively just increasing the penalty for the main crime. Such a subcrime would be a "lesser included offense"; you can charge for both offenses, but you can't get a conviction on both of them at once.
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    That's not quite correct. A lesser included offense (LIO) must have a strict subset of elements of the greater offense and/or a less culpable mens rea. For example, possession of cocaine is an LIO of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; homicide by reckless and wanton disregard of human life (felony murder/third degree murder) is an LIO of homicide by malice aforethought (premeditated murder/capital murder/first degree murder). In other words, LIOs are those offenses which are logically necessary to commit the larger offense. Charging both an offense and its LIOs is what, in our jurisdiction, we call multiplicity. What this discussion touches on is not multiplicity but unreasonable multiplication of charges (at least in my jurisdiction we call it that). The test here is not the logical question of whether one necessitates the other by definition; it's the factual question of whether the offenses are part of substantially the same transaction. For example, a prosecutor might charge perjury, fraud, and larceny, wrt someone swearing to some materially false fact and fraudulently obtaining someone else's property with intent to permanently deprive them of it. These three offenses are not subsets of one another, but are closely related; it isn't logically necessary to commit perjury to commit fraud, in the abstract, but in a particular case that might be the mechanism by which one commits fraud. In my jurisdiction, UMC charges can stay on the charge sheet (perhaps the jury finds guilt on one but not all?) but, if convicted of more than one, they are merged for sentencing.

corey_moncure 4y ago

Because they will be found unconstitutional if challenged; the finesse is in getting the laws to stay on the books to have what effect they can, and to appease the voters who support those laws, while avoiding enforcement situations that would result in a direct challenge. It's the cat and mouse game that goes on between the branches of government. Also see why some gun laws are written in an extremely obfuscated and convoluted manner, for example the law that became a point of contention in State v. Rittenhouse.

dfxm12 4y ago
Because they will be found unconstitutional if challenged Abramski v. United States suggests that SCOTUS recognizes that straw purchases are illegal. Although, I guess the current SCOTUS isn't above ignoring precedent that is popular with the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States
- quxbar 4y ago
  Yeah, the court has proven precedent is entirely a matter of simple majority.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  > Although, I guess the current SCOTUS isn't above ignoring precedent that is popular with the people. I assume you are referring to roe v wade, which is a case of where the precedent was wrong ín the first place (Abortion was pretty much banned everywhere in common law, so there was no precedent of it being an unenumerated right, for example) and was kept as a precedent because it was a precedent (ignoring the lack of underlying constitutionality)
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    > which is a case of where the precedent was wrong Isn't this always the court's opinion when it overturns precedent?