How So Many Violent Felons Are Allowed to Keep Their Illegal Guns

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/gun-seizures-felons-abusers.html

For a long time responsible firearms owners have argued that before we talk about making anymore laws to control firearms, how about we do better at enforcing the ones that are already on the books. The NYT points that out very well, but I doubt you will here this opinion widely stated by the gun control crowds.

 

The laws are on the books, over 10,000 federal and state laws regarding guns. Enforcement is left to the FBI NICS and judges who can order guns to be confiscated if they are owned illegally.
Working off the premise that literally anybody can obtain an illegal firearm,
Plea bargains and weak judges abound and have let thousands fall through the cracks.
In my world, if a crime is committed with a firearm, there should be a mandatory sentence applied before any additional sentence is given with no leeway from a judge.

 

Not only should the owner be licensed every weapon they own should require a license to the individual owner.The higher the capacity and killing potential the higher the license fees.

 

You know the gun that kills the most people is a simple revolver.

If you are going by numbers that has the highest potential.

Gotta love the liberal thought process.

 

Do you think civilians should be allowed to own assault clips?

 

Governor Newsom greatly increased the budget to confiscate weapons from felons\ mentally ill.

 

Translation: Look how little I understand the issue.

 

Actually revolvers and semi auto pistols. And yes both should be regulated the most

 

Well at least that may actually make a difference in gun deaths.

Regulating assault weapons won't do a thing.

Those hardly kill anyone but they sure do look scary don't they?

 

i believe the reports from the FBI allege the 9mm pistol is the favorite used by killers.

But if one is a democrat, they persist in blaming the machine and not the human.

When they blame the human, we can finally get around to learning what human must be targeted and stop targeting any and all humans over the very few.

 

Now all he has do to is redefine mental illness

 

Why not regulate stop lights the same way you do to guns? Do you understand? Say the vehicle looks fast, then force it to stop and allow the slow looking vehicle to keep moving forward. Think this is silly? So are background checks.

 

Not to me. I like them


You are scared by them? Too bad

 

Possibly but last time I checked the Smith & Wesson 6 shot revolver was responsible for the majority of deaths in the US whether they were accidents or murder or suicide, it was an overall statistic.

 

Thank you for your opinion

 

I don't like guns but not because I think they are scary.

They are dirty and stinky.

I prefer to ensure that others can carry their weapons so they can protect me if I ever need it, I don't plan on carrying one.

 

Yes. Here people call that avoidance of personal responsibility

 

unconstitutional
you aren't allowed to pass a law that gives an undue burden on someone exercising a right

 

Interesting. 2nd post in this thread not counting mine and someone is calling for new laws and regulations when the article clearly points out the failings of the ones we have.

 

Any suggestions?

 

I'm fine with that

 

Firearms are already licensed in many places and that has not been deemed unconstitutional

 

I know you are

 

To explain CA to most of you let me give you a true example.

Take the former wife who got angry. She decided to punish the ex husband by seeking an order to restrain him. He is not aware she is doing this until the day he is served legal papers. Not he has not called her on the phone to threaten her life. He had told her he was quitting dating her. He told her he believes her purpose to date him is to eat fine dinners and be entertained while evading ever wanting to remarry him. He dated her again thinking they would remarry. When he called her, he told her it was over. IT was later she retaliated.

Judge has him before her and issues a very strange restraining order. She calls the hearing very strange. But to be on the safe side, she issues a 1 year order instead of the customary 3 year order.

That ended all legal proceedings and cost the former husband $5,000 in legal costs.

The court told him to give up all guns. He visits the police station who tells him they have no way to collect guns and store them for him. So he gives his guns to a friend. When time is up, he gets back his guns. Over time he sells off all but one gun. Actually he sold guns he inherited.

The wife was simply vindictive. The Judge appeared to realize it.

Never did the law ever seek to find out what happened to the guns.

Why did the husband spend $5,000 to defend his good name?
His child. He wanted the child to feel safe and to understand her mothers lying.

A step son told him later that his mother was a habitual liar and he never believed her.

Men get damaged by women. A lot of women are honest. But those who are not honest do a hell of a lot of damage. This was over guns.

 

Yes. Do not infringe on the rights of those who are not a danger to themselves or others. My father in law is a Vietnam vet and has a mental illness (PTSD) He is not even close to being dangerous. Should his second amendment rights be infringed on?