I guess you didn’t read my statement correctly. It says that ANY. Law enforcement officer CAN enforce federal laws. All law enforcement officers worth their salt upon the arrest of any subject will run a federal arrest warrant search. Some if these crimes can add years to sentencing and more importantly, garner the resources of the feds for adjudication. The federal court prosecutors run at a 90% conviction rate, much higher then local county courts. Criminals know this stuff...more then you it seems....or else you would stop making diversions.
What about them? Local, state and federal laws need to be Constitutional, effective enforceable and would be enforced. You act like you've discovered some big secret.
Another BS diversion. Sure, that was a machine gun ? . Any one can saw a barrel off. The perp can make his own sawed off shot gun. Dah. Not everyone can find a supplier of the necessary parts to convert a weapon to full auto, when not only the buyer but the supplier is breaking a federal law of a court system with a 90% conviction rate.
Yada Yada..same old BS. You still don’t know how each can be enforced do you ? You guys pretend they are all the same. No well informed .
[ But it's not "any". Local law enforcement can be specifically forbidden by their employers to enforce some federal laws, hence the existence of sanctuary cities. Local and state officers can also elect not to enforce federal law. It's not mandatory, and for laws considered unconstitutional they may feel that they have an obligation to do so. Conviction rates mean nothing, as that only measures the cases that actually go to court - the ones that the prosecuting attorney think that they can win. It's been a federal felony since 1993 or earlier for a prohibited person to lie on the Form 4473. It's a lead pipe cinch that they'll be caught, as the authorities have their name, address, and signature on a document proving their guilt. In 2010, 34,000 felons were found to have committed that felony. About 4k were investigate. Less than 100 were prosecuted. Only 10 were convicted. Is that conviction rate 10/90 or 10/34,000?
You were referring to the effectiveness of the laws that restricted machine guns. That's NFA 1934. How effective is that very same law on sawed off shotguns? Doesn't the same logic about getting caught apply?
Edit: NFA 1934 didn't do much about the machine guns used in the cocaine wars, did it? https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...bfbd055/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6f18e3f5e10e
It does not matter if mandatory background checks apply at the federal level, or the state level. Neither version is enforceable unless each and every single firearm is registered to an individual owner, meaning that it can actually be tracked if the serial number is ever run by law enforcement. As it is currently in the united states, a firearm can change hands twenty, thirty, or even a hundred times, and it is impossible to know for certain who owned it, or used it for what, before it was moved onto someone else. Except for the fact that such is not the case, as straw purchases are committed regularly in the united states, despite such being a federal offense. Then why are the currently existing federal level firearm-related restrictions, pertaining to firearms trafficking, defacing serial numbers, possession of a firearm by prohibited individuals, and countless others, simply going unenforced and ignored? Explain such. These laws apply nationwide, from one coast to the other, covering every single square inch of united states soil. So why do they go unenforced? Why does the united states have so many federal-level restrictions on firearms that they simply do not bother to use?
It's been a federal offense to be a felon in possession of a firearm for decades. Give that it's a federal law and that high conviction rate, there shouldn't be a felon with a gun in the whole country. Edit: Major goalpost shift in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Local law enforcement officers in the united states have wide discretion in choosing which laws to enforce, and which to not. There is nothing stopping them, nothing whatsoever, from simply not enforcing federal-level laws. If they choose not to pursue an arrest for a felon in possession of a firearm, or a firearm acquired without a background check in a private transaction, there is nothing than can be done about such.
You are FOS. Law enforcement officers are duty bound to enforce the laws prescribed by the agency they work for as far as federal laws are concerned. They don’t make enforcement decisions on the fly. They’re subject to any liability that covers their negligence. Like most federal warrants, he may NOT know there was a federal offense until he ran a warrants check. They do what they are instructed or they lose their job. They don’t prosecute. That’s up to the local DA. I’ll assume you made that statement from an NRA brochure. If for example, he heard or received information of automatic weapons fire, he might not enforce it himself but would turn the info over to the nearest federal resource office.
Ever get a warning instead of a ticket? Why do sanctuary cities exist? Why don't cops arrest their snitches instead of trading freedom for information?
We’re talking about federal law enforcement and you’re doing a schill job with traffic tickets ? Sanctuary city enforcement procedures are described by the employment agency ( city, state or county) who would instruct their officers through the chief on what to do and what information to ask of a complainant. That seems rather obvious. Do you want everyone with an accent arrested, or harassed for calling in a robbery ?
No, we're talking about local law enforcement enforcing local laws. How well is federal law enforcement enforcing the federal law against felons in possession? According to you, that's all we need to keep them from having a gun. We should be safe, then.
" ANYONE else who believes in scientific research, education and the law knows better FEDERAL GUN REGS are needed and they work like they work in every country and state that has them.." This is a pretty unequivocal statement. I ask again. Why do we still have felons in possession? Didn't that become a federal felony in 1968?
As a former federal LEO who worked with local LEOs regularly... I find myself questioning assertions on those responsibilities made by certain people.
Irrelevant. Such does not render the position of myself factually incorrect. They are not. Indeed they do. Indeed they are not. The above claim is devoid of fact, indicating a lack of basic understanding pertaining to how the law in the united states works. The fact that such must be pointed out to yourself, by one who may or may not reside in a foreign nation is nothing but a statement for the poor qualify of the education system in the united states.
First the argument presented on the part of yourself pertained to local law enforcement officers being tasked with enforcing federal-level restrictions. Now the argument presented on the part of yourself has intentionally shifted to federal-level law enforcement officers, when it was pointed out that state and local law enforcement officers can indeed legally refrain from enforcing laws at their own discretion. The lack of consistency on the part of yourself has indeed been noted.
You obviously have never served in Law Enforcement at any level. You simply have no understanding at all.
If you believe that about my background, you’d be wrong again. The individual law enforcement officer can get into a lot of trouble by deviating from the directives of his employment agency in this day of body cams. Only people outside of law enforcement think cops are freewheeling decision making entities. And, if you want to whine and complain about sanctuary cities, go to the mayor and the city council, not the police force.
I have to admit I am thankful I was out of law enforcement before the bodycam thing got going. Frankly, the whole cellphone cam thing has made being a cop a whole lot harder. I still remember talking to my grandfather, who had been a cop for 40 years; he was talking about how if the world when he'd first put on the uniform had been the same as the world when he got out, he probably would not have been a cop. A number of friends of mine are burned out and taking early retirement rather than continue to serve in the current political environment. It was a hard decision for me to walk away from it, but I could see the way things were changing, and realized that law enforcement was on a path to becoming untenable as a viable career.
None of which has any relevance to what is being discussed. Law enforcement officers routinely decide which laws they will enforce, which they will not enforce, and how they will go about carrying out that enforcement.
I have made no such statements, and it still is true, your lack of understanding of law enforcement at Federal, State, and Municipal levels proves you have never served.
