Twenty-odd years ago, when Minnesota and the nation were in the midst of the worst wave of violent crime since the Depression, quite a few jurisdictions – working with groups like the NRA – actually did something useful; they passed a raft of laws enhancing the penalties for using a gun in a crime.
The laws have had an effect; they are certainly part of the reason violent and gun crime dropped 50% in 20 years.
But in Minnesota, we have a congenital problem; our metro area legislators, courts and other jurisdictions just don’t like sentencing people. It was said that three consecutive Ramsey County attorneys – Tom Foley, Sue Gaertner and John Choi – between them never once actually used those sentence enhancements, dealing them away on plea bargains every single time they had the opportunity.
And the pattern continues,
Earlier this year, we featured the story of a Good Guy with a Gun – an employee at a cell phone store who shot a robber with his permitted handgun. The robber – once he got out of the hospitals – drew a raft of charges. His accomplice should have as well.
Earlier this week, what do you suppose happened?
Charges have been dropped against a 32-year-old man who was a suspect in connection to an armed robbery at a Verizon Wireless retailer in Inver Grove Heights, according to court records.
Records show Jamaal Marquie had three charges dropped, including aggravated first-degree robbery, possession of a firearm by an ineligible person and possession of a firearm with a serial number removed.
Nothing new here; we’ve previously encountered metro-area prosecutors bending over backwards to avoid using enhanced gun sentencing.
Is it laziness? Sloth? Or not wanting to confirm the NRA’s line for it?
It was said that three consecutive Ramsey County attorneys – Tom Foley, Sue Gaertner and John Choi – between them never once actually used those sentence enhancements, dealing them away on plea bargains every single time they had the opportunity.
Even for defendants of pallor?
Emery and Penny;
Please make sure that you pay particular attention to paragraph 3. Re-read it until it sinks in.
That same crap is going on all over the country, perpetrated by hypocritical left wing prosecutors. In turn, the useless Attorneys General, ala Lori Swanson, tacitly approve of the behavior. It’s more important to her highness to sue President Trump for exercising the powers granted him by congress, than put away a career criminal that used a gun during a crime.
Dems are more responsible for these gun incidents than the NRA.
Booshoo, you, like SOOO many GOPers, love to demonize your political opponents with absurd claims so that you can blame THEM for the bad things in society rather than the criminals. It makes you look pretty foolish. Criminality happens in other countries and at rates in peerage with the US except for gun crimes. In states and areas with more restrictive gun laws, the rates of gun crimes are LOWER. Mitch made a point with which I agree, namely that tough punishment for those who commit gun crimes has had some, albeit small, positive effect. There were MANY other laws put in place and the effect of the end of the crack wars due much to some pretty stiff sentencing for drug traffickers undoubtedly had much greater effect, but those laws punishing those who misuse guns were effective too. Which creates a question, why do GOPers oppose laws preventing gun ownership (and so the higher potential of misuse by) the mentally unstable or those accused credibly of domestic violence?
Incidentally Booshoo, what is the rate of gun crime in Minnesota vs. Alabama? So, I guess Lori Swanson’s “condoning” isn’t very effective (and by the way, that’s an absurd and profoundly ugly and disgusting comment, pretty common for rightwingers, but if you want to know why people don’t want to try to find solutions by talking to people like you, you need only look at this kind of crappola).
But, thanks for turning the debate into something it isn’t.
The NRA is an effective lobby. So is the Sierra Club. So what.
Competent leadership, a reasonably popular cause — and lots and lots of money — will allow any lobby to be effective in today’s Washington. The NRA has excellent leadership, a reasonably popular cause — and lots and lots of money. The “other side” has wearisome scolds like WaPo and the NYT, an insufferable sense of self-righteousness and a propensity to drag Trump into what is, after all, a local constabulary matter.
The mechanical remedy to the worst of these mass shootings is easily legislated and will not harm the innocent sportsman or target-shooter in the least. As for the NRA, it is doing what a lobby is supposed to do.
Democrats had an opportunity in 1996 to deal with the so-called assault gun problem and Feinstein blew it by drafting a bill so inept and ineffective that it might as well have been drafted by the NRA. Senatorial incompetence, liberal incompetence in this instance, must bear a great deal of the burden of what happened in Texas.
These shootings now occur with a sickening regularity. In order to save editorial time, why not just run an intro that announces:
“Another Mass Shooting in America: Be Prepared for Another Pointless Scolding”.
In states and areas with more restrictive gun laws, the rates of gun crimes are LOWER
Right on cue with a lie. Can you spell C-H-I-C-A-G-O, insufferable fool? Geez, enough with the Goebbels principle.
Senatorial incompetence, liberal incompetence in this instance, must bear a great deal of the burden of what happened in Texas.
And as penny, eTASS-BFL-SPM is right no cure with his deflection and misdirection of the facts. Really? I do not see any mention in yet another of your tl;dr screed about the incompetence of the system to properly record and identify evildoer in question as somebody to whom a firearm was not allowed to be sold? Not those mechanics? Why don’t we try enforcing and closing loopholes in existing laws to see what happens? But then that would be destroying the narrative of disarming the populace and turning them into sheep for the elites of your choosing to lord over. To turn all of us into slaves and chattel. Well, I for one, lan astaslem.
Emery,
I don’t agree, Feinstein was in a box devised by many areas, including the NRA, seeking to make the ban narrow enough to protect some sacred cows. It was a first attempt, and far from perfect, much like Sarsbannes-Oxley was far from perfect. The point is, there were LOTS of GOPers trying to create a useless law and they succeeded in adding things (along with others) which made the ban spurious. The Dems were at least trying to do the right thing, the GOP? Not so much. Saying the Dems are at fault is like blaming the fire department for not putting out the fire the GOP started.
I’m content with the CT ban –
“(1) “Large capacity magazine” means any firearm magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition, but does not include: (A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds of ammunition, (B) a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device, (C) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm, or (D) a magazine that is permanently inoperable;”
Well enough worded and it has withstood legal challenge.
Pat
We can argue gun control all we want, and I’ll gladly join in at times, but it strikes me that what we have here is a case where all parties theoretically agree that individuals ought to be prosecuted for a given set of crimes, involving guns, but for some reason, the charges are dropped despite there being video evidence of the perp’s involvement. I’m not a lawyer, but I’d have to guess that cases that are more “open and shut” to put the perp in the pen for a good long time are not that common.
OK, what’s up with that? Do we have to wait until the guy kills a prosecutor or cop before we actually bother to punish him? Pen, Emery, you wanna argue gun control? Answer me that, then. Why wasn’t the a-hole in Sutherland Springs on the no-buy list? Why wasn’t the a-hole who shot up a church in Columbia SC on the no-buy list? Answer; because we have the f-ing laws on the books, but we didn’t bother to enforce them.
And you guys want more laws? Seriously? What about we enforce some of the ones we already have instead, and see how it works out?
BB, because laws mean nothing to libturds. They only want to enforce the laws they want – see immigration. Hence the need to ignore current laws and try to sneak in laws only a libturd would be proud. All so they can selectively punish the sheeople they hate, as directed by their elite overlords.
bb, those are good questions and while I find jpa’s response appealing at an emotional level. Besides, it’s certainly not wrong.
I have been coming to some sort of realization that for leftists, laws are mostly important for their symbolic value. Sure, there might be some sort of effort to actually implement a law, especially if it’s easy and performed by “others” (age restrictions on cigarettes or use of cell phone while driving); but something that requires government bureaucrats to coordinate their efforts (do their jobs, as it were) to prevent felons from purchasing guns, well, that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.
I mean, think of the granddaddy of all leftists programs, the War on Poverty (leftists sure like them metaphorical wars). Trillions of dollars spent for what? Nothing has changed… no, that’s not true, as Walter Williams wrote: “The undeniable truth is that neither slavery nor Jim Crow nor the harshest racism has decimated the black family the way the welfare state has.” So, a new problem to be fixed and really, who cares about that when you’ve got 50 years of feeling good about “doing something” about poverty.
Aleister Crowley was supposed to have said that magic spells have to be “invoked often”. Spending money and creating new (but actually redundant) laws are all part of the bag of magic tricks for leftists. And when you point out the facts, the reaction you get is similar to that of the religious fanatic: what? you doubt?
Maybe we could find common ground if we could evaluate concrete proposals.
Those of you who advocate laws to prohibit Americans from owning certain firearms, a question: would a sane, adult with a clean record be allowed to own a gun like cops carry (9mm Glock 19 pistol with 15 round magazine)?
My proposal is a little more basic, Joe. If a government official does not do his job–fails to report felonies to the background check system, dismisses an open and shut case against a felon, waits an hour to show up after a report of an active shooter–that official loses his job, for cause. If someone is hurt or killed because a government official willfully did not do his job–as will probably be the case here–that official is liable for a portion of the criminal penalty for the crime.
Reprobate leftists love to demonize inanimate objects with absurd claims so that you can blame THEM for the bad things in society rather than the criminals. It makes you look pretty foolish.
Bwaaaahahahahahahahahaaaa!
“violent and gun crime dropped 50% in 20 years”
And Penigma and Emery want to “solve” this because … ?
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 11.10.2017 : The Other McCain
And in gun control paradise.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article183648586.html
Note that all the gun control laws did not prevent a convicted felon from obtaining an semi-automatic rifle AND high capacity magazine. Although the miscreant was sent to prison, also note that three other gun related charges were dismissed. What good are laws that are not enforced?
And in gun control paradise.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article183648586.html
Note that all the gun control laws did not prevent a convicted felon from obtaining an semi-automatic rifle AND high capacity magazine. Although the miscreant was sent to prison, also note that three other gun related charges were dismissed. What good are laws that are not enforced?
JayDee, thanks for the link. I find myself wondering what a high powered magazine is, myself. Evidently the legis-critters in Sacramento don’t bother actually learning the language before writing laws.