Gun laws not enforced

[gbclarkson]

From another thread:

stop creating new laws until we start enforcing the ones on the books now.

I see or hear this contrary response, or a close variation thereof, fairly often when reactionary gun control legislation is proposed by a level of government. The mass shooting epidemic would mitigate itself if only current laws were enforced as intended, right? - so the logic implies.

My question is: which ones? Which specific existing laws, if correctly applied, would prevent criminal shootings, and are not being enforced? I asked myself this question and had no ideas. (For reference, I live in central Illinois). Do you have an example? I don't.

I, too, have accepted and repeated this claim in the past. I will not repeat again if I do not have at least one good example to support it.

Is this a valid argument?

 

[7.62 man]

From what I understand if you have a felony on your record you are not allowed to go into a gun store to look at guns much less try to buy one & gun shops always turn down people that have records trying to get guns all the time. Why don't they prosecute them for trying.

 

[capecuddy]

Laws that bump up prison sentences for felonies committed with guns. Gun possession contrary to current laws should involve convictions and imprisonment. These are two simple examples of a long list of possibilities. We have attorney generals and judges that duhhhh refuse to put any teeth in existing enforcement of laws. Gun control should be focused on illegal use of guns and crimes committed with them. They enforce against law abiding citizens because we lamely comply and that makes it easy for them. Doesn't solve anything but they can claim some bs.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Willman]

Mandatory prison time & fines for crimes committed with a firearm will immediately cut down on repeat offenders. Lying on the form 4473 - up to 10 years and $250,000 fine, if memory serves -even for those well connected persons. I'm sure there are more.

Bob
WB8NQW

 

[langenc]

Copied from above--
""From what I understand if you have a felony on your record you are not allowed to go into a gun store to look at guns much less try to buy one & gun shops always turn down people that have records trying to get guns all the time. Why don't they prosecute them for trying.""

Joe Biden said "we cant prosecute everyone who lies." Guess he had his son in mind.

In a recent year 12000 lied on 4473 and 17 were prosecuted.. go figure.

 

[Mainah]

stop creating new laws until we start enforcing the ones on the books now.

That was me. You live in Illinois, how do all of those guns end up in Chicago?

 

[RETG]

One figure that always surprised me was in 2017, there were approx 123,000 incidents of people caught lying on the 4473 form and only 12 were ever prosecuted.

It appears that is true today since I can think of one high profile case where the person most likely lied, but no investigation, so far, and most likely never, will happen. (No name mentioned but most should no who.)

Not enforcing fed laws on gun purchases is nothing new. Obama's years the number went down, but only due to they went up considerably during Bush's years; however, it was considerable raise as compared to Clinton.
There is just not enough AUSAs to handle all the cases.

However, we do not NEED more cause more will just add to the numbers not prosecuted.

 

[Mainah]

One figure that always surprised me was in 2017, there were approx 123,000 incidents of people caught lying on the 4473 form and only 12 were ever prosecuted.

At least half a dozen states have legalized marijuana since then, and we've had a massive spike in gun purchases.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I see or hear this contrary response, or a close variation thereof, fairly often when reactionary gun control legislation is proposed by a level of government. The mass shooting epidemic would mitigate itself if only current laws were enforced as intended, right? - so the logic implies.

...

I, too, have accepted and repeated this claim in the past. I will not repeat again if I do not have at least one good example to support it.

Just one example? Here ya go: the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooter. He had been convicted of domestic violence by an Air Force court martial. That made him a prohibited person, but the Air Force didn't report the conviction to NICS, so the guy was able to purchase firearms when he shouldn't have been able to.

You only asked for one, but here's a freebie: the shooter at the Parkland, Florida, school shooting.

 

[44 AMP]

My question is: which ones? Which specific existing laws, if correctly applied, would prevent criminal shootings, and are not being enforced?

You can start with all the laws that put criminals in prison and keep them there. Then add in the laws that are being enforced, and probably should not be.

Next add in the entire concept of plea bargaining.

Also, it might be helpful if one accepts and understands the fact that laws are not written to prevent anything. And, they never were. Religious "Commandments" are, laws are not. Laws require something to have happened (a crime) THEN they take effect.

IF the threat of punishment under the law convinces someone not to commit a crime, that is a bonus, a tertiary effect, not what the law is written to do, which is define and punish acts that have been done.

The other point of laws and punishment are to prevent/minimize repeat offences. Or, that was the original plan, anyway.

Putting people to death for serious crimes, or locking them up for the remainder of their natural lives does that. Long prison terms (which are actually served) tends to do that. Letting criminals out early does not. In fact, it promotes repeat offenses.

The "big news" mass shootings are mostly done by people without criminal histories. But, according to the news (and various "studies) those are less than 1% of the "gun violence" which is driving the crime rates. Many if not most of those crimes are being done by people who have some criminal history and often extensive criminal histories.

And those are the laws I think most people are referring to when they talk about enforcing existing law. They're talking about all the laws which should be putting criminals in jail and keeping them there, and sadly are not doing a good enough job, today.

 

[Tom Servo]

gun shops always turn down people that have records trying to get guns all the time. Why don't they prosecute them for trying.

I was in the gun business for nearly a decade. The first time I had a blatant attempted straw purchase, I pulled the camera footage, the form, and a copy of the buyer's driver's license. I called the ATF and was told it was a matter for my local sheriff. I called my local sheriff and they told me it was the ATF's problem. I documented everything and started a file.

This happened several times, and I kept the file in case I needed it. In none of these cases did local law enforcement or the ATF show any interest, nor did they ever follow up.

When they do bust someone for illegal possession, the straw purchase charge is usually dropped because it's apparently hard to prosecute. If you want to make your local DA squirm, ask him how many people they've prosecuted for it.

Mandatory prison time & fines for crimes committed with a firearm will immediately cut down on repeat offenders.

We had that for a bit. It was called Project Exile. The program got attention because it was the first time the Brady Campaign and the NRA actually agreed on something. It was first implemented in Richmond and it was a measurable success. Then people complained about the budget and prison space, and it was quietly discontinued.

Here ya go: the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooter.

Heck, almost all of them. The Columbine kids were on the radar with Jefferson County. In fact, there was a search warrant for one of the shooters' houses, and it had been sitting on the DA's desk for two weeks when that incident happened.

The Sandy Hook shooter had extensive problems with law enforcement, but that didn't come out until the Connecticut state patrol released their report a year later. By then, the media didn't care to report it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Here ya go: the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooter.

Heck, almost all of them. The Columbine kids were on the radar with Jefferson County. In fact, there was a search warrant for one of the shooters' houses, and it had been sitting on the DA's desk for two weeks when that incident happened.

The Sandy Hook shooter had extensive problems with law enforcement, but that didn't come out until the Connecticut state patrol released their report a year later. By then, the media didn't care to report it.

Sure, the Columbine kids, and the Sandy Hook shooter. But the Columbine kids weren't prohibited persons, nor was the Sandy Hook shooter. I don't know how or where the Columbine kids got their guns. We know that the Sandy Hook shooter got his guns from his mother -- whom he murdered. Background checks would not have prevented either of those incidents.

I mentioned the Parkland shooter because he should have been a prohibited person. He was a chronic bad actor in school, but he had a Hispanic last name. The school district wanted to show statistics supporting the lie that they were making progress in reducing school crime by minorities -- they did that by progressively downgrading offenses to lower (or no) charges. The kid should have had a lengthy record, but (thanks to cooking the books) he didn't.

And then, of course, there's the Sutherland Springs shooter. That one is an open and shut case. He was convicted of domestic violence by an Air Force court martial. That made him a prohibited person -- period, full stop. But the Air Force didn't do their job and report his conviction to NICS, so he was able to purchase firearms even though he was legally prohibited from doing so.

 

[HiBC]

On TFL we had a long and detailed thread om Fast and Furious.
As I recall,the Obama admin had an ambition toward an international arms treaty that may have impacted the 2A RTKBA.
Thats as I recall it.
My opinion or interpretation of the 2000 AK-47 s that went to Mexico through US gun shops is that creating tragedy and pain in Mexico traceable to US gun shops would create an international outrage that would provide the political clout to take unprecedented action.

This plan started to unravel with Brian Terry's murder. Investigations and inquiries were getting too close.
Obama,Holder,etc stonewalled and eventually it all went under the rug.

I'm sure many remember.

My point in this is (IMO) those 2000 AK-47's went to Mexico for the purpose of pushing gun restrictions. The intent was blood and death and pain fr the people of Mexico.

If I'm right,that tells me the old "If you want to make an omelet,you have to break some eggs" philosophy is in effect.

I lost the naive illusion of "No way! They would not do that!"

IMO,Yes they would.

There have been to many of these horrible events occur at the right time to reenforce the political will of crisis. It seems a trend and I just do not believe in multiple coincidences.

To be clear,no,I do not believe these killers are operatives. These are not actvely planned by anyone but the killers. They are independent free agents,acting on their own psychotic plans.

But in all too many cases,the ball was "dropped". They slipped through the cracks.

Look at Parkland. The guy was a known problem. The FBI interviewed him more than once. Then there was the SRO's failure to intervene.

Soon after,the Texas church.The killer was thrown out of the Airforce for domestic abuse. And he passed background checks??

There is little to no political or news media value to a small ,one day,local story "FBI intervenes and prevents planned school attack"

No,I just don't think an "opportunity" like that gets wasted.

I can't prove it,but I believe the decision can be made to sit back,let the big story happen,then exploit it for all its worth.

It works because most of naive America believes " No way,they would never do anything like that"

IMO,Benghazi was a similar cold blooded "Let it happen"

So,in long term electoral politics,how important might it be

To tip the cultural scales a bit

In states like Texas,Florida,Georgia,etc

Where there has traditionally been strong RTKBA vote?

Might the Powers decide "The "Greater Good" is worth a few dozen eggs?

As the NRA struggles with WLP?

 

[Mainah]

The Fed Ex shooter's mother reported him as a threat, his shotgun was confiscated, but authorities did not apply the red flag law and he was able to legally purchase the guns he used in the recent shooting: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...ting-in-indiana-had-two-assault-rifles-police

 

[jmr40]

Sometimes we send mixed messages. I've not seen anyone on a gun forum in favor of red flag laws. Yet there are examples in this thread where gun owners complain that there were red flags that were ignored. We can't have it both ways.

Personally I don't want a nut to be able to get a gun. When they do, and do bad things with it, it makes me and all gun owners look bad. The problem is that anti gun folks are the ones pushing for red flag and universal back ground checks and gun owners don't trust them. Even if these laws have good intentions they are being written by people who don't understand guns and are often unrealistic and overly oppressive.

I've always felt that the NRA, and gun owners have taken the wrong approach. Instead of always being on the defense and opposing every gun law proposed we should be proactive. If the government is considering regulations that effect the auto industry they don't let dairy farmers provide input into the legislation. They bring in automotive experts and get their advice.

There is a problem in this country with people killing others. And a lot of them use guns. It makes sense to me that the NRA and gun owners should be the ones proposing legislation to find a solution. Not waiting for anti gun politicians to come up with things they think are solutions

There are ways to enforce red flag laws and background checks that would not be overly oppressive to the 2A. And when proposing legislation from gun owners it could include other requirements that are favorable to gun owners.

I wouldn't be opposed to a red flag law or background requirement if it were written by the NRA or other gun groups and worded the right way. Then attached to that law could be a requirement that all 50 states recognize all other states carry permits. This would be a great way to finally make suppressors much easier to use.

Can you imagine the difficulty anti gun groups or politicians would have trying to oppose gun laws they have been pushing for.

 

[44 AMP]

The Fed Ex shooter's mother reported him as a threat, his shotgun was confiscated, but authorities did not apply the red flag law and he was able to legally purchase the guns he used in the recent shooting

So speaketh the Indianapolis Chief of Police....

SO, I'm now a bit confused....perhaps someone here knows what the Indiana Red Flag law(s) actually does?? I'm afraid that, at the moment, I am disinclined to accept the Police Chief's statement at face value.

Perhaps, it is a matter of what the Red Flag law actually does, as opposed to what we have been told it does???

According to what's in the media, currently,
He was reported by his mother, who was concerned he would try and commit "Suicide by Cop" in March 2020.

Cops showed up to do a "Mental Health Check", arrested him, seized a shotgun, and placed him in "immediate detention mental health temporary hold".

HOW is this NOT the Red Flag law in action???

It's not reported (at present) the results of his evaluation, but apparently they let him go.

They DID NOT return the shotgun.

It is also being reported that the FBI interviewed him a month later. And this is what the news reported the FBI said, "no violent extremism ideology was found or criminal violation detected".

He apparently was not tried, or convicted of anything, or adjudicated mentally incompetent by a judge, as far as we know at this time. Therefore he was not designated as a prohibited person.

Since he was not a prohibited person, he had the same rights as the rest of us who are not prohibited persons, and he bought a rifle, legally, in July 2020, and another in September 2020.

In other words, seems to me that the law was followed, and he was cleared by the appropriate authorities. Other than not returning the shotgun, seems to be a straightforward application of the laws.

Am I misunderstanding something?? or is, perhaps, the Chief of Police?? Or both of us???

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Sometimes we send mixed messages. I've not seen anyone on a gun forum in favor of red flag laws. Yet there are examples in this thread where gun owners complain that there were red flags that were ignored. We can't have it both ways.

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself and I know that many of my friends and acquaintances from my state's grass roots gun rights organization agree. My state recently (two years ago, IIRC) enacted a red flag law. We objected on two grounds:

1. We already had a law that, if applied, accomplished all the aims of the red flag law; and

2. The HUGE problem with the red flag law (in my state, and in most or all states where they are being enacted) is that due process is turned on its head. The complaint/affidavit is made out by the complainant and a judge issues an order purely based on the unproven allegations contained in the affidavit and without the subject being offered any opportunity to be heard, to be represented by counsel, or to present a defense. The subject of the order may (and probably does) have zero knowledge that this is happening -- until Officer Friendly (or the SWAT team) shows up at his door with an order to seize any and all firearms and ammunition.

The subject of the order then -- and only then -- gets an opportunity to have a hearing within two weeks (which I believe has been extended due to COVID-19), at which time he or she has to prove a negative. He/she has to prove to the judge that he/she is NOT a threat, and beg to have his/her firearms returned.

There has already been one VERY well-publicized case in another state where this process was abused. You may remember it. A police officer was called regarding a young man who was wandering the streets with a knife. The cop found him, and told him to drop the knife. The kid refused, and advanced on the cop. There's a body camera video documenting that the cop backed up at least 50 -- maybe 75 -- feet, all the while telling the kid to drop the knife. Finally, the kid charged the cop and the cop had to shoot him.

Clear case of suicide by cop. The kid's grieving vindictive and manipulative mother obtained a red flag order against the cop. She lied in her affidavit, checking the box that said she and the subject had a child in common.

THAT's the problem with "red flag" laws -- they are so focused on taking the guns that they totally lose sight of what due process is supposed to be about. And they generally don't include any penalties for making false statements in filing the affidavit.

[Edit to add] Here's the case: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/red-flag-petition-filed-officer-fatal-shooting-68312186

And she was eventually charged with perjury -- but it took more than a year: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...t-police-officer-appears-in-court/ar-BB1ecHwx

 

[ghbucky]

I've always felt that the NRA, and gun owners have taken the wrong approach. Instead of always being on the defense and opposing every gun law proposed we should be proactive.

That was done. It was the NRA that got the NICS put into the Brady bill. And the result? Law enforcement ignores the part of the law where they are supposed to prosecute people who attempt to obtain a gun who aren't eligible.

There is this perception, fostered by the media and gun grabbers that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!.

We are told that 'GUN CRIME' is terrible in the US. Well, with guns readily available it makes sense that criminals would make use of them. But does that make the US a uniquely dangerous place?

No, it is not. The US has very low rates of violent crime. The only thing that needs to be done is to enforce the damn laws. I've asked it repeatedly and no one ever responds:

What is the point of passing new laws when existing laws are ignored by law enforcement? What is it supposed to accomplish?

BTW, the US has a very low violent crime rate in spite of the daily massacres happening in Chicago that everyone just ignores.

A person is shot in Chicago every 2 hours and 47 minutes. and you hear nothing about it. That is INCLUDED in our national violent crime rate and we are still a very safe country overall.

 

[Mainah]

Sometimes we send mixed messages. I've not seen anyone on a gun forum in favor of red flag laws. Yet there are examples in this thread where gun owners complain that there were red flags that were ignored. We can't have it both ways.

You'll find a ton of threads here devoted to questions about following laws that most members don't support. But we take the time to do the research, and then obey the law.

I have concerns about red flag laws, but the fastest way to convince me that they work would be to enforce them and stop shootings like the one in question. The alternative that's in play now is not enforcing current laws and asking for more.

 

[Tom Servo]

But the Columbine kids weren't prohibited persons

They were, by virtue of being under-age. An 18-year-old friend named Robyn Anderson bought the guns for them at a gun show. She was never prosecuted.