I’m constantly kvetching about the revolving door justice system that allows vicious criminals to roam city streets in Chicago, Baltimore, Los Angeles and other crime-ridden urban enclaves. So you might think that a mandatory minimum one-year jail sentence for anyone caught illegally possessing a gun would be a good idea. Charm City’s mainstream media (video below) certainly seems on board. But . . .

What about people with no criminal record caught possessing a gun “illegally” (see: U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment), presumably for self-defense? Or criminals who aren’t doing anything criminal who also possess a gun for self-defense?

Isn’t this mandatory minimum one-year jail sentence just another form of gun control that discourages otherwise law-abiding Americans from exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? Or do I have this wrong?

Recommended For You

106 Responses to CapArms Question of the Day: Mandatory Minimum Sentence for Illegal Gun Possession?

  1. If one is a convicted felon caught with a gun, 10 years. If the felon is caught with a gun while committing a crime, 20 years. If that felon fires it, life. If that felon wounds or kills someone, death penalty.

    That would work. The other stuff—law abiding citizen with an illegal gun, slap on the wrist.

    Or we could just make it illegal for Negroes to have guns. Making it illegal for Negroes to have guns, and giving that law teeth, would cut our violent crime rate in half.

    • “Or we could just make it illegal for Negroes to have guns.” – plenty of historical precedent in the South….

        • And whites get more DUIs so ban whites from driving.

          And while we’re banning, make it a mandatory 10 years to life for firearms infractions, followed quickly by a ban of 10+ rounnd mags, possessing over 100 rounds of ammo, buying more than one gun a year, and of course outlawing all semi autos of any caliber.

          Careful how you ask for what you want.

        • Charlie mike mike,: you are incorrect. Whites vehicle drivers have a slightly lower rate of DUI per capita licence rate than African Americas. The claim that whites have a higher rate rely in not controling for disproportionate numbers in ownership of cars. When you apply the know ratio of car ownership and race, the results invert from your claim

      • I respectfully disagree. A more accurate statement would be: people with economic disadvantages tend to commit more gun crimes. Skin color has nothing to do with it. Anytime you find proverty, one will find crime.

        • 2 words: Horse. Shit.

          You look at crime stats for the impoverished white folks in Appalachia. What will you find? Not much financial incentive crime. ALSO! You won’t find them cappin’ each other at birthday parties, funerals, baby showers with 20+ rounds.

          Now…let’s head north to Detroit and look at those stats and activities.

          Like it or not, there are genes involved here.

        • Larry that is part of it, a good part of it (but not all of it)

          Sadly BLM, along whit Obama and his man Holder at the DOJ made the raw ratios the issue with their racist narrative. They said black males 16-55 are 6% of the population and are 22% of persons shot by cops thus proving racism. Once people understood that those 6% are committing half of murder and about 45% violent or weapons crime, which are the central and driving risk factors in getting shot by cops in 90% of cases, people realized that by commission rates, blacks were getting shot by cops less than whites were

    • Yeah, I’m a race realist but the Constitution applies to all citizens no matter the race. Also stripping rights away based on something imprecise as race is too broad to be an ethical solution. I am sure there is a capitalist, voluntary solution out there. Maybe in the short term we should just stop demonizing voluntary association? Acknowledge that there are deferences among ethnic groups and that multiculturalism is imposed and unnatural? I don’t think it’s shocking that blacks want to governed by blacks and act out when they think that their destiny is in the control of whites. America has many cultures and we would coexist more peacefully if we could have our own spaces.

      • Nope. Cities which are majority black and governed by blacks are still poverty and crime ridden shitholes. They tend to be WORSE than white cities.

        Blacks are not capable of living in civilization.

        • I disagree with both. Black and white have nothing to do with the crime rates, what you’re referring to is cultural differences, not racial ones. A culture which glorifies criminal activity, even to the point of admiring those who have served time in prison, will have more crime than a culture which shuns criminals and avoids associating with them.

    • President Kennedy said, “watch it, you’ll be next.” Paraphrased. People were expressing their bias toward his religion.

      That’s not a threat of violence. It is a request for an open mind. Limit someone else’s rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and you’re next. Dont be surprised that you aren’t of much value to the powers that be either.

      Who stands to lose their healthcare? Just Negroes? Seems like our elected officials representing power don’t give a damn about working class and middle class white people. So keep on believing the distractions. Or wake up.

      • Just by the by, *no one* stands to lose healthcare, the subject is not even being addressed, nor was it discussed during passage of Osamacare. The only thing being considered is “who is going to PAY for your healthcare?”. My opinion is, “you see to your healthcare and I’ll see to mine”. But that does little to buy votes with taxpayer money. Nor to gain ginormous donations from special interest groups like insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc who yearn for the ability to jack up prices at will, nobody cares because it’s free money anyway. Completely disregards the free market system in favor of socialism, and BOTH parties support it.

        • ““you see to your healthcare and I’ll see to mine””

          Absolutely, Larry. Nothing can legitimately or logically replace the free market in health care, any more than anything else. What people need to understand is that no kind or amount of “insurance” will guarantee any sort of rational “health care.” In fact, the government and the third party payer system has pretty much gutted it. The “single payer” deal the politicians are drooling over will be the final bullet to the brain of any actual “care.”

          Medical providers are not in the least free to, or even educated to actually serve the needs of people. The entire system is built around government mandates, insurance company corporate power, and the endless paper and people shuffling required to make it APPEAR to be functioning. If you know anyone who is actually well served, and pleased with the medical care they receive… they either pay privately, or they don’t have a clue what they are missing. I spent 30 years as an RN… I know the insanity from the inside.

        • “you see to your healthcare and I’ll see to mine”

          What a load of shit, Make employer group health care illegal (it’s you health care, not the company’s) and just have the premiums part of your pay. Make the price you pay is the same if you are a individual vs a 100,000 member insurance group.
          Lets see how fast EVERYONE screams.

        • Binder, the solution you propose depends on the f-ing government passing laws to dictate our healthcare choices because we are too stupid and Hilarity is such a genius, like her brother Osama. The free market system works if you let it. If a company does not offer health insurance, they will have to pay more for the same employee. If they can get a good deal on health insurance, they can end up saving money, so they will try to do so. And *somebody* needs to start educating people to the fact that any manner of “insurance” exists to make a profit, not to provide a public service. Thinking that buying insurance is something you do to make money is just nuts. I bet I’ve spent 100,000 plus on insurance in my life, gotten maybe 25,000 back.

    • It may be hard for some people to recognize a racist when they see one these days, when the term is thrown out like candy at a parade.

      Thanks, Jean-Claude, for reminding us how repugnant the genuine article truly is.

      • Aww, did I trigger you, snowflake?

        I’m sure you live in some lily-white enclave. Go live on the south side of Chicago for a while. Better yet—-why don’t you move to New Orleans and see how long before Tyquandavious beats the fuck out of you?

        Pussy. Fuck off.

    • Jean-Claude, if you are NOT a paid troll come here to post racist bullshit intended to make POTG look like the bigoted racist scum you appear to be so that Liberal media outlets , and “The Trace”, can publish anti-gun “pull-quotes” from this site, then please back off this topic. If you are a troll, fvck off.

      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Now please show me WHERE in those 27 words there is any mention of : “…unless those people are Negroes or felons…”

      There is no such wording or intent included in the Second Amendment, and for very good reason:

      “If you concede that the same government the Second Amendment was intended to allow you to protect yourself from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce lists (NICS) of persons who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you prevent them from adding your name to one of their lists of prohibited persons?” – Cliff H

      • When the Constitution was written, Negroes were 3/5 of a person.

        Wherever they are, crime and dysfunction are rampant.

        Genes are at work. They have an average IQ of 75 and no impulse control. Blacks are the destroyers of cities.

        Truth hurts.

        • Tell that crap to Charles Payne, Ben Carson, any of thousands more, many of whom (including those two) were raised in inner city slums. Race has nothing to do with it. And if your only contemplation of any question must include race, you are a racist.

    • Would you support stripping other rights from blacks? The right to privacy? Free speech? Life?
      What’s wrong with you?

    • No it wouldn’t. Not by a long shot. Do you think gangs give a fuck about gun laws? ALL of their guns are acquired illegally as it is. You’re just as ignorant as the liberals.

      • And if they knew they were going to jail for a LOOOONG stretch for having one,they would reconsider. Right now, Chicago(and NYC, and LA) don’t prosecute criminals for gun offenses.

        If Dequan and Quantavious got a guaranteed 20 years for carrying a Hi-Point, there is no doubt a difference would be made.

        • I thought you said they were too dumb to make rational decisions about consequences. Make up your mind.

    • Gun control laws could be very easily enacted that would eliminate all problems pertaining to ‘felons’ with firearms.

      All we need do is make gun possession illegal for all hotsy-totsie people who use hyphenated names.

  2. I’ve got no problem with minimum sentencing for guns used in a crime, but simple possession of a gun (again, 2nd amendment) should not be a crime for a law abiding citizen.

    • Exactly.

      But I would add that even a convicted felon should have some process whereby his rights could be restored if certain requirements are met.

      • And there are an awful lot of things that are felonies, that are not crimes in the ethical sense, much less violent.

        • If the Mayor and Police Commissioner of Baltimore have their way, the Maryland General Assembly will pass legislation making illegal/improper possession of a firearm a FELONY with a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence. Apply for a Maryland CCW permit? Buy lottery tickets for a better chance of success.

      • There seems to be a complete logical disconnect in most people’s minds, regarding ex-cons. They are either safe to be released back into society, or they are not. If they are, there should be no restrictions on their rights. If they are not, why are they being released?

        • “They are either safe to be released back into society, or they are not. If they are, there should be no restrictions on their rights. If they are not, why are they being released?”

          Because our system is based on punishment and not public safety. See the 8A for an example. “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.”

      • The moment a felon is released from prison, he should be able to buy a gun, do away with the entire background check system. Now, if he uses that gun to rob the corner bodega, instead of sentencing him to 3 month suspended, hang the mofo from the lightpost outside the courthouse, fine with me, but we need to punish people and deny their rights because of something they *DO*, not something they “might” do.

      • “… some process whereby his rights could be restored if certain requirements are met…”

        Ya mean, like having served the prison sentence for whatever crime made them a ‘felon’? Which is exactly what is supposed to happen.

    • I think that the law should be that only people* who are prohibited persons should be people who are convicted of committing a crime with a gun (not just possessing it, but used it in the commission of a crime).

      That would encourage violent criminals to not use guns, and the only people who would be banned from possessing firearms would be people who misuse firearms.

      Then it would make sense to slam them if they are in possession of a firearm.

      *There would be a few more people I would include like those that would fit that category, but were found not guilty by reason of insanity.

      • That is a logical fallacy. The use of a gun in the commission of a crime has no bearing on any actual law. It is tool used to increase the chances of success while reducing the chances of capture. The only counter to this is the application of force against the criminal. Reduce their likelihood of success, and they’ll think twice. Telling them “it’s going to be worse, when you get caught” has no effect. They never believe they’ll get caught, or they wouldn’t do it.

        • I don’t know when the word “affect” morphed from a noun (as in “inappropriate affect”) into a verb, but apparently it has. English is an ever-evolving language.

        • I was always pretty good at English, but affect and effect have always given me trouble. Who and whom do as well, even though I know the rules for them. I have to stop and think about the rule. Most of the English language is pretty intuitive to me, seeing as I grew up speaking it.

          If there is a grammatical error in a post of mine, it was probably intentional or a typo. The intentional error is usually an improper use of an, but I once had a sentence without a single word being correct, which was kind of hard to do. Nobody said anything.

        • If the red underlining noting an error caught by the SpellCheck somehow manages to escape my attention, I fall back on a medical excuse, i.e., I’m sometimes afflicted with a condition I call “typographical dyslexia”. Maybe you have it, too.

      • As with all laws, criminals make their living by not following the law. It has worked out great over the years. We not only outlawed drugs but waged a war on drugs as well. Not we have no drug problem … wait, I could be wrong on that. Seems like this country is flooded by drugs and yet they are illegal. Same with committing any crime. It is a crime because it is against the law, yet people do this. Gosh, it just doesn’t make sense. All of these laws and we still are not living in the Utopia the government promised when taking away our God given rights

        • “As with all laws, criminals make their living by not following the law.” Who knew jay walking and wife beating paid so well.

  3. This is from Baltimore, not Philadelphia, so it’s not the “City of Brotherly Love.” A search using “Baltimore nicknames” comes back with the following: “Charm City,” “Mobtown,” “Clipper City,” and “Monument City,” to name a few.

  4. Don’t like mandatory minimum sentences for anything but absolutely behind presence/use of a firearm during commission of a felony to be a major sentence enhancement.

  5. under no circumstances should the mere possession of a firearm be construed as any sort of crime.
    Any time a charge is added simply because of said possession, it is de facto gun control.

    • No, it’s crime control, if the banned person is a convicted felon. There are people out there who lack impulse control and will violently attack others for no good reason.

      Yes, yes, yes, they can use other means. I get it. Problem with that kneejerk retort is that other means are generally less effective and more clumsy. Really, if arson, acid, knives, hit & run were oh so viable means of aiding criminal enterprise, then why don’t criminals use them as a first choice? Wht don’t you use them as your primary means of self-defense?

      It’s kind of hard to rob a bank with arson. Likewise, it’s clunky to defend yourself from a mugger with your car. People prefer guns because they work very well at what they’re designed to do.

      Convicted violent felons shouldn’t be allowed to possess guns. They know this up front, yet they continue to acquire guns. That’s a crime right there, yet we still have people who argue that “it’s pre-crime!” to bust them. Anyone, ANYONE, who is a convicted violent felon who possesses a gun will use that gun in another stand-alone crime. It’s axiomatic. Better to bust them for possession than to wait for the next violent felony.

      • As you noted, firearms are uniquely appropriate for defending AGAINST crime, Acid, knives and explosives are NOT good choices for protecting yourself or your home.

        Gun control advocates make the argument acid, knifes and explosives are not used as often in crime 9in fact they are) but somehow think having a jar of acid in her purse is going to help a woman being threatened by a rapist breaking into her home or attempting to break the window in her car in a parking garage is going to work as well as a firearm.

      • Sorry, friend: Liberty is scary. BUT, Liberty is the ONLY fair proposition. A felon, after prison, is once again a citizen entitled to all protections. Recidivism is a problem for 2 simple reasons: 1. too many stupid laws(any thing about possession of firearms, for example) 2. prison is too comfortable. we MUST eliminate MOST of our onerous regulations and actually restore freedom. We could then fire most of our police and that would be OK. We must also make prison a place of suffering, in order to drive people away from crime in fear of it.

        • Just keep released violent felons under parole for a set period of time. There has to be a transition from incarceration to full freedom

  6. 10 Year minimum for each straw purchase and another 10 if the illegally sold weapon is used in a violent crime. Add accessory charges as well should someone be murdered by said weapon and all are federal charges every time no state prosecutions.

    • Since it isn’t treason, counterfeiting, or piracy, there is no Constitutional authority for any Federal charges.

      • If only the courts agreed with you. (Also there is plenty that is inarguablly within the purview of Congress to legislate criminal penalties for).

    • Before we get all fussy about “straw purchases”, somebody needs to codify WTF that even means. First time I heard the term, I was being accused of it. My son and I at a gun show, he wanted a gun and I agreed to buy it for him. He made the deal, I wrote the check, and the shit hit the fan. I’m sure I didn’t help clarify what was going on when I asserted that the gun would be his, but would be going home with me since he still lived with me, but remember I had no idea what they were talking about. Buying a gun for someone else? WTF? I’ve bought my sons guns, cars, a whole lot of cheeseburgers, who says I can’t? Oh, it’s about keeping guns away from those not allowed to own them? Here’s my CHL, here’s my son’s CHL, that should take care of that. But it didn’t. And I would not have appreciated being sent up the river for 10 years “minimum sentence” for such crap. Another time, I bought a handgun, tried to shoot it and it didn’t work, sent it back to the manufacturer, finally fired it a few times after it was repaired months later and hated it. So with 20-30 rounds through it, I gave it to my little brother, who was probably 45 at the time, and not a felon. Am I going to prison, now? No penalty for “straw purchases”, just allow the transfer to take place and if the recipient is a prohibited person prosecute HIM (like happens never).

      • Currently the ATF defines a straw purchase as “acting as the agent of” a person you “know or whom you suspect is a prohibited person”.

        That is knowingly taking someone else’s money to buy a gun when you know or should know that the reason they’re having you purchase it is because they cannot legally do so. Other than that, under ATF regs, you’re good to go…. Until they decide otherwise.

        It’s worth noting that the ATF advises that while “gifting” guns is legal, gift cards for the price of the gun are a “better” idea.

        • “Currently the ATF defines a straw purchase as ‘acting as the agent of’ a person you ‘know or whom you suspect is a prohibited person.'”

          I read a recent appellate case in which someone was prosecuted for “acting as the agent of” a person the defendant had no reason to suspect was a prohibited person and knew the person well. They charged him because he “lied” on question 11a. The court ruled that even if the lie is immaterial (i.e. it is not a straw purchase), it is still a violation of the law to lie on the form.

          The problem is that it is not a violation of any statute to buy a gun for someone else, unless you suspect they are a prohibited person, but the ATF has added a bunch of questions to the form that go beyond what the statutes require. If you lie on any of those questions, you have committed a felony. If you accidentally say something that isn’t true, God help you.

          Additionally, the ATF has issued guidance on question 11a that is ambiguous. They have said that if you buy a gun to sell to someone else, that you might be the “actual transferee/buyer.” Thanks for nothin’.

  7. Minimum sentences are a way for lawmakers to “do something” about crime. In reality, they take discretion away from prosecutors and judges to distinguish between a career criminal and, say, a woman whose brother gives her a gun to defend against an ex, not realizing she’s prohibited because she checked herself into the hospital psych ward ten years ago.
    Sentencing needs reform.

  8. The gang members in Chicago need their guns for defense and law enforcement (of their own laws). They can’t call the cops and say – “Hey, cokedick stole ma crack. If I don’t get dat crack back by 3 tomorrow, Homeboy Thumpin gonna thump my azz.” So they assemble their gang members and go handle it. Sometimes people die. The problem isn’t guns or gun laws (look at Vermont – pretty much zero gun laws, tons of guns, almost non-existent crime), it is the culture of these people. Their culture sucks. Their culture propagates violence. And some cultures suck. Like this one:

    https://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/00x34c5f.jpg

  9. Possessing an object can only be a crime if you stole the object, forced someone to give it to you, or knew that it was stolen when you accepted it or purchased it from someone else. Whether or not the object is a firearm is irrelevant. Therefore, I unequivocally oppose mandatory prison sentences for merely possessing a firearm.

    Here is another way to look at it:
    Should someone receive a mandatory prison term for merely possessing rape implements such as rope or tape? No? Neither should someone receive a mandatory prison term for merely possessing a firearm.

    • I’m pretty sure there are plenty of people who would support mandatory sentencing for anyone convicted of possessing rape implements like a dick!

      • That is where I was heading with my comment. I am glad that at least one other person saw that.

  10. Illegal possession should equal: someone who is prohibited from possessing a gun is caught with a gun..

    This way no innocents will be scooped up. A criminal who carries illegally for self-defense made his own bed.

    • My copy of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t have any kind of exceptions or exemptions. If a man is free to walk the streets, he should be free to carry a weapon.

        • The 5th Amendment may, in certain very specific instances, authorize the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms, but may NOT revoke that right, since the right is not granted by the government and so cannot be revoked by the government, only suppressed through force and duress.

          As for the 14th Amendment it states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

          For starters, this amendment addresses what the States may not do and makes no reference to the federal government. Second, it talks about life, liberty or property and mentions nothing about natural rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and protected from government abridgment. It does say that every person within the jurisdiction is granted equal protection of the law(s). Nothing about “unless pronounced as prohibited.”

          This hardly seems a solid foundation for claiming the government, federal or State, can pronounce any citizen permanently prohibited from exercising their natural right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. But then I am not a lawyer. Perhaps I missed some little technicality in the plain wording of the amendments, either 2nd or 14th?

        • If you can take away one basic right, you can take away another. Imprisoning someone is taking away several basic rights. Once due process is applied, you can take away most of someones rights. The only limit is the 8A.

    • With that kind of thinking, I guess you’ll be OK when everyone is a “prohibited” person because almost everything will be a crime… That is one of the goals of the political controllers. Seems it would be better for the people of the gun to quit playing that game.

      • With the modern habbit of making more and more things illegal and the rapid escalation of the number of laws in this country, this manditory minimum is a terrible idea.

    • Sian, please point to the place in the Second Amendment listing those persons or agencies of the government authorized to determine who is prohibited from possessing or bearing arms (any arms, not just firearms).

      Aside from a person in custody awaiting trial or incarcerated after conviction, while they are incarcerated, there is precious little said int he Constitution about prohibitions and even then it is only a suppression of the right, since the government has no authority (“…shall not be infringed.” to take away any of the rights in the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms continues even while incarcerated no matter how vigorously the authorities attempt to suppress it.

  11. If you are not incarcerated/institutionalized after a trial where you are found guilty by a jury of your peers then there is no such thing as illegal possession of a gun…so, no

  12. I’m not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences for anything other than violent crimes. Carrying a gun, without more, is not a violent crime. Facts and circumstances should determine the penalty for unlawful possession, consistent with sentencing guidelines.

    • The use of ANY tool as a weapon in the furtherance of any violent crime should carry a mandatory enhancement of the sentence, possibly limited to “No time off for good behavior – you serve the full load, no parole.”

      There should be no special provision describing the type of tool carried or how effectively or ineffectively it was used. Firearms should NOT be singled out as a separate category in this regard just as they are not separated out in the Second Amendment.

  13. The proposed law in Baltimore is tantamount to arresting someone and putting them in jail for a year for what they COULD do or MIGHT do with something in their possession, even if they otherwise violate no laws or harm anyone. Arguendo, should we not arrest men for rape and women for prostitution? After all, they have the genitalia to commit those crimes, don’t they?.

  14. How many times are we going to complain about the gun being a tool and it doesn’t matter about the tool used? Gun, knife, bat, etc. a crime is committed, a crime is committed. No mandatory sentencing for anything. Everything is situational, and should be handled as such.

  15. Mandatory minimum sentences more than occasionally lead to unjust sentences. Judges and juries should have the latitude to consider the circumstances.

  16. Mandatory Minimum Sentence for Illegal Gun Possession?

    I can only speak from the Canadian perspective in that it is a terrible idea, no matter how good it seems. The problem is that our experience shows that it gets abused to punish ordinary gun owners (especially when combined with “safe storage” laws). Fortunately mandatory minimum sentences have been abolished, but the possession laws remain (and are still abused).

    There can be stiffer penalties for crimes committed with deadly weapons, but a law about simple possession is a dangerous weapon in of itself.

  17. What about people with mental illness? Are you going to impose any sort of mandatory minimum sentencing on someone who is prohibited person because of a mental illness? 

  18. What about people with mental illness? Are you going to impose any sort of mandatory minimum sentencing on someone who is prohibited person because of a mental illness?/

  19. The news video doesn’t give any specifics about the proposed law. If I lived in Baltimore I would spend the time looking it up, but I don’t so meh. It probably sucks, because gun control and Democrats almost always means stupid.

  20. The most rational, moral outcome to a violent attack of any kind is the death or serious bodily injury of the aggressor at the hands of the intended victim or their guardian. It doesn’t matter what weapon is used, including bare hands. There are no “illegal” guns, or knives, or anything else. The crime is the aggression, not the tool.

    I just shake my head each time I hear people insisting that “we” must keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or the “mentally ill.” And long prison terms are not going to do that either. Not possible. Not happening. They can’t even all be identified in a total police state, and I don’t think that’s what anyone here wants to happen anyway.

  21. The whole “criminal justice” system needs to be ripped out by the roots — especially privatized prisons. Incentivize people to lock people up, and guess what — you end up with the USA, the country that imprisons the highest percentage of its citizes in the civilized world.

    The “criminal justice” system doesn’t work. Mandatory minimums don’t work. “Rehabilitation” doesn’t work. “Country Club prisons” don’t work. Prison as “punishment” doesn’t work. Hell, violent thugs use prison sentences as a BADGE OF HONOR, for cryin’ out loud.

    So screw it all. Ditch it.

    Start over with a basic premise: is this person a danger to society, and to society’s members? If so, lock the bastard up so he is not “in” society, and is no longer a danger to it. And leave him there, until he is no longer a danger to society. No more “he served his time”; there should be no such thing as a time limit. If it’s a violent crime, lock ’em up. If it’s a non-violent crime, fine them. That should be the standard for prisons.

    Prison should not be a place to “help the prisoner” — it should be a place to help SOCIETY, by making it safer, by getting the violent bad actors OUT of society.

  22. Pardon moi but the “laws” are already on the books. Especially in places like Chiraq where it’s turning into a very bloody summer. Scant will to enforce those laws(“they won’t VOTE for me”). AND TTAG-you need to watch out for the Stormfront scum…

  23. At the end of the day nothing will improve as long as these places have unstable (or nonexistent) family structure, communities where the only structure is criminal gangs, lack of educational and economic opportunity, and a occupying force/conquered people relationship between the people and the police. Until those things change there will never be peace.

  24. I don’t like mandatory minimum sentences but IF we’re going to have them then why not go after the real problem is many of these places: prosecutorial misconduct.

  25. Mandatory minimums are an ugly tool, though maybe necessary when you have a system that otherwise refuses to respond to the people and keeps setting criminals free. But it should be for committing a crime (i.e. robbery, assault, etc) while in possession of a firearm if anything.

    But you KNOW what will happen. The same thing that happens if a judge actually tries to sentence one of these criminals to real time. The ‘community’ will suddenly get up in arms and claim racism and that the patriarchial system is trying to keep their men in jail as a form of genocide. And that Johnny dindu nothing and doesn’t deserve to be in jail for that long, he was just turning his life around.

    They claim to want crime reduction. They might actually want crime reduction. But they don’t want criminals punished, because then the abstract concept of ‘criminals’ turns into reality that it’s your cousin, or son…

  26. Difficult situation. I am typically against mandatory sentencing because there are people that don’t deserve a harsh sentence but the judge has no discretion. On the other hand being in a liberal county I see the same criminals over and over in court for new charges or violations of probation, and so we have judges that continue to give more consideration for the criminals than public safety. Let me put it this way: I have NEVER seen an impact statement by a victim make an impact on sentencing. Politics instead of rule of law rules.
    I recently witnessed a young guy get hemmed up with a felony because he had a gun in his backpack in his car. He was not prohibited and not a criminal and now is one because he was charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon (that he legally purchased) without a permit. Judged admitted he was over charged and only gave him level 2 probation, but still. So a mandatory 1 yr sentence is not right! I am against it, lets lean on the side of justice.

  27. I don’t like mandatory sentencing, so I’m against. Though I am for judges that will actually punish criminals.

  28. this is liberal bullshit. Nobody should lose any of their rights. The court system let them go they are free men now! You can’t release people and say oh boy if they ever come in contact with a gun the world is going to come to an end but we will release them anyway.

  29. i dont think i can come here anymore. so much racism, extreme bias, and intellectual dishonesty that would make Reza Aslan blush.

  30. Mandatory minimums for anything are, as we’ve found out with drug possession mandatory minimums, a bad idea.

    The problem here isn’t the existing laws, but the existing judges and prosecutors.

    Make both of these accountable to the people. There should be no lifetime appointments to any political office – and let’s face it, judges are just politically motivated lawyers, dressed in drag.

    When a judge is incompetent or malfeasant, they should be removed from the bench by the people within that court’s jurisdiction. Then hold a new election to install a competent jurist to the bench.

    Mandatory minimums are a way of tying the hands of idiot judges, forcing them to do their job. Well, if people want to force judges to enforce the law, we could replace a judge with an AI system, and be done with the issue. But that’s not what we want – we want a judge with some discretion, used prudently.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *