2020: When Enforcing Federal Gun Laws is Political

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Cleveland announced this week that it accused 328 people of weapons charges in U.S. District Court in northern Ohio in the fiscal year 2020, which, for the federal government, is Oct. 1, 2019, to Sept. 30. That’s compared to the 125 charged in the fiscal year 2016, an increase of more than 160 percent.

“We’ve made prosecuting gun cases a priority,” said U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman. “We have got to hold people accountable.”

The crimes most commonly include convicted felons caught with guns and suspects who use firearms during the commission of drug crimes or violent attacks.

Critics question the timing of the announcements.

They say the Justice Department’s fight against guns and violent crime has become part of the campaign message for Trump’s re-election bid against Democratic nominee Joseph Biden.

“They’re doing this to get [Trump] elected,” said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond. “This isn’t the job of the Justice Department. It’s a perversion of what should be happening. U.S. attorneys across the country are doing this.”

– John Caniglia in Federal prosecutors in Cleveland tout spike in gun cases, leading some to question Justice Department’s election-year motives

comments

  1. avatar Snek says:

    Any agent who enforces these laws is a traitor. All gun laws whether from trump or biden are infringements and should not be complied with whenever possible.

    1. avatar Freb says:

      They’re charging bangers and felons that are illegally in possession of firearms, this is what we want, not needlessly harassing law abiding gun owners.

      1. avatar Art out West says:

        Apparently you don’t understand that malum prohibitum laws are immoral.

        Murder, robbery, rape, assault, theft, vandalism, etc. are real crimes. Owning, or carrying a gun is not a crime. Likewise, using a gun to murder someone is no worse than using a knife to do so.

        “Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: “wrong [as or because] prohibited”) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.” (wikipedia)

        These gun laws are immoral and should be done away with.

  2. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Gun Control joe biden said, “You’re not Black if you don’t vote for me. Translation? You’re not a Slave if you don’t vote for plantation joe.

    TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

    1. avatar Ron says:

      “You are a slave and you WILL vote for me, or you will lose your black credentials.”- Joe Biden

    2. avatar Ho n Hiden 2020 says:

      No Joke!

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    So the state was not prosecuting to get Biden elected, Mr. Tobias?

  4. avatar Darkman says:

    Click Bait…

  5. avatar Debbie W. says:

    “They’re doing this to get [Trump] elected,” said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond. “This isn’t the job of the Justice Department. It’s a perversion of what should be happening. U.S. attorneys across the country are doing this.”

    Make it political carl tobiased you university of richmond nitwit. Perhaps the Justice Dept.is simply assisting in getting firearms out of the hands of violent scumbags who do not know the difference between TP and the US Constitution. That is far far better than seeing the Justice Dept. involved in concocting diabolical lies and schemes to overthrow a duly elected POTUS….Don’t you think?

    TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

  6. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    If they aren’t going to prosecute for using a firearm in the commission of a violent felony, then why have the law in the first place? Or does he just support selective enforcement?

  7. avatar A-Argh15 says:

    Univ of Richmond? GO SPIDERS! no really, get ’em off me! get ’em off! get ’em off me! they’re crawling on me….

    UofR thinks it’s the Ivy League of the South. What a joke. I remember when VCU was playing against UofR and some UofR frat boys unfurled a banner: VCU, The KMart Of Education. A riot ensued.

    1. avatar Jim Bob says:

      University of Richmond is composed of a bunch of rich kids from up north.

    2. avatar Art out West says:

      I always thought Duke was the ivy league of the South. Then again, I’m not southern and am not impressed with the ivy league.

  8. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    So, cops and Feds are NOT supposed to prosecute gun crimes?? This makes sense … to a Democrat.

    1. avatar Snek says:

      If they enforce gun laws they are traitors

      1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

        Enforcing laws is not treasonous / traitorous. It is not up to the Executive Branch to determine the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress – And Law Enforcement is part of the Executive Branch….
        Not quite the same as the Nuremberg Defense (I was only following orders).
        I agree that laws such as NFA, GCA, parts of FOPA, and others are (significant) infringements on 2A. However, until The Courts declare those laws are Unconstitutional, and an infringement, it is the Executive Branch’s duty to enforce the laws.

        1. avatar Snek says:

          Nope. All gun laws are unconstitutional. We don’t need some 82 year old corrupt court justice to tell us the obvious. If you enforce these laws don’t be surprised when ppl shoot back at the beloved blue line

        2. avatar Art out West says:

          Actually it is everyone’s responsibility to make sure that unconstitutional laws aren’t implemented.

          Legislative, Judicial, and Executive

          Most importantly all of us. For example jury nullification

    2. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

      Hmm, in a round-about way…
      As Debbie often repeats, gun laws are rooted in racism.
      Therefore, prosecuting gun laws is racists, *if* the one being prosecuted is not white.
      If the person is white, well, they deserve it for reparations, and their “white privilege”.
      However, since the laws were racist to begin with, if only whites are prosecuted, does that mean whites are guilty of cultural appropriation as well?

      I’m so confused… (checks crotch.. confirms gender)

      1. avatar Joel says:

        Today’s society tells us the anatomy you’re born with has nothing to do with gender! Rotfl….

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    I fail to see the harm in prosecuting someone for crimes committed with a gun more harshly. Or even felons with guns when they know better. Knock off the shit and there won’t be any problems.

    1. avatar Snek says:

      Well all gun laws are infringements and ppl are felons for owning sbrs

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        The Executive Branch has the power to choose how to enforce the law. It is reasonable to prioritize preventing felons from getting guns. The 5th Amendment states ‘nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ Convicted felons have been though the due process of law and rightfully are deprived of their liberty to possess firearms. It is absolutely Constitutional.

        Project Exile was effective at reducing crimes. Libs complained that minorities were disproportionately incarcerated, but they were disproportionately committing the crimes. It isn’t denial of equal protection. They ignore that minority lives were disproportionately saved because they weren’t murdered by thugs in their community. The most racist policy possible would be to not enforce laws in minority communities and let them be fend for themselves as if they don’t matter. Chicago is the epitome of being soft on minority criminals creating more minority victims.

        1. avatar Snek says:

          Non violent felons should have their rights back. If they’re to dangerous to own a gun then why do we let them in society anyways

  10. avatar GunnyGene says:

    The implement is not the act. Punish the act, regardless of the implement used to perform it. Doesn’t make any difference if it was a firearm or a cast iron frying pan. Dead is dead

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      I agree 👍

  11. avatar Stu says:

    What have Gun people been saying for decades

    “Just gotta enforce the laws in the books”

    Actions have consequences, you get what you deserve.

    1. avatar Snek says:

      All gun laws are unconstitutional therefore null and void.

      1. avatar John Bryan says:

        You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it mean…

        1. avatar Art out West says:

          Apparently you don’t understand the phrase
          “Shall not be infringed”

          More importantly you seem to not understand the phrase “certain unailanable rights”.

        2. avatar Red in CO says:

          I’ll admit I haven’t checked in a while and maybe it’s changed since, but last time I read the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights it did NOT say “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 UNLESS the government arbitrarily decides someone shouldn’t have them, then its totally cool”

  12. avatar Bucephalus says:

    I find it interesting that there is criticism for enforcing existing laws but at the same time the left wants more laws.
    So which is it?
    Maybe it’s just a left thing, more laws are good, even if they are not enforced…

    1. avatar Joe Biden says:

      Bingo! You’re right. With an endless amount of anti-gun laws, our Soros funded prosecutors can make the selective decision of who to throw the book at and who to slap on the wrist.

    2. avatar Prndll says:

      While the left wants to make more laws, they release criminals back to the street. Thereby making the whole thing pointless.

    3. avatar UpInArms says:

      First thing you gotta understand is the criminal justice system is primarily a jobs program.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    Golly prosecuting violent gun packing criminals😃 I’m all for it…start with anitfools & Black Losers Murder.

  14. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    IMO it depends what the real crime was. If someone was doing drive bys and the local da refused prosecution then yes the feds should send em up the river. Mere posession is another story if they are not under supervised release.

    1. avatar Andrew lias says:

      In the case of places like Chicago bail reform DAs have caused crime to spike along with releasing inmates due to Covid (funnily you can get threatened with jail for not complying with mandates,) non prosecution due to covid and civil unrest.

  15. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    I wish that the Federal government would file weapons and drug charges against my marijuana bootlegging tenant who fired two rounds from a 12 gauge shotgun at my son in retaliation for our efforts to evict them. Hail County Judge Ladd Wiles gave them a free pass because the State of Oregon had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the legion marijuana mafia to appropriate private property from innocent landlords for the purposes of committing Federal felonies. These people were also in the business of manufacturing and selling at AR-15 s using 80% lower receivers and other parts stolen from the gun shop that they worked for. Judge Wiles didn’t even care that these people had no growers licenses or grow site permits making their operation illegal under Oregon law as well as Federal law. Their only plausible market read to underage children or snuggling out of state.

    If anyone from the DEA or BATF is reading this page, respond by paying contact information.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Contact the EPA and file a dangerous chemical usage complaint as well as a polluted water runoff complaint against them. That’s how it is now handled in California. I saw a 60 minutes report about illegal growing operation where the local sheriff stated that even if illegal growers were arrested. The prosecutors office wouldn’t file charges or take them to court because it is almost impossible to get a conviction. Due to a societal shift in how marijuana usage is viewed in the state. He actually said the only way they can get a conviction is through the EPA for the things I listed above as well as illegal water usage. Good Luck

  16. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    Sneaky of them to set their fiscal year timing years in advance so that the announcement in 2020 would be shortly before the election to help Trump.🙄

  17. avatar enuf says:

    Yeah, well, whatever.

    From time to time local thru federal prosecutors team up on recidivism and criminal use of a gun. They try to take down the repeat offenders. They do it by looking at which jurisdiction can make the best case and the toughest punishment, case by case.

    That much makes sense. Most of the crime, the shooting and killing is by career scumbags.

    As far as that goes it’s right and proper to focus on the repeaters, hit ’em as hard as you can.

    After that it’s all politics, becomes partisan and all goes to shit.

  18. avatar Freb says:

    “Actually enforcing the law is being done to get Trump re-elected.”

    Man, he let the cat out of the bag with that one, didn’t he? Both parties are full of communist stooges that need to be lined up and shot. They’re subverting our republic.

  19. avatar Hannibal says:

    Imagine the thought process behind suggesting that enforcing gun laws is some political tactic against a democratic opponent. If that’s true, what does it say about the opponent?

  20. avatar Prndll says:

    Politics and guns have gone together like bacon and eggs long before 2020. It has always been that way. It’s why the NRAILA exists.

  21. avatar Mike in SC says:

    This sounds a bit like Project Exile (Richmond) or Face 5 (Atlanta) where using a firearm in any crime gets the perp five years in a federal prison far from home. That’s a good policy, no? Five years for possessing a gun illegally for a felon or using a gun in committing a crime for a first-timer should be supported by law-abiding citizens, it’s a no-brainer.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      So if you get caught accidentally bringing a single loose hollow point into New Jersey (which is a felony), then decide to purchase a shotgun to protect your family, you should get 5 years in federal prison? You sound like a Democrat

  22. avatar Sam in Ohio says:

    Golly gee, they’re charging people with having a firearm under disability (Felon) and people who commit certain drug crimes in possession of a firearm with additional charges. Sounds great, but lets’ check back in with the US Attorney’s Office to see how many plead or are convicted of the firearm’s charge. The truth of the story is that these folks have other Federal charges and the US Attorney will dismiss the firearms charges and plea bargain for guilty pleas on the other charges. Very few of them will actually serve the 5 years mandatory on the firearm disability charge.

    For the law professor, he’s right. The job of the Justice Department is to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. By dropping the gun charge, they’re probably not doing that. You know, just like ignoring Federal charges on those state legal marijuana dispensaries and issuing Food and Drug Administration cease and desist orders for “medical marijuana”. (You want to smoke weed/take edibles, knock yourself out, but lobby Congress to make it legal instead of the current BS going on.)

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email