Response to a Guns and Ammo editorial

"Remarkably little" is a nice subjective term. However, it does recognize the punishment does have some deterrent value. More importantly, if that punishment includes time behind bars, at least during the imprisonment, the thug is kept at bay.

Deterrence is only one of many facets of punishment. The fact that punishment does not result in 100% deterrence is a silly reason not to punish.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

sudden valley gunner said:

+1 And what I was trying to lead the conversation to.

Punishment for punishments sake does little to alleviate or compensate the victim either.

I go 10 over the speed limit, the state used to claim it's a crime against the state, and I must compensate the state. Yet no victim. Now they have lowered those "crimes" to civil infractions so the burden of proof can be lower, yet they still don't have to prove who's civil rights were violated. It's silly and points to nothing but revenue collection and/or control by state.

Click to expand...

In most states, going 10 over is not a crime at all. Its a civil matter. And in civil matters, there must be an injured party. Just traveling fast is not enough IMO.

Several states still have speeding as a criminal offense. Pros and cons to civil v. criminal v. administrative proceedings.

eye95 said:

"Remarkably little" is a nice subjective term. However, it does recognize the punishment does have some deterrent value. More importantly, if that punishment includes time behind bars, at least during the imprisonment, the thug is kept at bay.

Click to expand...

Nice diversion. There needn't be a desire to "punish" to justify incarcerating those who are a genuine threat to others. Incarceration, in the appropriate (read: justified) context, is only incidentally a form of punishment.

Deterrence is only one of many facets of punishment. The fact that punishment does not result in 100% deterrence is a silly reason not to punish.

Click to expand...

Bit of a straw man there, it would seem. The argument against punishment per se is that government punishes far too many for far too much victimless behavior, and that the desire to "punish" and be "hard on crime" is largely responsible for this tendency.

As it happens, you didn't bother to provide a reason for "punishment" other than the satisfaction of your own whims, so I picked a common one to challenge.

I'm not actually saying we can't or shouldn't "punish" the evil, but I am saying that the desire for governmental punishing is run rampant. Perhaps it is time to check that instinct, in the name of liberty.

davidmcbeth said:

In most states, going 10 over is not a crime at all. Its a civil matter. And in civil matters, there must be an injured party. Just traveling fast is not enough IMO.

Several states still have speeding as a criminal offense. Pros and cons to civil v. criminal v. administrative proceedings.

Click to expand...

All traffic infractions were crimes here, then a long time ago they decriminalized them to make them civil, for the sole purpose of it lowers the burden of proof of the state. Meaning they can just accept the testimony of the officer (and of course officers are the epitome of honor and truth) yet it retains all the other aspects of "a crime against the state" even jail time. And they don't care like most other infractions criminal or civil whether it is contrary to the legal founding of our courts under common law and that there must be a victim.

HERE is the "bottom line" for the OP...

From Gun Talk Radio host, Tom Gresham -

Unless you just got back from a two-week sheep hunt in the Wrangell Mountains, you know about the firestorm that blew up after Guns & Ammo magazine writer Dick Metcalf wrote -- and the magazine published -- an article which essentially says that not all gun regulations are infringements on our gun rights. As you might expect, the web exploded, with untold thousands of gun rights activists calling for Metcalf's head. Last Sunday Dick (whom I've known for at least 30 years) did his one and only media interview on Gun Talk Radio. We didn't have enough time (I'm not sure the entire three hours would have been enough), but he explained how the column came about, what he had hoped it would do (start conversations), and how the instant and vociferous reaction caught him and the editors at Guns & Ammo by surprise.

Click to expand...

Immediately, many people will think, "Oh, sure... Tom is just trying to protect his 30 year bud's credibility in the gun community. That's what I'd do, too!", and they could be right. OR... it could be an honest explanation of the author's original intent. Nobody knows for certain except the author himself.

You may now return to diverting this thread from it's original purpose. Pax...

I clicked an ad for $15 for two years of digital subscription. The site had trouble processing my purchase. So I called the toll-free number on the page. Well, it seems that that number can only process subscriptions to the print edition, so I never got confirmation or instructions on how to access the digital edition. I shot an email to G&A, and the matter was corrected in 48 hours. I have a feeling that I was inadvertently subscribed to the print edition instead of the digital.

Wondering if there won't be a print edition in my mailbox in the next few days.

Anyway, I said that to say this: G&A has remarkably good customer service


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

sudden valley gunner said:

All traffic infractions were crimes here, then a long time ago they decriminalized them to make them civil, for the sole purpose of it lowers the burden of proof of the state. Meaning they can just accept the testimony of the officer (and of course officers are the epitome of honor and truth) yet it retains all the other aspects of "a crime against the state" even jail time. And they don't care like most other infractions criminal or civil whether it is contrary to the legal founding of our courts under common law and that there must be a victim.

Click to expand...

Untrue. At least in MA. Say I give you a citation for an unregistered M/V. MA 90-9 $100 CMVI (civil motor vehicle infraction). It is not arrestable, and no possibility of jail time. There is no complaint issued to the court system. It is with the Registry of M/V or the court if you appeal it ,that you deal with. This is because while it is still illegal , it's no warranted a "criminal" proceeding. Say you don't pay your child support and get your license suspended and are caught driving with said license suspended MGL 90-23. Can arrest or issue a complaint. It is deemed criminal. The CMVIs in MA by definition, you can't serve jail time. The only way you could possibly serve time is if you didn't pay anything and the magistrate/judge issued a complaint based on CIVIL CONTEMPT. That's a complete separate charge and I've personally never seen it happen (doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just showing from my experience). So back to point, CMVI are non-criminal and you cannot serve jail time.

And while I'm not a lawyer not a legislature, I'm pretty sure the "victim" in most of these "victimless" crimes is society. Meaning, why is there a speed limit? if you drive on a side street there is no victim. Well if you drive 80 and run over a kid there's a victim. So you might say, "well charge them with doing 80 after they hit the kid". Well that doesn't prevent the kid from getting killed. Why do we have laws against public nudity? I don't feel like seeing ugly people naked. Also, try this thought. You ground your kid for cleaning his room right? Why? There's no victim yet there is a RULE to clean your room and a PUNISHMENT for not doing it. You do it because your trying to keep your house hold clean and instill good values in your child.

Finally, many say that laws don't ever prevent crimes. Just think to yourself if you've EVER wanted to do something (punch someone in face, drive too fast, drink too much, slap your wife/husband, etc. etc.) and you decided "it's not worth the hassle of getting in trouble" then it worked. Not saying for a second that if you pass any law and poof all crime goes away. No. Just saying they cut back on the normal people from doing something. I can say this also from experience. I routinely go to calls where a person will say "I wanted to (insert something illegal) but I knew it wasn't worth it".

Primus said:

Untrue. At least in MA. Say I give you a citation for an unregistered M/V. MA 90-9 $100 CMVI (civil motor vehicle infraction). It is not arrestable, and no possibility of jail time. There is no complaint issued to the court system. It is with the Registry of M/V or the court if you appeal it ,that you deal with. This is because while it is still illegal , it's no warranted a "criminal" proceeding. Say you don't pay your child support and get your license suspended and are caught driving with said license suspended MGL 90-23. Can arrest or issue a complaint. It is deemed criminal. The CMVIs in MA by definition, you can't serve jail time. The only way you could possibly serve time is if you didn't pay anything and the magistrate/judge issued a complaint based on CIVIL CONTEMPT. That's a complete separate charge and I've personally never seen it happen (doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just showing from my experience). So back to point, CMVI are non-criminal and you cannot serve jail time.

Click to expand...

Actually, you proved and reinforced his point- traffic infractions, in general, are not criminalized, except for specific instances. Whether the punishment/judgement comes from the courts or an other agency of the government is irrelevant. The offense must be corrected, even if there isn't a victim, and the state will act as the victim.

mikeyb said:

Actually, you proved and reinforced his point- traffic infractions, in general, are not criminalized, except for specific instances. Whether the punishment/judgement comes from the courts or an other agency of the government is irrelevant. The offense must be corrected, even if there isn't a victim, and the state will act as the victim.

Click to expand...

I apologize, I didn't bold the last part of that which was "to include jail time". That was the specific part I was saying was untrue. I apologize if I gave the impression I disagreeing with anything else.

Primus said:

I apologize, I didn't bold the last part of that which was "to include jail time". That was the specific part I was saying was untrue. I apologize if I gave the impression I disagreeing with anything else.

Click to expand...

You also didn't bold the part about how I was talking about my state.

And yes I have seen people do jail time for civil infractions.

And you also missed the overall part that the true crime was lowering it to be civil so that the burden of proof for the state is lower.

You also seem to be lacking on what constitutes a crime, especially since in my example there were no victims, it is asanine to say the state is a victim for simply breaking a malum prohibitum law.

eye95 said:

I clicked an ad for $15 for two years of digital subscription. The site had trouble processing my purchase. So I called the toll-free number on the page. Well, it seems that that number can only process subscriptions to the print edition, so I never got confirmation or instructions on how to access the digital edition. I shot an email to G&A, and the matter was corrected in 48 hours. I have a feeling that I was inadvertently subscribed to the print edition instead of the digital.

Wondering if there won't be a print edition in my mailbox in the next few days.

Anyway, I said that to say this: G&A has remarkably good customer service


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

That is good to know.. Thanks for sharing.

In other news, 'malum prohibitum' is new to me. I anticipate using it a lot.

sudden valley gunner said:

You also didn't bold the part about how I was talking about my state.

And yes I have seen people do jail time for civil infractions.

And you also missed the overall part that the true crime was lowering it to be civil so that the burden of proof for the state is lower.

You also seem to be lacking on what constitutes a crime, especially since in my example there were no victims, it is asanine to say the state is a victim for simply breaking a malum prohibitum law.

Click to expand...

Good points SVG.

Also, he admits that what he pulled the person over for was NOT a crime. Doesn't that violate Terry V Ohio? Yep. LEO can only stop someone for RAS of a CRIME.

Primus said:

SNIP
And while I'm not a lawyer not a legislature, I'm pretty sure the "victim" in most of these "victimless" crimes is society. Meaning, why is there a speed limit? if you drive on a side street there is no victim. Well if you drive 80 and run over a kid there's a victim. So you might say, "well charge them with doing 80 after they hit the kid". Well that doesn't prevent the kid from getting killed. SNIP

Click to expand...

What if you drive 80mph and don't hit anyone? Is there a victim? No.

What prevents the kid from getting hit is keeping the kid out of the dang street.

What if you drive the speed limit and hit the kid? Will he be any less dead. No.

You've done an ok job summing up the ridiculous logic used by "society" to pass laws that are unconstitutional though... good job.

georg jetson said:

Good points SVG.

Also, he admits that what he pulled the person over for was NOT a crime. Doesn't that violate Terry V Ohio? Yep. LEO can only stop someone for RAS of a CRIME.

Click to expand...

? So what are you saying? That having a tail light isn't a reason to get pulled over? Or that having a tail light out is a crime?

georg jetson said:

What if you drive 80mph and don't hit anyone? Is there a victim? No.

What prevents the kid from getting hit is keeping the kid out of the dang street.

What if you drive the speed limit and hit the kid? Will he be any less dead. No.

You've done an ok job summing up the ridiculous logic used by "society" to pass laws that are unconstitutional though... good job.

Click to expand...

So your saying it's cool to have NO speed limit in a school zone? C'mon... really? You trolling me?

Why are there rules against things like loud exhaust? i don't know... maybe so when you drive by my house at 2 am I don't get woken up. I guess you would prefer that I wake up. Catch the guy. Then file a complaint and go to court as a victim to somehow get compensation for being woken up at 2am. Right?

Or you can just get used to civilization and realize that there are ways to protect the whole BEFORE stuff happens.

georg jetson said:

What if you drive 80mph and don't hit anyone? Is there a victim? No.

What prevents the kid from getting hit is keeping the kid out of the dang street.

What if you drive the speed limit and hit the kid? Will he be any less dead. No.

You've done an ok job summing up the ridiculous logic used by "society" to pass laws that are unconstitutional though... good job.

Click to expand...

Teehee. It's what happens when you lack a fundamental understanding or acceptance of the principles of liberty.

stealthyeliminator said:

Teehee. It's what happens when you lack a fundamental understanding or acceptance of the principles of liberty.

Click to expand...

TeeHee? Are you a 12yo girl?

There is no lack of understand of either. You failed to stand up and say YES you believe that you should be able to do 80 (in your pink cabriolet) through a school zone. If you don't smash a kid then no crime. If you do hit one, oh well then I guess you finally have a victim.

Primus said:

So your saying it's cool to have NO speed limit in a school zone? C'mon... really? You trolling me?

Click to expand...

In a constitutional republic, the state does not have the authority to regulate my private property. In a constitutional republic, it's never about safety. It's about keeping the government in its chains.

Primus said:

Why are there rules against things like loud exhaust? i don't know... maybe so when you drive by my house at 2 am I don't get woken up. I guess you would prefer that I wake up. Catch the guy. Then file a complaint and go to court as a victim to somehow get compensation for being woken up at 2am. Right?

Click to expand...

Re-read my first response.

Primus said:

Or you can just get used to civilization and realize that there are ways to protect the whole BEFORE stuff happens.

Click to expand...

You need to understand how liberty works and what things destroy liberty. In the case of a constitutional republic, allowing the government to operate outside of its constitutional authority destroys liberty.

georg jetson said:

What if you drive 80mph and don't hit anyone? Is there a victim? No.

What prevents the kid from getting hit is keeping the kid out of the dang street.

What if you drive the speed limit and hit the kid? Will he be any less dead. No.

You've done an ok job summing up the ridiculous logic used by "society" to pass laws that are unconstitutional though... good job.

Click to expand...

georg jetson said:

In a constitutional republic, the state does not have the authority to regulate my private property. In a constitutional republic, it's never about safety. It's about keeping the government in its chains.



Re-read my first response.



You need to understand how liberty works and what things destroy liberty. In the case of a constitutional republic, allowing the government to operate outside of its constitutional authority destroys liberty.

Click to expand...

I read your first response. What does that have to with citations being Civil and not "criminal"? Which is what two of us were talking about.

Second, What does your private property have to do with speed limits or any other "non victim" crimes?

Finally, how are regulations, laws, etc. that have to do with things like speed limits, vehicle noise, etc. (victimless "crimes") have to do with the Constitution? Are you going to say it violates your rights by not being able to speed through a cross walk at 100 with straight pipes at 2am? I'm confused.

Primus said:

I read your first response. What does that have to with citations being Civil and not "criminal"? Which is what two of us were talking about.

Click to expand...

First response in the post... not first post.

Primus said:

Second, What does your private property have to do with speed limits or any other "non victim" crimes?

Click to expand...

What property does the government regulate with a speed limit?

Primus said:

Finally, how are regulations, laws, etc. that have to do with things like speed limits, vehicle noise, etc. (victimless "crimes") have to do with the Constitution? Are you going to say it violates your rights by not being able to speed through a cross walk at 100 with straight pipes at 2am? I'm confused.

Click to expand...

You are confused. I'll attempt to get you started on your eye opening journey.

Everything has to do with the constitution when it comes to laws, regulations, etc. People do not get "rights" from government. On the contrary, government gets its authority from the several constitutions. Individual rights not withstanding, if the government has no authority per the constitution, then it simply has no authority to make said laws, regulations, etc.

You seem to be stuck on an issue of safety. You think it may be unsafe "to speed through a cross walk at 100 with straight pipes at 2am".

Ok.

Much more unsafe is a government working outside the confines of the constitution. A tyrannical government has shown itself to be the most unsafe of man's creations.