SCOTUS okays enhanced sentences for armed criminals

sudden valley gunner · Nov 28, 2010

amlevin said:
I understand what your saying but my original point was people know of circumstances in advance that can get their license suspended or revoked. Even in your case, you know of the conditions the State placed on your license. If I were in similar circumstances I would MAKE SURE that the document was received by the State DOL. If it was here in Washington I would take it directly to the DOL office. At the least I would send it Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. If I didn't receive the "Green Card" back within a few days of mailing, I'd call and check.

Again, people know of the circumstances before. Most suspensions/revocations are due to FTA, Failure to Pay Fine or Restitution, or additional violations of terms and conditions imposed by a Court.

Both of us have pointed out where we made the efforts we are supposed to but the state made the mistake. It is very possible not to receive notice and the my defending attorney in the last case and the prosecutor in this one both said it happens all the time, the state doesn't care. When in fact it should be the state that should have the burden of proof not the citizen.

But this is an off topic distraction the main point was that guns that are not part of the crime should not be part of any enhancement regardless of the circumstances. techno points out a good example, I thought I did with a fight that breaks out too, etc. Trust me the police and prosecutors will make the gun an issue any chance they can to paint people in a worse light to the judge and jury.

amlevin · Nov 28, 2010

Can anyone here cite where the commission of a misdemeanor, while carrying a firearm, gets the crime "bumped up" to felony status? Unless the gun was USED in the commission of the crime the presence is merely an "enhancement to the sentence".

Solicit a hooker while armed and getting the crime bumped up to felony? Cite the law or portion thereof that states this.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 28, 2010

amlevin said:
Can anyone here cite where the commission of a misdemeanor, while carrying a firearm, gets the crime "bumped up" to felony status? Unless the gun was USED in the commission of the crime the presence is merely an "enhancement to the sentence".

Solicit a hooker while armed and getting the crime bumped up to felony? Cite the law or portion thereof that states this.

Why should it be an enhancement is the point. If it isn't used in the action of the crime it shouldn't be an enhancement.

amlevin · Nov 28, 2010

sudden valley gunner said:
Why should it be an enhancement is the point. If it isn't used in the action of the crime it shouldn't be an enhancement.

It won't be an enhancement for a misdemeanor. As for enhancements for felony's, I'm in favor of any enhancement they want to hang on those that commit felonies. Would sure beat the current system where sentences are way too short for the crime committed.

In Washington State the Firearm Enhancement is only provided for a Felony conviction, not all the numerous misdemeanors or infractions. Here's the "law":

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.533

sudden valley gunner · Nov 28, 2010

amlevin said:
It won't be an enhancement for a misdemeanor. As for enhancements for felony's, I'm in favor of any enhancement they want to hang on those that commit felonies. Would sure beat the current system where sentences are way too short for the crime committed.

In Washington State the Firearm Enhancement is only provided for a Felony conviction, not all the numerous misdemeanors or infractions. Here's the "law":

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.533

Thats were I would disagree I don't care if it's felony or not if the gun wasn't used it shouldn't be an enhancement, it's a slippery slope that can lead to more enhancements to be spread to other things such as misdemeanors, etc.

By the way online gambling is a felony in this state many don't know this, so if you are carrying your firearm should that get an enhancement?

amlevin · Nov 28, 2010

sudden valley gunner said:
By the way online gambling is a felony in this state many don't know this, so if you are carrying your firearm should that get an enhancement?

Yes, for those that break the law. Isn't it interesting that only the Tribes are allowed to have unlimited gaming operations in this State. Thanks to our Governor we are just about the only (if not the only) State that doesn't get a share of the profits too.

Back to the original point, if the law says enhance for felony, yes, one should get the enhancement. If the public decides this is to big a punishment, then get the law changed. In reality, you'll find more support for these enhancements in the General Public than you will find support for elimination of them.

(from a Seattle PI Opinion piece- Feb. 2007)

The concept of reducing violence by passing gun laws is a fallacy, as evidenced by several decades of failure. The only proven solution is to put criminals in prison and keep them there as long as you can. This is not a popular way to spend tax dollars, hence the opening for culture warriors to hijack the lawmaking process for their own ends.

We have the law and the best way, according to this writer, to cut violent crime (especially involving guns) is to put the perpetrators in prison for as long as possible.

Please note the person's comment on how more prisons is not popular so the "anti's" just go for more gun laws.

The enhancement, in my opinion, is one that should be heavily enforced, every day, as much as possible.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 29, 2010

amlevin said:
Yes, for those that break the law. Isn't it interesting that only the Tribes are allowed to have unlimited gaming operations in this State. Thanks to our Governor we are just about the only (if not the only) State that doesn't get a share of the profits too.

Back to the original point, if the law says enhance for felony, yes, one should get the enhancement. If the public decides this is to big a punishment, then get the law changed. In reality, you'll find more support for these enhancements in the General Public than you will find support for elimination of them.

(from a Seattle PI Opinion piece- Feb. 2007)

We have the law and the best way, according to this writer, to cut violent crime (especially involving guns) is to put the perpetrators in prison for as long as possible.

Please note the person's comment on how more prisons is not popular so the "anti's" just go for more gun laws.

The enhancement, in my opinion, is one that should be heavily enforced, every day, as much as possible.

Why should the state get a share of the profits? Of a sovereign nation? But yes Gregoire did play dirty politics with those rules.

So enhancements is a "compromise" with anti's? See I am for not compromising rights. Again once we start down these paths were does it stop rarely does it just stay as intended, but when they find that isn't effective they move for more power more enhancements.

I am going to agree to disagree and think personally it is unconstitutional to enhance someones sentence for mere possession of something that had nothing to do with the crime. Especially seeing how they are continuing to lower the bar of what constitutes a felony.

amlevin · Nov 29, 2010

sudden valley gunner said:
Why should the state get a share of the profits? Of a sovereign nation? But yes Gregoire did play dirty politics with those rules.

Ever notice how "both sides of this fence" are played. Sovereign Nation until it comes time for hand-outs from Washington (DC). Should we call all that money "Foreign Aid" rather than "Welfare"? Citizens of the US until is inconvenient then "Sovereign Nation" status is invoked. Contracts don't have to be honored and debts can't be collected because of "Sovereign Nation" status. Usually, when a "Sovereign Nation" looses a war, they are no longer "Soverign". Spoils of War, and all that.

sudden valley gunner said:
I am going to agree to disagree and think personally it is unconstitutional to enhance someones sentence for mere possession of something that had nothing to do with the crime. Especially seeing how they are continuing to lower the bar of what constitutes a felony.

Now all you have to do is convince the Supreme Court.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 29, 2010

amlevin said:
Ever notice how "both sides of this fence" are played. Sovereign Nation until it comes time for hand-outs from Washington (DC). Should we call all that money "Foreign Aid" rather than "Welfare"? Citizens of the US until is inconvenient then "Sovereign Nation" status is invoked. Contracts don't have to be honored and debts can't be collected because of "Sovereign Nation" status. Usually, when a "Sovereign Nation" looses a war, they are no longer "Soverign". Spoils of War, and all that.

Thats called terms of treaty, to end the wars/fighting, U.S. got to take most their land and in turn would provide certain benefits.

Why would you then want to take more "profits" from someone that would lessen their dependence on the government?

These "handouts" (and that isn't what they are) are a perfect example though why communism/socialism doesn't work Indian nations are some of the poorest places in the U.S.

Now all you have to do is convince the Supreme Court.

There are many decisions the SCOTUS and the activist judges have made I disagree with. Think about it if there were one less "conservative" judge we wouldn't have Heller or McDonald. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right.

I'm in blue.

gogodawgs · Nov 29, 2010

Tribes...

are a 'dependent soveign nation' per the SC.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 30, 2010

gogodawgs said:
are a 'dependent soveign nation' per the SC.

Although some have federal treaties and some state.

amlevin · Nov 30, 2010

sudden valley gunner said:
Although some have federal treaties and some state.

And all want to "feed in both troughs".

Dave_pro2a · Nov 30, 2010

sudden valley gunner said:
Thats were I would disagree I don't care if it's felony or not if the gun wasn't used it shouldn't be an enhancement, it's a slippery slope that can lead to more enhancements to be spread to other things such as misdemeanors, etc.

By the way online gambling is a felony in this state many don't know this, so if you are carrying your firearm should that get an enhancement?

You'd get my vote.

The 2A is an inalienable right. The fact that a citizen is now given a greater prison sentence for exercising that right, when he perhaps did not use a firearm in the actual comission of a crime, is a travesty.

In other words, a guy selling drugs on the corner has just as much an inalienable right to own and carry a firearm as the business man working downtown.

Now if that drug dealer actually uses the gun to commit a crime, then lock him up for a long time... but if he is just busted for drugs, and 'posession' of a firearm, then he should not face an extraordinarily long sentence just because he was exercising one of his inalienable rights.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
Inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

amlevin · Nov 30, 2010

Dave_pro2a said:
You'd get my vote.

The 2A is an inalienable right. The fact that a citizen is now given a greater prison sentence for exercising that right, when he perhaps did not use a firearm in the actual comission of a crime, is a travesty.

In other words, a guy selling drugs on the corner has just as much an inalienable right to own and carry a firearm as the business man working downtown.

Now if that drug dealer actually uses the gun to commit a crime, then lock him up for a long time... but if he is just busted for drugs, and 'posession' of a firearm, then he should not face an extraordinarily long sentence just because he was exercising one of his inalienable rights.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
Inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

These people all have the right to carry a firearm, they don't have the right to commit crimes. Once the crime is committed then the penalties can include adding time for having the firearm.

Some rights can be denied once one becomes a Felon.

On of the problems our society faces today is the fact that Criminals have been given far too many rights. I will shed no tears for anyone that gets an additional 2-5 years for packing a gun while selling Drugs or any other Felony. The sad part is that far to many criminals don't see enough jail time. It's become a joke. Punishment is only a deterrent when it is Swift, Certain, and Meaningful.

Dave_pro2a · Nov 30, 2010

amlevin said:
On of the problems our society faces today is the fact that Criminals have been given far too many rights.

We disagree. One of the major problems with modern American society is that people have started erroniously believing that rights are given or granted.

A criminal does have rights, because they are a human being. They have the same rights as you or I. That's Classical Liberalism: the Natural Rights philosophy that this country was founded upon.

amlevin said:
Some rights can be denied once one becomes a Felon.

If some one is serving a sentence, then yes the ability to exercise their rights may be legitimatly curtailed. Once they have completed their sentence, any infringement is illegitmate imho.

That worked fine from 1787, when the contitution was ratified, till the passing of the GCA of 1968.

What's next? People losing their 1st Amendment rights because they trespassed while holding a protest sign.

Jayd1981 · Nov 30, 2010

My biggest worry about these enhancements is when they are applied in cases where the person should not have been convicted to begin with. In some parts of this country, defending your home can easily become man slaughter if not murder. Now you do it with a pistol and you get even more time. Look at the the El Paso border patrol agents. They recieved more time for the enhancements than the actual crime they were (falsely in my oppion) found guilty for.

JoeSparky · Dec 1, 2010

Too many of the enhancement statutes say something to the effect of "commiting a specific crime whilein possession of a gun"--- and this is my issue. IF THE GUN ISN'T PART OF THE CRIME then it was just there. NO ENHANCEMENT.
USING THE GUN IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME IS THE ISSUE!

Please read caps as emphasis!

Dave_pro2a · Dec 1, 2010

JoeSparky said:
Too many of the enhancement statutes say something to the effect of "commiting a specific crime whilein possession of a gun"--- and this is my issue. IF THE GUN ISN'T PART OF THE CRIME then it was just there. NO ENHANCEMENT.
USING THE GUN IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME IS THE ISSUE!

Please read caps as emphasis!

But that runs contrary to the anti-gun belief that guns are inhernetly evil.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 2, 2010

amlevin said:
And all want to "feed in both troughs".

Ok then give up your land your state and your government, and they will be done with the treaty. It's not a "hand-out" it's payment. Treaty rights. Get it right.

But proves how forcing nations into soicialistic forms of government are not beneficial for the people.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 2, 2010

Dave_pro2a said:
W

What's next? People losing their 1st Amendment rights because they trespassed while holding a protest sign.

Exactly!!! It is a fundamental right, just like the right to walk around, freely, pursue happiness.

Just like yelling fire in a theater, your free speech can not be an enhancement but you can use it in committing a crime.

SCOTUS okays enhanced sentences for armed criminals

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Centurion

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member