Is mandating a CPL infringing and impairing on our Constitutional Rights?

[amlevin]

imported post

Jayd1981 wrote:

There should be one gun law:

"It is illegal to use a gun in the commission of a crime"

With that one gun law we can prosocute those who use firearms unwisely. There has never been a gun law that has prevented criminals from arming themselves. By thier nature, laws only restrict honest citizens and do nothing to disarm those who wish to do harm to others.

In case you hadn't noticed, we already have that "Law" and it is present in every State.

The issue is not the presense of the law, it is the application. How many are arrested for the comission of a crime, using or merely possessing a firearm, and end up being charged for a p!$$@nt misdemeanor?

I am totally in favor of fewer laws, that are universally enforced, but not as some suggest by favoring the removal of all laws and restrictions. BTW, the "Old West" wash't the peacful, wonderful, society it has sometimes been portrayed as. Lots of people died at the hands of so called "law abiding citizens" in the name of Justice, often without due process. Want to see that again in our cities?

I still maintain that there has to be a system that provides for both reasonable restriction coupled with agressive enforcement and prosecution.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

knight_308 wrote:

In some states you get a RO just for filing divorce, or because the woman says she's scared when she tries to leave. You ban someone for that cause and you're denying them a right without due process of law. If the individual has committed a crime, by all means lock them up, keep them from having guns as terms of their bail, or something along those lines, but if there's no crime then there should be no punishment.

Unless it is an ex-parte order of protection or restraining order they do get due process. The problem is that the level of evidence needed in a civil trial is less than that needed for a criminal conviction. Instead of the State having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the State only has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence which is an exceptionally low. In Davidson County Tennessee OP's or RO's are not heard in a court of record nor is the defendant entitled to a jury unless appealed. It is just like traffic court where everyone is guilty unless the cop doesn't show and even then you might be depending upon the judge.

Tennessee takes all firearms from the defendant of an order of protection while the order is in effect. I assume they do the same in WA.

 

[aadvark]

imported post

You better be glad that you live in Washington..., because:

1. You can Open Carry a Pistol without any need for a CPL, and

2. You can Open Carry almost anywhere, including Government Buildings.

***In my State of Georgia..., you can not do either of those things listed above.***

 

[amzbrady]

imported post

[align=left]I dont remember where I saw it, but it was one of the best things I've seen written on the justice system. "The justice system should concentrate on doing their job. They should do the possible, instead of the impossible. They should start punishing criminals instead of trying to rehabilitate them." I also think the death penalty is not used enough. [/align]
[align=left]I have to question??? Why would America want to foot the bill to house, clothe, and feed, Faisal Shahzad for a life sentence? He should be put to death, it's not like he will be rehabilitated and become a descent American citizen and a working part of society.[/align]
[align=left]snip[/align]
[align=left]Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the failed Times Square bombing plot, pleaded guilty to terrorism and weapons charges on Monday afternoon.[/align]
[align=left]He understands, he says, that it's in violation of U.S. criminal law. But he said he doesn't care for the United States' laws.[/align]
The judge then said, well, what about the women and children in Times Square? The children, did they select the government?

And Shahzad said, it's a time of war now, and the U.S. is also killing women and children in Muslim countries.

He didn't seem the least bit apologetic for any of the counts that he was pleading guilty to today.

He faces a maximum of life. Of course, it's ultimately up to the judge as to how many years in prison he will be spending.

 

[Jayd1981]

imported post

Yes I know that law is in every state. I was simply stating that is the only gun law I agree with.

Please tell me how these reasonable restrictions keep criminals from arming themselves? How does making SBR's illegal (or heavily restricted) make us safer or any other rediculious law make us safer?

 

[Metalhead47]

imported post

Jayd1981 wrote:

amlevin wrote:

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

I suppose you are happy with the safety that all the gun laws have given us?  Remind me... how have these laws prevented bad people from obtaining guns?

I believe the real question is how many more of those who don't play well and follow society's rules will be allowed to obtain weapons legally?  Nobody in their right mind would think that the laws of today prevent all "criminals" from obtaining firearms.  Without some regulation or reasonable restriction, how many MORE would then be armed?

No, I do not feel comfortable that the laws of today are protecting us and keeping those who should not be armed, unarmed.  I feel that there should be basic, common sense laws, that are designed to protect society from those who have no qualms against Murder, Mayhem, and Robbery.  Then, those laws should be ENFORCED!  I believe it can all be done within the confines of the Constitution.

Eveyone wants to see no restrictions on them but nobody wants to describe the results of a society with no limits.

There should be one gun law:

"It is illegal to use a gun in the commission of a crime"

With that one gun law we can prosocute those who use firearms unwisely.  There has never been a gun law that has prevented criminals from arming themselves.  By thier nature, laws only restrict honest citizens and do nothing to disarm those who wish to do harm to others.

Even that is superfluous. It is illegal to commit a crime, pure & simple. Doesn't matter how, or why, or that daddy beat you. Mitigating circumstances just cloud the issue and give lawyers more money.

Determine guilt, then PUNISH THE GUILTY. And punish them SEVERELY for crimes of malice of forethought (Murder 1, rape, child molestation, embezzlement, etc.)

 

[END_THE_FED]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

It is a reflection of less poverty, when the "poor" can afford these superfluities while still claiming to be poor. It is my experience that the overwhelming majority of the "poor" are that way either by choice, or due to their own poor decisions. Give any of "the poor" a million dollars, and in a year they'd be poor again.

On Oprah, this was an interesting story. A homeless man was given 100k... he blew it all rather foolishly....

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/95216/a_homeless_man_blows_100000_of_free.html

yeah it was a cool documentary it originally aired on showtime. I have been trying to find it online to watch again but havent been able to.
Reversal of fortune

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0838195/