United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- If Second Amendment supporters are the most frustrated about anything (aside from the fact their rights are being wrongly attacked), it has to be the absolute refusal of the federal government to enforce existing laws on the books. Not only does it make the misuse of firearms a bigger problem, it also costs lives, and the cost in lives is then wrongly laid at the feet of Second Amendment supporters by the likes of Beto O’Rourke, Shannon Watts, and other anti-Second Amendment extremists.
Thankfully, there are elected officials who recognize this, and who aim to do something about that. One is Representative Ann Wagner (R-MO), who has introduced HR 5836, the Prosecuting Gun Crimes Saves Lives Act. While anti-Second Amendment extremists like to hijack the phrase “common sense” to push their agenda, often when it comes to banning guns, that should not dissuade Second Amendment supporters from describing this bill as being common sense.
That’s because this time, that phrase is the truth. When you look at Philadelphia or Chicago, it is clear from the history of Project Exile that enforcing existing laws could slash crime rates in a big way. Just look at the text of 18 USC 922 and 18 USC 924, and some of those tools can easily put a lot of bad guys away for a long time.
The fact that these laws are not enforced when it could greatly reduce the violent crime in urban areas should be a huge scandal. This failure isn’t just leading to our rights being wrongfully attacked (or infringed), it is contributing to the death and/or maiming of hundreds. Anti-Second Amendment extremists talk about saving lives, but the tools to save them are already available to federal prosecutors – they just have to be used.
It’s understandable, given some of the absurdities we see in certain states, why there is a reluctance to enforce federal laws. The effective legalization and/or decriminalization of marijuana is another valid thing that should be considered in these efforts as well. But there should be no objection to enforcing the laws against people who have records of committing violent crimes or who are engaged in supplying guns to those involved in either the drug trade or violent crimes.
When it comes right down to it, Second Amendment supporters have a vested interest in seeing the misuse of firearms addressed. First, and most importantly, it is the right thing to do, given the clear harm and agony that the misuse causes to our fellow Americans. Second, by addressing the misuse, we can disarm one of the weapons anti-Second Amendment extremists use to take away our rights – simply because we prove them to be liars when they claim to be the only ones who care about saving lives.
Therefore, the common-sense approach is to contact your Representative and Senators and politely ask them to support HR 5836, as well as similar legislation like the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act. In this case, it is just the right thing to do on so many levels.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics, and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
As a former LEO with 25 years on the job, I can assure you that gun charges are always the first ones plea bargained away. I can’t even count how many times I experienced it.
Trick question. There are no Constitutional ‘gun laws’. Only edicts of burrocrats that go by the name of “Statute”, even though the word “Statute” doesn’t appear in any “law” books! The only place one can even look up Statute is in Black’s Law, and I hereby dare EVERYONE to go look it up ASAP. Then explain to me how the words “not criminal law”, and “not civil law”, are a definition! That’s what statutes AREN’T… not what they ARE! This needs a big DUH under it Black’s Law… because it clearly shows up your bias and stupidity! Not feeling so… Read more »
Badlands) UNLESS, please take note… the gun related charges are the ONLY charges filed. Then the rules change from “always plea bargain them away”, to: “No plea bargains. Maximum penalties only.”
Could they make it any MORE obvious that criminals are to be considered as allies and US citizens as the “enemies of the State”? In your 25 years of experience, is that not the way the underworld and the citizens are treated by the rank and file officer? Is the system not extremely concerned with the “rights” of the criminal, whereas the citizen mostly has none?
We need to specify which gun laws are going to be enforced before we jump on the all encompassing enforcement band wagon. ANY and ALL BATFE gun laws written by, established by and enforced by the BATFE through the process of Administrative Law are UNCONSTITUTIONAL by their very nature and should never be enforced! Ask Randy Weaver how enforcing the “gun crime” of removing 2-inches of shotgun barrel justification for “enforcing the law” which resulted in the death of his son and his wife was a benefit for anyone.
The use of firearms to commit unjustified violence, is the major pretense for enacting laws suppressing the right to arms. To reduce this violence is counter-productive to the agenda of disarming private citizens. These laws should have never been allowed to be enacted, much less enforced. Allowing these infringements of the rights of all citizens, and our governing to deny the right from individual ‘free’ citizens is mortal to our freedom.
I am amazed at how Harold dances around the real issue as to why “gun crime” does not result in incarceration of the offenders. Neither party wishes to offend or upset the voters who happen to have skin tones that are darker than most of the people that live in this country nor their advocates in the majority group. A pox on both their houses.
@RoyD
As they say, never let a good crisis go to waste. For those in government who try to thrive off passing restrictions and controls against freedoms, they need victims one way or another in order to prey upon their emotions.
In the mean time they neglect the issues that cause the crime, largely because they are responsible for propagating it. (Evidence, Trayvon Martin was released by school police in spite of having stolen property and burglary tools in his possession. His further activity and drug use helped lead to the choices he made the night he died.)
Well, finally, something I’ve been talking and posting about for a long time, might come to fruition. Along with it, how about highlighting how anti-gunners have libeled law-abiding gun owners, as well as the NRA, as complicit in gun crime? Whatever, at least some are talking about going on offense. It’s the only way we’ll preserve gun rights.
Most of the murders where a gun is used to commit the crime most likely are done with a stolen firearm and that in itself is another charge that we don’t hear much about let alone prosecuted.
If the government is going to have laws on the books either enforce them or remove them no double standards.
Is your statement concerning firearms used being stolen a fact or just supposition on your part? Enquiring minds want to know.
@RoyD – Stolen at some point. Possibly not by the end user, but most frequently someone stole it before it was placed into black market trading. Frequently “crime guns” are communal property of a street gang. As a legal gun owner, would you ever provide one of your firearms to a gang? Barring imposition of draconian gun laws neither would I – however some proposed gun laws might motivate me to engage in cash-on-the-barrel sales in protest.
Finnky: Yes. I just wish he had said that rather than the way he worded it. A small thing and yet an important one I think.
The bigger issue is why are we punishing “gun” crimes more harshly than other crimes? Isn’t murder still murder when the victim is killed by any other means? Same as robbery or any other crime against an individual. I can understand reduced penalties for extenuating circumstances, such as if a heated argument turned deadly, etc., but the instrument used in the crime should not bring additional punishments. If that is so, then there should be a chart of various implements to determine punishments, such as: Asphyxiation by hanging, X, no firearms used, so what difference does it make; Asphyxiation by… Read more »
“I can understand reduced penalties for extenuating circumstances, such as if a heated argument turned deadly, etc.”
Really? Either you meant to shoot the person, use deadly force, or you didn’t. My oh my.
Roy, where in my statement that you quoted did I state “shoot”? My, oh, my….
Once again, Heed, you are being your usual disingenuous self. At least you are consistent.
Roy, please point out where you believe I am “disingenuous”. The fact that you could not comprehend my post, and assumed I meant “shoot”, when I did not even reference that, and specifically mentioned crimes using (or not using) other implements. I have always put forth my opinions as my beliefs, I have never posted an opinion as mine other than mine own. When stating facts, I have always used facts that are known to be true, as far as I am able to verify them. If that isn’t true, again, please point out where that is not true. Your… Read more »
Heed: LOL!
And so is RoyD. Always, and consistently, a brainless boob..
Knute, I guess I have to accept your assessment of my mental state since you are a subject matter expert having lived your life being, “a brainless boob.” Your turn.
All right, for my turn I will try logic and reason. Again. For about the 20th time. And you will ignore it, the same as you always do. But here goes: Reasonable question for RoyD: Are you unaware of the meaning of “I can understand reduced penalties for extenuating circumstances, such as if a heated argument turned deadly, etc.” Really? Either you meant to shoot the person, use deadly force, or you didn’t. My oh my.” Your response sounds like you think that a robbery that ends up with a dead citizen IS, AND SHOULD BE… the exact same thing,… Read more »
@RoyD You did make an assumption on what Heed the Call-up was saying. If you went back to the founding, and the ratification of the Constitution, there was a common law principle that was recognized in our courts called “Fighting Words”. If someone attacked you verbally with slander, and you hit them, just caught them in the right spot and caused them to die, then the responsibility was put on the one who initiated the fight through their words. The protection for such cases were if what the individual said was indeed true and not slander, then guilt would be… Read more »
Now. I’d like to ask all three of you to dust off your shoulders, and understand that each of you makes some really good comments. RoyD does, Knute does, and Heed the Call-up does. That being said, if you make a mistake and misread what someone writes its ok… Own up to it and say you mistook what they were trying to say and move on. If there is evidence through direct quotes, then the person who wrote it should then own up to it. Call out mistakes where they actually exist, but have evidence to show why. Roy, in… Read more »
TheRev, as I only asked for him to provide proof of his statement about me. He posted a quote from me that did not include the word he claimed, and called me disingenuous. I did not stoop to his level, and only requested a rational rebuttal.
@Heed the Call-up
Yes, I saw.. The “My oh my” part was what triggered him further though and did not help. After that it was Knute joining in helping to further it.
A mistake was made based on a misunderstanding, and what you originally said was correct. Hopefully it ends there with no further bad blood.
TheRev: To be correct it was I, not Heed, who first used, My oh my.
@RoyD
I saw that, but his was done mockingly back at you, which as I said did not help, and led to you giving an insult to him instead of evidence.
TheRev: For better or worse I will have to stand by my statements as I do not believe they are in error.
@RoyD
Then you will have to accept the consequences. Factually, what @Heed said was correct, and he did not insinuate or allude to weapons being used. He was arguing against the idea. As such, you are welcome to your opinion, but as the facts stand his argument showed no disingenuity.
TheRev: It seems we have a disagreement as to the facts. And our opinions differ because of it. And life goes on.
@RoyD Well, it is a fact that he did not connect shooting to his “Crime of passion” comment, and I did lay out the historical premise behind the legality of that statement. As it stands, his statement that he did not state “Shooting” anyone in connection with that statement is a fact. He didn’t tie any kind of weapon to it. He just said “If it turns deadly.” Whether that is because someone got knocked down and hit their head, resulting in a brain hemorrhage, or something else was not mentioned. It was you who insisted it must be tied… Read more »
TheRev: As much as I hate stating the obvious here goes. His first sentence set the topic of his writing. “The bigger issue is why are we punishing “gun” crimes more harshly than other crimes?” So he is talking about crimes committed with firearms. In his fourth sentence, “I can understand reduced penalties for extenuating circumstances, such as if a heated argument turned deadly, etc., but the instrument used in the crime should not bring additional punishments.” In this sentence he is referring to deaths BROUGHT ABOUT by a “heated argument” but CAUSED by the use of a firearm. The… Read more »
Roy, I did not, and was not referring to the use of a firearm in that statement. If I had, I would have. Your assumption is wrong, and I told you so. I also referred to crimes with and without firearms prior to my statement about circumstances resulting in death. Neither are all of my following sentences about crimes with firearms. I am not positive, but I don’t believe there are any deaths by asphyxiation that are attributable to the use of a firearm. I have not seen that listed as a cause of death in the FBI UCR data… Read more »
@RoyD Then you are choosing to make that Connection as he did not… His first Sentence was that a Criminal act is a Criminal act, and the presence of a weapon does in fact define the crime. Now, here is what you are saying. “Everyone of his following sentences is about the use various instruments used to kill either directly or with a reference to various forms of FIREARMS used to kill.” Do you really want that to be the thesis of your statement? Even a blind man would read that and understand it to be satire. While I have… Read more »
Roy, what are the facts that you have to prove I am disingenuous? You have had ample time to post several more comments, but still are unable to provide any evidence where I am being disingenuous. Is it common for you to call someone a liar without proof?
There are no facts here. No one has cited or labeled anything as such. There are only opinions and bruised egos. No facts. None. Zero. Just a bunch of repeating the same refrains over and over.
Which is why I can bow out without brushing myself off. Because I know good advice when I read it.
“Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.”
-Mark Twain
Roy, you still have not provided any evidence to prove your claim that I am/was disingenuous. In fact, as TheRev pointed out, the quote of my statement that you posted did not even have the word “shoot” in it.
It is quite evident who the disingenuous one here is, and he/she is unwilling to admit he/she made an error in judgment. Either that, or someone’s big boy pants are filled and need changing.
Here comes Harold again to push infringement. All arms laws we currently have are unconstitutional. Criminals should be prosecuted for the actual crimes they commit such as murder, assault, and robbery regardless of the tool used to commit said crime.
No right is absolute. That’s a fact. Where to draw the (reality based) line is what must be decided. That should be as close to a pure right as possible.
@Loveaduck Wrong… Nothing else, just wrong…. The right of belief is absolute, even if that belief is in the delusional. The minute you think you or anyone else has the right or authority to decide a line on what other people believe, no matter how slight, you have advocated tyranny. In regards to the Second Amendment however, it states No Infringement… It doesn’t leave any wiggle room for anything being acceptable interference on the part of our government. So, what you wrote is not fact, its fallacy. Pre-existing rights are not up for a vote to be decided as a… Read more »
Wrong again, fool. ALL Rights ARE absolute up to the Rights of others. I have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to swing my fist as wildly as I please as long as it doesn’t go a micron past the tippy tip of your nose. So it is with EVERY Right. You fail at civics, go back to school.
Isn’t it amazing how this stuff that we learned in elementary school at age 12, now seems impossible for today’s college graduates to follow?
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/
I can’t see us as being that much smarter. I think its the college grads have just gotten that much stupider. That I WILL believe!
@Knute Knute – The commie-controlled public fool system has been dumbing down kids for over 40 years now, and especially in the last 30!! These enemies of all that is good, decent and freedom-based have replaced common sense with common core and they’re destroying all of Western Civilization in the process!
Pinochet did nothing wrong. Physical Removal is the answer because leftist thinking is cancer. Hoppe is right.
@wjd Flatt – I remember hearing that as well. However would argue that when your fist enters my personal space and presents a threat, you are exceeding your right to swing your fist. If I can block without stepping toward you, it is too close. Don’t forget the Tuller (sp?) drill – someone with a knife, bat or fist at 25 feet is likely to be able to reach and strike you before you can draw and fire. If your swinging fist is accompanied by threatening words – I can react in self defense. If you appear fitter and stronger… Read more »
@Finnky – There you go again trying to take a metaphor and turn it into something that it was never intended to be. In the world of self-defense, yes someone inside 25 feet acting like that is a threat and you can act to distance yourself from someone appearing to be unhinged… Else if that unhinged-beaving someone comes RIGHT AT YOU, you know what to do. Pull that smokewagon and get to work.
But that’s not what I meant and I’m hoping you’re not so obtuse as to actually believe that!!
Ann wagner is a gungrabber in sheeps clothing! Id trust her about as far as i could push my class8 volvo with the breaks set.
Any weapon used offensively during the commission of a crime should be the only law necessary to convict and incarcerate criminals.
We who support the Second Amendment as intended use our guns only in lawful manner.
The liberal left would have you believe only the law abiding are gun dangerous and criminals are
always omitted as the primary reason for any gun related crimes.
@MCHAEL J
Who says the commission of a crime is dependent on a weapon? The only real weapon there is is the human mind. Hands, feet, and even words can be used as weapons(Which is why Slander and Libel can be brought to trial).
Criminal acts are not dependent on weapons, they are entirely tied to the violation of the rights of another, or at least that was the original intent when our Constitution was ratified.
REV: Well stated. The main weapon used by the mind is the bare hand. Anything held by the hand is merely an extension. This is a point that must be driven into especially the anti-gun types.
@laughing Jack Mac
Not just what is held in the hand, but by ways of deviance too. Human thought can be used to plot traps, whether physical, social, or any other form. even a man paralyzed from the neck down can still commit a murder by setting things in motion.
@MJ – Not all firearms usage supported by the 2nd is lawful. In fact the primary purpose of the 2nd is to enable mass law breaking in opposition to tyrannical governance.
Used to think I was incapable of violent action against any human being, but were you or anyone to attempt harm against my family or country – I would unhappily make an exception.
@Finnky “the primary purpose of the 2nd is to enable mass law breaking in opposition to tyrannical governance.” I think the founders made clear in the Declaration of Independence that it is not the people breaking the law in that instance, but the governing body itself. “That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such… Read more »
I was referring to gun crime, I guess I should have used the word firearms or guns. Let me be clear, the government isn’t going after your hands, feet or even your mind, yet. This is about gun control and all the laws on the books that have failed to achieve their desired effect.
The left has made an inatimate object into the focus of all the legislation in regards to guns. People commit crimes, let’s start there. In the future I’ll try to be more clear.
@MJ, You are right “People commit crimes,…” Guns do not commit crimes.
That sounds suspiciously like a statement that has the word “BUT” attached to it! As in: “inanimate objects cannot commit crimes…. BUT”, or: “I support freedoms…. BUT” … etc. All I read out of such posts is: “I want to sound for this thing that I’m against, so I’ll need to slide some deception in right about….. HERE!” In this case, who in the world could figure out what is meant by: “Any weapon used offensively during the commission of a crime should be the only law necessary to convict and incarcerate criminals.” Is he trying to say that any… Read more »
There’s the obligatory downvote, delivered anonymously, (OF COURSE!) before the trolls shut up and crawl back under their bridges!
@Knute Knute, Here is an up click for you.
@Knute Knute, You know me better than that. Had I meant “but”, I would have written “but”. I can see that I have not been clear. Let me rephrase. There is no such thing as “gun crime”. People commit crimes. Guns do not commit crimes. Is there knife crime? Baseball bat crime. Tire iron crime? Of course not. I have loaded guns all over the house. I taunt them relentlessly, with no resulting crime (or even movement.) “Gun crime” is a libtard propaganda term used to get people to infer that which is not true. There is no such thing… Read more »
I wasn’t referring to YOU as the one with the unstated BUT after it, but the original writer!
I do, indeed, know you a lot better than that! I thought that I went into the original post slightly might be enough of a clue, but I guess I don’t know you THAT well… at least not yet. 🙂
@Knute Knute
He’s a good guy, if a little unpolished from time to time. Plus, he has a great sense of humor.
I have posted with him enough to be aware of both of those things. I’d substitute the word “seemingly uncaring” for the “unpolished”, but both are close. I would need to add the “seemingly” though, because the same complaints get leveled against me. But being tough on the sheeple and forcing them out of their comfort zone is the polar opposite of uncaring. It might SEEM so to an uncomfortable sheep, but it is not. It is the height of compassion to try to wake them up to the dangers of such idiocy before it can claim their very lives.… Read more »
I think I might should add: it might be misunderstood but the “trolls” I mentioned above are not in reference to anyone on this thread, but just a blanket statement about all trolls here in general. I don’t term any of the people on this thread as that. But there certainly are some, and they know exactly who they are! 🙂
@Knute Knute
I understood it to be just that.
@Knute Knute
“I have no hatred, even for the trolls here. I’d like them to be accurate, but when they refuse, I can just correct their errors and move on. I bear them no ill will. ”
I operate on the same myself. 🙂
Rev) And there’s your downvote. Right on schedule. The haters simply cannot tolerate you. You’re nice. They can’t fit that in their pointy little heads, so their only thought is; “must destroy” Thinking of them that way helps me to find their infantile antics funny rather than unbearably sad. Just imagine what pathetic, horrid, little cowering bastards they must be, to so deathly fear even talking to you, such that the only way they can satisfy their desire to destroy is to give you an anonymous downvote! How pathetic is THAT? And even at that teensy little task, they fail,… Read more »
Knute, I see the down vote as a sign that he/she cares about him and wants him to know he/she is following his every word like a baby duck quacking behind its mother in a pond.
@Heed the Call-up
That one made me laugh! lol 🙂
@Knute Knute The individual in question most of the time is actually one of the more active members here, which is why I have not name dropped(Though it is incredibly easy to figure out). That being said the more obvious trolls like moe I don’t think count as much towards integrity points, and I already kind of expect it from them.. It is when it comes from people who should ,and often profess to, know better that it is truly a pathetic act. With that said, whether it is one or one hundred it still wouldn’t change or affect what… Read more »
@Mike J As Wild Bill pointed out, there is no such thing as a “Gun Crime”. So indeed People Crimes would be a good place to start. The reason I originally responded to you was for exactly that reason. For a few years now I’ve been one of the individuals here advising against letting the left redefine language. The word Gun should never precede the word crime or define a criminal act. I hope you understand that it was meant as simple corrective guidance by way of a question. I hope you will grow much stronger in your arguments in… Read more »
Already MichaelJ has made large strides. His arguments are already stronger and much clearer. Just compare the sentence; “People commit crimes, let’s start there. In the future I’ll try to be more clear.” with an earlier example; “Any weapon used offensively during the commission of a crime should be the only law necessary to convict and incarcerate criminals.” The first is directly to the point and clear as a bell. I think if twelve people read the second sentence, they would have twelve different opinions about what was said. All he really needs is a little time to learn to… Read more »
@Knute Knute
Yes, I recognized and congratulated MICHAEL for the change he made. My second reply to him was due to his correcting his comment after my first reply and doing so in a thoughtful manner. He deserved recognition for that. I hope it continues.
I should’ve probably said also that the “ingrained errors” that I mentioned, that IMO just aren’t worth attempting to correct are; people that insist on saying “bullet” when they mean “cartridge” and those that insist a clip (no spring) is the same thing as a magazine (with spring(s)! The mass media has so programmed everyone with those very basic errors that I’ve heard even reloaders refer to a “bullet” as a “tip”. Naturally, since they refuse to correct their misguided thinking and use the terminology that we have all already agreed upon, then they are left with just making up… Read more »
I guess I might also point up that if I’m considered a little verbose (using too many words) a lot of the time, the above would explain why!
Knute, I agree that there is a lot of incorrect terms used, even by firearm owners. That is something that we do need to address. I am not suggesting being a grammar Nazi, but a tempered reply using the proper terms could lead toward taking back the narrative. If we all use the lingo of the antis, we already lost. Such as when discussing magazine capacities, we write about high-capacity clips in our assault weapons, not only will we appear to be idiots that know nothing about our firearms and equipment, proving them right about us, we would also be… Read more »
Yes, indeed.