Firearms Talk banner

Federal Prosecutors Are Enforcing Existing Gun Laws

6K views 115 replies 27 participants last post by  SGWGunsmith 
#1 ·
By order of president Trump and the US attorney general; federal prosecutors began charging felons found in possession of firearms. Felons who fail NICS checks while attempting to buy firearms are also being charged.

"Urged by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to punish offenders as harshly and as quickly as possible, federal prosecutors have increasingly pursued low-level gun possession cases, according to law enforcement officials and an examination of court records and federal crime statistics. Mr. Amos’s conviction was part of the Justice Department’s broad crackdown on gun violence during the first 15 months of the Trump administration."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...vel-gun-offenders/ar-AAwSzDB?ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

Good on the Feds for enforcing existing firearms laws.
 
#2 ·
Like the waffle house shooter reinking who was barred from owning guns in Illinois and then moved to tennessee in order to have guns. Federal agencies did not enforce that the way they should have and that lack of enforcement directly caused people to die. Good for them for finally doing their job. Im glad they are doing that instead of adding senseless new regulations that exclusively cause difficulties for average, law abiding gun owners.
 
#3 ·
Sessions is an idiot.

He's enforcing unconstitutional laws.
Honestly I hope he cracks down hard, which will amount to nothing to accomplish diddly. And proves once and for all gun regulations are and always have been total failures.

Then maybe we can stop hearing about "enforcing existing gun laws "and repeal them as unconstitutional which they are.
 
#22 ·
Sessions is an idiot.

He's enforcing unconstitutional laws.
Honestly I hope he cracks down hard, which will amount to nothing to accomplish diddly. And proves once and for all gun regulations are and always have been total failures.

Then maybe we can stop hearing about "enforcing existing gun laws "and repeal them as unconstitutional which they are.
Jeff Sessions is not an idiot. He is, however, a boot licker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jigs-n-fixture
#4 ·
Honestly I hope he cracks down hard, which will amount to nothing to accomplish diddly. And proves once and for all gun regulations are and always have been total failures.

Then maybe we can stop hearing about "enforcing existing gun laws "and repeal them as unconstitutional which they are.[/QUOTE]

So you know more about the constitution and the law than the attorney general of the U.S. and the SCOTUS!!

Yeah!.....Right!:rolleyes:
 
#5 ·
Honestly I hope he cracks down hard, which will amount to nothing to accomplish diddly. And proves once and for all gun regulations are and always have been total failures.

Then maybe we can stop hearing about "enforcing existing gun laws "and repeal them as unconstitutional which they are.
So you know more about the constitution and the law than the attorney general of the U.S. and the SCOTUS!!

Yeah!.....Right!:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

No. They know they are breaking their oaths, and making laws and rulings in blatant violation of it.

They make it up as they go because they are corrupt and to suit their Agenda.
At least SCOTUS has a basis for existing in the COTUS.
The DOJ /attourney general are a concoction of Congress not even mentioned in the COTUS .

Any layman can read the BOR and know what it means.

A path to change the BOR is laid out.
That path the founders laid out in no way involves a DOJ, or SCOTUS.
 
#7 ·
Read my post again please.
I said no. I don't know more than they do. They know full well they have no authority to interfere with the RTKABA.

Congress passes unconstitutional law violating the 2nd knowingly.
SCOTUS upholds those laws knowing full well they violate the 2a. They even make up fiction phrases to do so.

Most LE know they are breaking their oaths and violating the 2nd a when they enforce those illegal laws.

Why tell them something they already know they are quilty Of?
I do tell my fed representatives that anyway. Fairly regularly.
 
#10 ·
By order of president Trump and the US attorney general; federal prosecutors began charging felons found in possession of firearms. Felons who fail NICS checks while attempting to buy firearms are also being charged.

"Urged by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to punish offenders as harshly and as quickly as possible, federal prosecutors have increasingly pursued low-level gun possession cases, according to law enforcement officials and an examination of court records and federal crime statistics. Mr. Amos’s conviction was part of the Justice Department’s broad crackdown on gun violence during the first 15 months of the Trump administration."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...vel-gun-offenders/ar-AAwSzDB?ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

Good on the Feds for enforcing existing firearms laws.
No offence, but this is laughable! I have had my FFL for just short of 40 years and I have know MANY other FFL holders and the number of people who TRY to buy guns and are rejected becasue of felony convictions are so few they do not matter in the total scheme of things.. Very few 'criminals' with felony records are stupid enough to even try. Someone needs to come back to reality here. Trump is just saying this make those who are totally ignorant of the fact believe the feds are actually doing something, PURE POLITICS! :(:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost1958
#11 ·
i don't care that you think it's laughable. i want the law enforced, as do the vast majority of US citizens. Thirty years ago the US attorney in Richmond, VA went after felons in possession with a vengeance. Felon caught with a fire arm: Do not stop, go to federal prison for 10-20 years. That made a huge dent in violent crime in Richmond.

The US courts could give two big hoots in hades that Ghost, Jim Rau, Cloven Bundy, the Oath Keepers and all others who believe that convicted murderers and rapists should own guns think.

In 2016 NICS caught 49,410 convicted felons who tried to buy firearms. Then there were the wife beaters, fugitives from justice, etc. who attempted to buy firearms.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2016-nics-operations-report-final-5-3-2017.pdf/view
 
#12 ·
i don't care that you think it's laughable. i want the law enforced, as do the vast majority of US citizens. Thirty years ago the US attorney in Richmond, VA went after felons in possession with a vengeance. Felon caught with a fire arm: Do not stop, go to federal prison for 10-20 years. That made a huge dent in violent crime in Richmond.

The US courts could give two big hoots in hades that Ghost, Jim Rau, Cloven Bundy, the Oath Keepers and all others who believe that convicted murderers and rapists should own guns think.

In 2016 NICS caught 49,410 convicted felons who tried to buy firearms. Then there were the wife beaters, fugitives from justice, etc. who attempted to buy firearms.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2016-nics-operations-report-final-5-3-2017.pdf/view
That is a FBI report patting itself on the back.

Hardly reliable given the FBI reputation for bare faced lieing.

And you would know what the majority of Americans want how?

A poll?
Nobody has, ever asked me anything about gun laws in a poll. Nor anybody I know in any state.


I'd dare say you have never been either or know anyone that has.
Or know anyone that knows anyone else that has.

Nics, BC, and all the rest of it is feel good sheep's wool that does nothing of any consequence.

If it worked to any degree then we wouldn't have criminals armed at will.

But even if it does work, its unconstitutional and illegal.

Plus easily by passed by anyone that has a third of a brain.

I'll reiterate . Sessions is a reefer madness preoccupied authoritarian idiot. Trump ,while I like his foreign policy is no more a friend of the RTKABA, or the 2a than Obama was.
 
#19 ·
I'd bet against it.

He has documentation that the barring conviction has been dismissed, by the state of NY, so even if he did get arrested, there is proof that he is, under the law, allowed to possess a firearm legally.

Now, it wouldn't stop an arrest, but, all his attorney would have to do is provide said documents to the court, and it all goes away. Not to mention the fact that his appeal is now in, and pending, and said documentation is in the system, or will be soon, and it's pretty much a non-issue.

the odds of him getting arrested, then convicted, are slim to none, and slim is already boarding the train.
 
#21 ·
The first sentence begins with "By order of the President....", so does that mean that previous Presidents did not enforce current laws?

Shouldn't that become a public scandal? It is more reckless than paying a hooker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifling82
#26 ·
I have to agree with Jim. In the number of years having an FFL, I have not had a convicted felon complete one. The only "denied" ones I've had was a result of incorrect info being input manually by clerks (all were later cleared after the person went through the "hoops" and paid some hard earned money.)
 
#35 ·
I looked. There is no mention of those "denied" that later had it changed to "approved" because of clerical errors.

If this is accurate (which I doubt because of potential clerical errors), that means that there are really stupid people who do not understand self-incrimination.
 
#38 · (Edited)
I think that there are some gun laws that need to be reevaluated. For instance... " anyone who received a dishonorable discharge from the armed forces is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm". A person can receive a dishonorable discharge for things that are nothing more than a misdemeanor in a civilian court. Such as selling a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of liquor, or even a bottle of shampoo to a civilian in a foreign country.
These types of things should be reevaluated and judged on an equal standard as in a civilian court. Many soldiers have received DDs for misdemeanor offenses and lost their constitutional rights to vote and bear arms. Many have even lost the ability to get a good job in order to support themselves and their families. Just because they received a Dishonorable Discharge. One minor offense that wouldn't be noticed in civilian life, can ruin your life in the military.
Sorry about the rant, but Ghost 1958 got me stirred up. Not that I agree with his opinion, it just made me want to express mine.
 
#43 ·
Do you have any data to back up the suggestion that DDs are routinely given out for misdemeanors? It sure didn't happen when I was in or half the Navy would have been dishonorably discharged. I never knew anyone who got a dishonorable discharge that was worth a damn inside or outside the service. When you join the service (and no one has been drafted for a long time) you volunteer yourself to the UCMJ system of justice. Actions have consequences; when people grow up, most of them realize that; the rest end up with legal troubles.

I will reserve my respect and empathy for vets who served honorably.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kfox75 and locutus
#41 ·
Aside from the issues with trusting government numbers, because that is a whole different debate, how many of their numbers are due to old or un-updated data? In Alaska it is easy to get your firearms rights back (besides handguns) if you are a felon, but I wonder how long it takes for the paperwork to process on the fed side. I know people who are felons who simply went before a judge with a petition and got their rights back the same day. Granted people in Alaska make up a insanely small percentage of the total population, but if it happens here it has to happen other places. Say a guy is a non-violent felon who got his rights back and then went in a week later to buy a new hunting rifle, would this be classified and added to these numbers?
 
#46 ·
A Dishonorable Discharge comes only as an action of a General Court Martial. It differs from a Bad Conduct or Other Than Honorable Discharge. Typically Rape, Murder, Manslaughter, Desertion (different from AWOL) A General Court will be presided over by a military judge. Frankly, you have to work pretty hard at it to catch a DD.

Second- the issue of crime prevention. I would refer you to Project Exile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile Started here in Richmond VA. Got a prior conviction for a violent felony, and you have been caught with a gun? No plea bargain, tried in Federal Court, minimum 5 years- AND you are going away to some other state in the Fed correctional system. Virginia has kept its own version of Exile. It is in use now. I have been present in a gun shop when a felon attempted a purchase. PD shows up and takes them away.
 
#63 ·
The thing that boggles my mind is after just the recent criminal activity of federal prosecutor's, withholding evidence as in the Bundy trial.
The fact that Muller actively convicted 3 or 4 innocent men he KNEW were innocent, fought their release and allowed at least one man he knew to be innocent to die in prison.
And a long standing pattern of corruption in the DOJ why any thinking person would WANT federal prosecutors enforcing anything when it's known they by and large are bigger criminals than those they prosecute.

The constitution does not even mention a DOJ existing.

It's a creation of Congress that can be dismantled by Congress and should be.
 
#68 ·
The thing that boggles my mind is after just the recent criminal activity of federal prosecutor's, withholding evidence as in the Bundy trial.
The fact that Muller actively convicted 3 or 4 innocent men he KNEW were innocent, fought their release and allowed at least one man he knew to be innocent to die in prison.
And a long standing pattern of corruption in the DOJ why any thinking person would WANT federal prosecutors enforcing anything when it's known they by and large are bigger criminals than those they prosecute.

The constitution does not even mention a DOJ existing.

It's a creation of Congress that can be dismantled by Congress and should be.
The constitution doesn;t mention
Dairy Queen existing either.
 
#64 ·
The basic problem in most urban areas is that due to sheer numbers of cases, the backlog and subsequent long periods of time between the commission of a crime and the final outcome (punishment) is far too long. To be a deterrent, the criminal must accept as fact that the punishment is due to his/her knowingly violating a portion of the law. For decades, urban courts have created a criminal society that has no concept of this fact of human behavior. Delays are the norm, not the exception. When Federal Prosecutors, by aggressive prosecution, step in and short stop the long waiting period of the local courts, it does have a positive effect on criminal behavior.

Very few of the criminals I dealt with accepted the fact that their situation was the result of their own decisions to violate the law. Most blamed their situation on a bad attorney, too high a bond, crooked this or that, but not the fact they chose to do a bad thing. Sentences do not have to be particularly harsh to be an effective deterrent. They do, however, have to be swiftly handed down and all uncertainty eliminated.

If we, as a nation, wish to reduce "gun violence", we're going to have to aggressively prosecute everyone who uses a gun in commission of a crime swiftly and without prejudice.
 
#65 ·
The basic problem in most urban areas is that due to sheer numbers of cases, the backlog and subsequent long periods of time between the commission of a crime and the final outcome (punishment) is far too long. To be a deterrent, the criminal must accept as fact that the punishment is due to his/her knowingly violating a portion of the law. For decades, urban courts have created a criminal society that has no concept of this fact of human behavior. Delays are the norm, not the exception. When Federal Prosecutors, by aggressive prosecution, step in and short stop the long waiting period of the local courts, it does have a positive effect on criminal behavior.

Very few of the criminals I dealt with accepted the fact that their situation was the result of their own decisions to violate the law. Most blamed their situation on a bad attorney, too high a bond, crooked this or that, but not the fact they chose to do a bad thing. Sentences do not have to be particularly harsh to be an effective deterrent. They do, however, have to be swiftly handed down and all uncertainty eliminated.

If we, as a nation, wish to reduce "gun violence", we're going to have to aggressively prosecute everyone who uses a gun in commission of a crime swiftly and without prejudice.
How about we prosecute anyone who commits an actual serious crime? If they used a gun, but, hammer, golf club or nothing?

It's the crime that should be punished not the object used or lack of. Your just as dead if I beat you to death with fire poker as you are if I shoot you.

And since 1. The rule of law only applies to middle class folks and lower, we just tell Sessions and hiz minions to go prosecute Hillary and the slew of other corrupt elites.
That'll keep them plenty busy for a decade or two.

And 2. Since fed prosecutors are being caught red handed being much worse criminals than the folks they prosecute, we jail some of them for their crimes. At least one has committed murder using the fed courts and prison to knowinly kill an innocent man.
 
#66 ·
Sheriffjohn is right. In many jurisdictions it takes too long for the prosecutors to bring the case to trial. Actually most cases never see trial. Most are closed by unholy "plea bargains".

Judges and prosecutors design innovative sentencing schemes to skirt the mandatory minimums imposed by law. Example: Here in OK these "law and order" political hacks demand long sentences for nearly every felony. The prisons are overflowing and those same political hacks won't build new ones. Judges and prosecutors are encouraged to skirt the system.

In a recent armed robbery case by a previously convicted felon the judge sentenced the perp to 20 years in prison:

1. Ten years were suspended.

2. Five years to serve.

3. Five years under the supervision of the DOC.

The scumbag will be out of prison in 2-3 years. People get longer sentences in OK for first time convictions for possession of dope.
 
#72 ·
Reminds me of one of my own objections, to a change in the DUI laws in the state of NY. mainly, the drop from .1 to .08, but also to adding an extra charge, which followed.

now, most on here that know me already know, I don't drink that often, hell, I still have bottles pof Coors from back in NY, from the last 12 pack i bought, and I've been living in PA for 4 years now. I still have bottles of wine I made back in 2006, sitting in the rack, down in the cellar.

they also know I don't drive, or ride, if I've been drinking, and I have a pretty good reason for it, that makes on of my hobbies, setting off metal detectors in airports and courthouses.

now, here is my main objection to the first part of that law, one which many states have also adopted. As it is with "AW"s, those with a BAC of less than .1, account for a very, very, small number of traffic accidents, much less fatal ones, where the average is around .15 or higher, in most cases. Several are even higher onthe BAC, than that, as was the person who caused the injuries that allow me to trip metal detectors, and are the reason I don't do MRIs.

And I know that must sound odd, coming from someone who walks with a limp, because of a drunk driver. However, after several yeards as an EMT, having to sit in court, and act as a witness to the scene I arrived at, I have seen my share of caseds where alcohol was a factor, and again, most cases are well over .08, closer to .15 or .2, unless it was just a freak equipment failure, or someon else, pardon my french, f***ing up, that caused the accident.

Now, for my main objection to how NY charges those who commit said crime.

you can not only be charged with DWI, but also with another crime, the same crime, under a different name, Driving with a BAC of .08 or higher, in addition to DWI.

Same crime, double the charges, and double the fines. Why would anyone expect less from a state that has it's welcome center 60 miles east of it's border, and toll booths within a mile of it?

they passed these laws as a matter of "Public Safety", not as a money grab, if you believe that. Personally, i'm waiting for them to try to sell me a bridge, thinking I actually believe that one.
 
#74 ·
In 2000 i was attacked by a drunk at 1:00 in the afternoon. The idiot came up behind my pickup throwing the bird, flashing his lights and blowing his horn. At the first light the idiot got out and approached my truck. The light changed and i left. We were approaching a major intersection; that is a long light. We stopped at the intersection and i asked my wife to hand me the pepper spray from the glove box: She refused and i got it myself.

As i straightened up the drunk hit me a glancing blow to the head, knocking off my glasses. He got wetted down with pepper spray and dye. i made a right turn, pulled into a parking lot and called the police. Cops came, charged the guy with assault, DWI and arrested same.

Months later i called the prosecutor who informed me the case had been dropped. Reason for dropping my case: The scumbag was charged with raping his two step-daughters. My drunk was found guilty and got 200 years in prison.

Gave my wife a lecture. Told her that i came near to shooting the sob. Told her the only reason my gun was not pulled was because it was worn on my left side. "Next time give me the damn pepper spray".
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top