We can enforce any gun law we decide to pass, you know.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

As many others have noticed, there's a new cottage industry that's sprung up in recent days that concerns itself with trying to convince us that tighter gun regulations wouldn't be enforceable. What a load of nonsense.

Pick a proposed gun regulation, any that strikes your fancy. An example could range from 6-shot maximum clips, as some here have suggested, all the way up to a total ban on firearms. The obvious trick is getting a bill past the treasonous members of Congress, but if can be done, the law could certainly be enforced. In the maximum-clip-of-6 example, a grace period to turn in guns could be granted, a year or two or three. You could do a gun buyback (but since your clientele would be largely Republican, just let them write off the loss in their taxes--they freaking love tax breaks). After the grace period, anyone caught with weapon that holds too many bullets would be subject to a mandatory minimum 20 years in federal prison, no judicial oversight possible. Hell, they do this with 3-strikes laws, and judges have sent plenty of 3rd-strike-candy-bar thieves to prison for the rest of their lives, with no parole. Based on that alone, I don't see how my remedy could be considered cruel and unusual. After all, I'm only trying to get rid of criminals who break gun laws in order to prevent more of our children from being slaughtered. So yes, the penalty is stiff, and it should be.

Part 2 of the law: if you're caught committing a crime with your illegal gun, you go away for ever, again with no parole. Commit a crime with your gun, and you're gone from this society forever. No tolerance, etc. This law would be color-blind, and it would be, uh...socio-economic blind. Poor inner-city gangbanger, rich old 1%, doesn't matter. Commit a crime with a gun, and you're gone forever.

Again, this could apply to any gun legislation you care to come up with. Wrap some more laws around the guns that are killing our children, and make the enforcement piece something no one ever wants to encounter.

I'd welcome input, especially from the pro-gunners.

[pnwmom]

1. But you wouldn't have space for all those new criminals

unless you released all the people there on simple drug possession.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. excellent point

We'll have to let those nonviolent dope smokers go. And as far as that goes, I would guess that after several high-profile cases, people would get the idea that their collector's piece just wasn't worth the penalty.

[Politicalboi]

3. Then you open up those privately owned prisons

You know the ones, the ones where the Repukes didn't mind a private take over of our prison system. They'll be the ones filling them.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Yeah. Still, nice to know weve got prison space, once we end the drug war.

Can even find stuff for the DEA to do, once they've stopped arresting chemo grannies for smoking a joint.

[PoliticAverse]

5. "and it would be, uh...socio-economic blind" - Unless the poor get the same lawyers as the rich,

it certainly would not be.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

8. Fair point, but beyond the scope of this thread

Justice isn't blind like it's supposed to be. This injustice affects people accused of breaking all sorts of laws. Whether gun crimes, drugs, tax evasion, whatever, the rich person with a good lawyer is "more innocent" than the poor person with the same case. This isn't just a condition that pertains to gun laws--it's across the board.

[hack89]

6. Why are you assuming that elected red state police, prosecutors and judges

will enforce such laws? What then - martial law to search house to house?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. In my mind's eye, this would be federal law

And of course, there aren't nearly enough federal agents to broadly enforce this law. But that's no different than any other federal law. I believe the Justice Department is in the habit of choosing high-profile cases to go after to "send a message". There would surely be people who hid their guns in very deep hiding places, but the very act of hiding them puts them out of commission.

For the record, please note that you suggest martial law. I never did. It wouldn't be necessary.

[hack89]

9. Well, good luck with that.

it defies political reality but if it makes you feel better then fine.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. hack89, it's time for you to leave the sidelines and step up

Before I get to that, I'd like to know how what I propose defies political reality. I very intentionally didn't mention some favored gun regulation. Instead, I said this would work for any gun law that was put in place. I only concerned myself with the enforcement mechanism. I'd like for you to explain to me why this notion defies political reality. I dare any congressperson to stand up and argue against stiffer penalties for gun crimes. After all, they're part of the group always caterwauling about law-abiding gun owners being unfairly blamed for this and that. This would be the perfect opportunity for all gun owners to show they're law-abiding citizens.

Now, which part of my proposal defies political reality?

As to me advising you to leave the sidelines and step up: you can hate my idea, you can think it's unworkable, you can think it's the dumbest idea you've heard in a long line of dumb ideas; hardly matters. But what you cannot do is just complain about any gun control idea floated and tell the rest of us how this can never be done--at least you cannot do this and remain relevant in this conversation. We know what the situation on the ground looks like. We know where the intractable parties are. We know that innocents are dying. And we know that things need to be done to correct this, and they need to be done now. You need to start working on solutions. You need to admit that there's a serious problem in this country with guns. You need to start finding ways around roadblocks. You need to start being creative. This stance you're taking, that nothing can possibly be done about this problem, sounds just like the Republican Party of No. And no, I don't think you're a Republican, but I do believe that you're helping to make the NRA's job easier for them.

What do you propose to do about gun deaths in this country, hack89?

[hack89]

11. I would start by focusing on violent felons

the people that commit the vast majority of murders. People, that for the most part, cannot legally own guns anyway and would ignore any law you pass.

My solution:

1. End the war on drugs. End the financial incentive that motivates criminal gangs.

2. Treat drugs as a public health issue. Empty the prisons of non-violent drug offenders thereby saving billions to spend on education and social services.

3. Focus the justice system like a laser on violent criminals. Lets get them out of society for a very long time. Use any weapon in a crime and go away even longer.

4. Implement single payer health care with full mental health coverage.

Lets focus on people, not things.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

12. Thank you. Seriously, thank you.

I don't agree with your starting premise that illegal gun owners would ignore such a penalty, at least the majority of them wouldn't ignore it. But I do thank you for providing some thoughts on what you'd do about this. That's what it's going to take for something meaningful to happen--conversations like this one that eventually go through the sausage grinder and become some sort of law. I do hope we end up taking steps that save lives in a statistically significant way.

[hack89]

13. You are welcome. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. Lack of federal enforcement capability is actually very important.

If local cooperation isn't available (and it wouldn't be in countless jurisdictions), then the federal sanctions and strict penalties are essentially moot. We've seen this with marijuana prohibition: states with medical programs or complete legalization tend not to assist in any way with federal enforcement efforts (and in a couple cases that have, there was political hell to pay at election time).

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. Imagine this scenario:

A guy robs a liquor store in Teabag City, using a gun. The federal prosecutor, who is also a citizen of Teabag City, sees the news report, sees that a gun was used, and calls the local constabulary, asking, "what gives"? The prosecutor gets the runaround from the Bagger Chief, and files his own charges. Federal, trump card charges. The guy with the gun goes away forever, but maybe with a trip to the state pen first, but certainly ending with life in a federal prison. The local cops might not be helpful, but they surely wouldn't try to impede a federal investigation--I think there are charges that can be levied for that. So of course the feds could never get all the illegal gun owners, but they could effectively wreck the lives of those they choose to prosecute, and if they used some sort of fast-tracking option, they could still get quite a few people behind bars, enough to make the remainder of gun hiders think long and hard before using their gun in the commission of a crime.

[ComplimentarySwine]

18. You're assuming that the federal prosecuter

who is also a citizen of Teabag City, would press charges against someone in his own community.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

19. You're correct. I'm assuming the federal prosecutor doesn't want to be fired.

[ComplimentarySwine]

21. And the federal judges? Are they worried about that too? n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

22. No.

Keep on telling me about how things just can't be done. Sorry, but I don't accept that. Please argue in favor of your own impotence in the face of a problem, and not in favor of mine--that's the path you've chosen; I have not.

[99Forever]

16. Local yokels are not above the law.

What in the world makes you think they can't be put on notice, sanctioned, and jailed if necessary?

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. It's a matter of numbers.

Of course any one such violator could be taken in by federal agents. the problem is that there are potentially millions and millions of such violators...and not that many federal agents.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

20. Again, how is this different than any other federal law?

The federal government doesn't have enough agents to enforce any federal law across the board. How would this be any different, and are you suggesting that it just can't be done because teabagger local officials would somehow prevail over federal law?

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. I never claimed it was.

I'm just pointing out that if local law enforcement isn't interested in helping do the actual grunt work (that is, arresting suspects, etc.), then a federal law to this effect will have little impact if people choose to ignore it (and they will).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. It would have to get by the courts first

And there are states issues here as well.

I find it odd that many on the left have been campaigning for dropping three strikes and sentence reform now what life sentences.

You might want to look at the Federal willingness to file on violations of existing law. Less than 90% of the Brady Bill refferals are filed by Federal prosecutors

[DisgustipatedinCA]

25. Well, it would have to get past the courts second

But I get your point.

Gun crimes are deadly. Candy bar thefts aren't deadly. If I really need to say more, you'll never understand anyway. Commit a crime with a gun, and you're a deadly piece of garbage that society doesn't need in its midst. I would think, as I stated above, that law-abiding gun owners would welcome this legislation. What is it you don't like about the proposal? I know you're a gun guy. Are your guns not legal? Recall, I did suggest an amnesty period, so you'd be OK.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. The gun enhancement penalties already on the books are not enforced as it is.

I have a bye on some of the gun rules and that probably would continue.