Looking for input

[Boston Boy]

What is your opinion of the following: Would you agree (or disagree) with a Federal law that mandates a five year penalty for conviction of using (displaying, brandishing, etc.) a firearm during a felony? And ten years for discharging, whether or not it causes injury or death. These penalties would be separate from crimes committed, and not allowed to be bargained down, under any circumstances. Plus, repeat of either offense is a life sentence. I know this may be a pipe dream, but we've had a mandatory one year sentence here in Massachusetts for over twenty years that has never been enforced, and does nothing to protect the public. I'm not looking for you to poke holes in my idea, that's why we have lawyers. Just trying for a consensus.

 

[whitefeather]

What is your opinion of the following: Would you agree (or disagree) with a Federal law that mandates a five year penalty for conviction of using (displaying, brandishing, etc.) a firearm during a felony? And ten years for discharging, whether or not it causes injury or death. These penalties would be separate from crimes committed, and not allowed to be bargained down, under any circumstances. Plus, repeat of either offense is a life sentence. I know this may be a pipe dream, but we've had a mandatory one year sentence here in Massachusetts for over twenty years that has never been enforced, and does nothing to protect the public. I'm not looking for you to poke holes in my idea, that's why we have lawyers. Just trying for a consensus.

We have much of this and more in Oregon: ORS 161.610 - Enhanced penalty for use of firearm during commission of felony - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes

 

[justxboxin]

I would say a normal Ccw holder wouldn't let there weapon discharge . I think it's fair I think if you have to pull it out to stop a attack and it's valid the cops would be ok . If you have to shoot to stop them it's great also . Now scaring people yes that should be punished or shooting randomly yes

 

[Boston Boy]

We have much of this and more in Oregon: ORS 161.610 - Enhanced penalty for use of firearm during commission of felony - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes

Is this statute used all the time, part time or never? And is the punishment severe?

 

[Boston Boy]

I would say a normal Ccw holder wouldn't let there weapon discharge . I think it's fair I think if you have to pull it out to stop a attack and it's valid the cops would be ok . If you have to shoot to stop them it's great also . Now scaring people yes that should be punished or shooting randomly yes

HELLO. I mean BGs, not CC holders

 

[echoawake]

In Pennsylvania, if you commit a felony with a real or fake gun, there is a manditory five year sentence in addition to the felony. ( five for gun + ten for robbery ) I seldom see it used so I see no value to it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Unless you decriminalized manufacture, possession, use, and distribution of recreational chemicals, it would be untennable, as the prison population would explode.

Crime would plummet, because all of the violent criminals go away for 5-10, but there would have to be a building boom such that no point in the continental United States would be more than 100 miles away from at least one prison capable of housing 10,000 offenders. There would also have to be a hiring blitz to staff those prisons. How much would taxes have to be raised in order to support such a thing? What would be the effects on society and culture to be the nation with the highest proportion of its population behind bars?

 

[Boston Boy]

Cathy,
Do you have stats and studies to back your claims?

 

[whitefeather]

Unless you decriminalized manufacture, possession, use, and distribution of recreational chemicals, it would be untennable, as the prison population would explode.

Crime would plummet, because all of the violent criminals go away for 5-10, but there would have to be a building boom such that no point in the continental United States would be more than 100 miles away from at least one prison capable of housing 10,000 offenders. There would also have to be a hiring blitz to staff those prisons. How much would taxes have to be raised in order to support such a thing? What would be the effects on society and culture to be the nation with the highest proportion of its population behind bars?

What? I believe that Boston Boy was referring to mandatory sentencing for firearm use in the commission of a felony. Most states have these statutes in place. Sorry, but I do not follow your reasoning.

 

[walt629]

Umm.. most states already have harsher penalties for crimes committed with a deadly weapon (gun) so why would you want to have a Federal law? Why would you think it even necessary to get the Feds involved in a crime committed in a state.

Most of the populace want to get the Fed out of the States business and you want to bring the Fed in deeper? Emphatically NO!!

 

[Boston Boy]

White, I'm aware of many existing laws, but I am suggesting one that is ironclad, non-negotiable and would be out of the hands of lawyers and judges--manipulative skanks, that they are! I guess you could say it's just a fantasy.

 

[GlockOclock]

Don't like mandatory minimums.

That's why we have judges, to look into the facts of the case and base punishment on them. Lawmakers can't think of every situation and there are inevitably people sentenced that shouldn't be.

 

[wmodavis]

Agree without a doubt.

 

[Boston Boy]

Umm.. most states already have harsher penalties for crimes committed with a deadly weapon (gun) so why would you want to have a Federal law? Why would you think it even necessary to get the Feds involved in a crime committed in a state.

Most of the populace want to get the Fed out of the States business and you want to bring the Fed in deeper? Emphatically NO!!

No is acceptable. Just looking for forum thoughts.

 

[Boston Boy]

Don't like mandatory minimums.

That's why we have judges, to look into the facts of the case and base punishment on them. Lawmakers can't think of every situation and there are inevitably people sentenced that shouldn't be.

Unfortunately, in MA we have a one party system and judges are not elected.

 

[Boston Boy]

Agree without a doubt.

So do I! Just a pie-in-the-sky thought.

 

[GlockOclock]

Unfortunately, in MA we have a one party system and judges are not elected.

And I've seen way too many 'under-sentenced' perps.

 

[BluesStringer]

Disagree....vehemently. No more federal intrusion into state issues, period. Horrible idea.

 

[Bikenut]

Would a new law actually cause any drop in crime?

Perhaps it would be easy to put this idea of a new law into perspective by asking..........

"How many of the old laws already on the books have stopped criminals from............ breaking the law?"

And...

"Why would criminals pay any attention to a new law when they don't pay any attention to all the old laws?"

I believe, an opinion if you will, that folks who believe laws will solve problems have the uncanny ability to not only believe words on paper will stop a rapist from attacking a woman... or will stop a robber from robbing.. or a killer from killing... but also can turn a blind eye to the evidence that shows no words on any kind of paper ever stopped a criminal from committing a crime.

The law only binds those who voluntarily obey.. the law.

 

[yolk100]

How about the same charges and punishment for a knife, sword, baseball bat or a 2x4? What difference does it make what weapon the criminal carried. If the weapon was use (even to intimidate) they should be punished, if not - no punishment. Guns are not magic.