US Gun Control in Action

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Breotan**

Some people wonder why many in the USA oppose gun control laws. Well, maybe this story will serve as one example.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/28/3464970/philadelphia-moms-gun-arrest/

Josh Israel wrote:Single Mom Faces Mandatory Minimum Three Years In Prison For Apparent Inadvertent Gun Violation

Though her attorney has characterized it as “an honest mistake,” a single mother of two is facing at least three years in prison, without parole, for bringing a gun into New Jersey.

Shaneen Allen was stopped in Atlantic County, NJ, at 1:07 a.m. on October 1, 2013, for an unsafe lane change, according to charging documents. She informed the cop that she possessed a .380 Bersa Thunder handgun and hollow-point bullets. While she apparently has a valid Pennsylvania Licence to Carry Firearm, New Jersey does not permit transporting these arms and does not have a reciprocity agreement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

New Jersey’s Graves Act establishes mandatory minimum sentences and parole ineligibility for illegal gun possession. If convicted, this means Allen would have to serve at least three years for the violation. Though some non-violent defendants in New Jersey can be diverted to a pretrial intervention program, focusing on rehabilitation, the prosecutor in this case denied the Allen the necessary waiver, in February. A spokesman for Atlantic County Prosecutor James P. McClain, a Chris Christie appointee, told ThinkProgress that McClain, “has declined to comment about particulars of a prosecution in-progress, or in response to recent media stories.”

This is not the first case in which McClain has prosecuted illegal gun violations of Pennsylvanians who brought their guns into New Jersey. His website notes convictions in two cases in the past two years, including one in which the Superior Court judge told the jury that, “permits must be obtained in accordance with New Jersey law. Therefore, a non-resident gun owner may not avoid New Jersey’s gun control laws on the basis that possession of the weapon was legal in the owner’s state of residence and that the owner was merely transporting weapons through New Jersey without criminal intent and knowledge that New Jersey would regard the possession as illegal.”

Without knowing the prosecutor’s reasoning or all of the facts of this ongoing case, it is difficult to evaluate whether it was really an “honest mistake” or not. But while in the past, such a determination would have been left up to a judge, thanks to the Graves Act, it is now effectively up to the sole discretion of the prosecutor. Two of the critics of this case — Radley Balko of the Washington Post and John Lott Jr. of the Crime Research Prevention Center — agree that one of the biggest problems underlying the Shaneen case: mandatory minimum laws in general. Lott told Fox News that “These mandatory sentences sometimes create really unfortunate results,” especially for minority women like Shaneen. And Blaco cited a 2011 U.S. Sentencing Commission report that found that mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes has lead to a significant racial disparity in charges, convictions, and “enhancement” penalties.

And it is not just gun laws that produce these often unfair — and racially disparate — results. Mandatory minimums for even non-violence drug offenders have put thousands of people in jail for life without parole. Indeed Gov. Christie said in April that drug sentencing laws needed reform, arguing that “If, in fact, that we believe life is precious — and I do — then the life of the drug-addicted teenager, who has been arrested for the sixth time, is just as precious as the lives of any one of my children. The life of the 45-year-old lawyer, who is addicted to prescription drugs and alcohol is just as precious as any one of the prosecutors who ever worked for me.”

Some conservative gun law opponents have seized on the case as an argument against strict gun laws. The National Review’s editors use it as a call for “concealed-carry reciprocity” to be established “at the national level.” Pro-gun activists have proposed a federal requirement that every state recognized the concealed carry permits from every other state. But some states have very lax application processes and some even automatically restore gun rights to those convicted of state crimes after completion of sentences. Passage of such a system would allow the states with the weakest protections to effectively force their rules on everyone else.

So, who is wrong here? The woman? The prosecutor? The mandatory minimum sentencing law? Gun control in general?

Then tell me how putting this woman in prison for three years makes the streets of New Jersey safer or how many children will not be senselessly killed.

It's even worse in states like Illinois where gun laws change county by county and city by city.

**Kilkrazy**

What is wrong here is not having a national framework for gun licensing, so it gets left up to the individual states.

The carrier perhaps should have made sure of the law when planning to go out of her state.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violation of the law.

As a responsible gun owner myself, I know where I can and cannot take one of my firearms; that is where the "responsible" part comes from. That being said, mandatory minimums are terrible and hopefully they done away with sooner rather than later.

**Bromsy**

I'd say the problem is the mandatory sentence.

**BlaxicanX**

1. Gun control should be mandated on a federal level, not left up to the individual States.

2. It's your responsibility, when traveling, to be aware of the rules and regulations of the place you're going to. "When in Rome" and all that. If you take a crapton of weed with you when you leave Washington and go to "Obscure Asian Island #23", it's no one's fault but your own if they throw your ass in jail for 20 years.

3. Minimum sentencing laws are indeed ridiculous and should be universally abolished. The point in having Judges is that they're supposed to be Competent Persons who can accurately gauge how severe the punishment for a crime should be. Let them do their job.

**Breotan**

I agree about responsible gun owners needing to know the laws wherever they go. Then again, there are times I've forgotten about my own pistol until just before I was about to make a very big mistake, so I've a little empathy for this woman.

Still, reciprocity gets a bit crazy when you look at which states have reciprocity with which other states. Sometimes reciprocity is a one-way street between two states and other times it works both ways.

**yellowfever**

In total agreement with blaxicanx

**Peregrine**

Sorry, she doesn't get much sympathy. If you don't understand that gun control laws are a complex subject and can vary from state to state you're too stupid to own a gun, which means there's no excuse for not checking to see if your gun is legal in the state you're traveling to.

Also, note that federal law allows you to transport a gun through a state if you're just passing through, even if the gun wouldn't be legal in that state. The article in the OP seems to be trying to portray this as a case of an innocent traveler being arrested just for trying to cross through a state with strict gun control laws, when it really isn't.

**Seaward**

Breotan wrote:
So, who is wrong here? The woman?

Yep.

The prosecutor?

Yep.

The mandatory minimum sentencing law?

Yep.

Gun control in general?

Oh, so very much.

An issue that could have been avoided with mandatory concealed carry permit reciprocity nationwide, but the gun control freaks unfortunately don't want that.

**Peregrine**

Seaward wrote:
An issue that could have been avoided with mandatory concealed carry permit reciprocity nationwide, but the gun control freaks unfortunately don't want that.

But why should it be avoided? If you remove the stupidity of mandatory minimum sentences the only "problem" here is that gun owners can't take their toys everywhere they want. If you don't like a state's gun control laws then don't go there, you don't get the right to tell them that they can't have stricter laws just because your state doesn't.

(And it's funny how much of an overlap there is between the people who want mandatory concealed carry or other limits on state-level gun control and the people who scream about "states' rights" every time the federal government might do something about their bans on gay marriage or abortion.)

**Seaward**

Peregrine wrote:
But why should it be avoided? If you remove the stupidity of mandatory minimum sentences the only "problem" here is that gun owners can't take their toys everywhere they want.

I think referring to guns as toys is another problem, so that makes at least two.

If you don't like a state's gun control laws then don't go there, you don't get the right to tell them that they can't have stricter laws just because your state doesn't.

I'm pretty sure I have the right to tell them anything I want to tell them.

(And it's funny how much of an overlap there is between the people who want mandatory concealed carry or other limits on state-level gun control and the people who scream about "states' rights" every time the federal government might do something about their bans on gay marriage or abortion.)

And I'm always amused by the people who scream about non-violent drug offenders going to jail but are happy to turn around and drop the hammer on people who went over the Nevada/California border with an empty 12-round SIG magazine in their trunk.

**Bran Dawri**

Mmm, I think a bigger part of the problem is a lot of people (subconsciously) thinking of their guns as toys.

**KingCracker**

In your country maybe. Most firearms owners in the states treat them the way they should be treated.

It's definitely the fault of the woman. The prosecutor is clearly making a name for himself for some reason or another. Does this suck? Sure it does, but that woman should have known the laws, especially with how bananas things are with firearms right now

**d-usa**

Breotan wrote:

So, who is wrong here? The woman? The prosecutor? The mandatory minimum sentencing law? Gun control in general?

The woman.

Because if she would have educated herself and would have carried responsibly and lawfully then none of the other factors would even be in consideration.

**Frazzled**

You're all wrong. The moral of the story here is never ever ever go to New Jersey.

Ever.

**Thorgrim Bloodcrow**

Frazzled wrote:
You're all wrong. The moral of the story here is never ever ever go to New Jersey.

Ever.

Exalted! As a Pennsylvanian born and bred I can tell you for a fact that Jersey and its Police are something much better left avoided

But in all seriousness, I think it's the woman and the minimum sentencing. The prosecutor might be trying to make a name (not my personal opinion, just going off what other people have said) but at the end of the day he's doing his job.

The woman should have paid better attention to the different laws as anyone who's ever owned or even expressed interest in firearms knows that every state, county and town has different laws regarding almost every tenet of gun ownership, whether it's concealed or not, ammunition type (I know some places have a big no-no against hollow points), and other things.

The minimum sentencing should be abolished because it's basically saying that this woman, I don't know her history, I'm assuming if she were some former drug lord/hitwoman it would have been said in the article, probably doesn't have any violent crimes or serious offences but with minimum sentencing she gets charged as someone who legitimately should be in jail for a minimum of a few years. As BlaxicanX said, Judges should be a competent person capable of interpreting the law and delivering a just but fair statement based on the different aspects of the case but with minimum sentencing all they can really do is say what's gonna happen, bang their gavel and have to go home knowing that people across the country are saying unfair things about them because their hands are tied by the system.

**Frazzled**

KingCracker wrote:
In your country maybe. Most firearms owners in the states treat them the way they should be treated.

It's definitely the fault of the woman. The prosecutor is clearly making a name for himself for some reason or another. Does this suck? Sure it does, but that woman should have known the laws, especially with how bananas things are with firearms right now

"Common sense " gun laws would have reciprocity between states. Can't we just compromise a little?

**d-usa**

But that would be against "state rights" and letting every state do what they want!

**Frazzled**

States rights are not relevant to the Bill of Rights.

**Steve steveson**

Seaward wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
If you don't like a state's gun control laws then don't go there, you don't get the right to tell them that they can't have stricter laws just because your state doesn't.

I'm pretty sure I have the right to tell them anything I want to tell them.

Yet your very quick to tell people they don't have a right to tell you what they think when it comes to gun control.

Seaward wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
(And it's funny how much of an overlap there is between the people who want mandatory concealed carry or other limits on state-level gun control and the people who scream about "states' rights" every time the federal government might do something about their bans on gay marriage or abortion.)

And I'm always amused by the people who scream about non-violent drug offenders going to jail but are happy to turn around and drop the hammer on people who went over the Nevada/California border with an empty 12-round SIG magazine in their trunk.

Ye, apart from Peregrine was making a valid point about people wanting states rights as long as it favors them and your just making stuff up. I don't think anyone has suggested minimum sentencing should be abolished for non violent drug offenders but in place for minor gun crimes. Both should be treated with an appropriate level of severity.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
You're all wrong. The moral of the story here is never ever ever go to New Jersey.

Ever.

Having been there I have to concur.

**Eilif**

Yeah, the problem here is the mandatory minimum. Completely takes away the ability of the judge to hand down a judgement that is suitable to the offense.

Whether gun crime, or drug crime, it's shocking that we haven't yet learned from 30 years of mandatory minimums that they don't stop crime and cost the people a heck of alot of $ in keeping non-violent offenders behind bars.

Interestingly, there's a push by some in Illinois to have mandatory minimums for gun posession. I'm not a huge NRA fan, but I'm glad they've been pushing back hard b/c legal gun owners and concealed carry licensees could get serious time for accidentally having their gun in the wrong place, having too many bullets in the clip, etc, etc.

There has to be punishment for crimes, but mandatory minimums are not the way.

**d-usa**

Eilif wrote:
legal gun owners and concealed carry licensees could get serious time for accidentally having their gun in the wrong place, having too many bullets in the clip, etc, etc.

Except none of these are accidents.

**Kilkrazy**

Suppose you take your gun in your car intending to drive to somewhere near the border on the motorway. You make a wrong turning on the last junction, possibly due to a map reading error or even because an accident has closed the off ramp and you are forced to go to the next junction.

You end up illegally entering the other state with a gun.

Does a mandatory prison sentence sound fair in such a circumstance?

**Eilif**

Here's a lengthy, but interesting piece from the Washington Post about the situation and what it says about race (the woman in question is African American), gun laws and gun laws regarding people not involved in using a gun in a crime.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/22/shaneen-allen-race-and-gun-control/

**cincydooley**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Suppose you take your gun in your car intending to drive to somewhere near the border on the motorway. You make a wrong turning on the last junction, possibly due to a map reading error or even because an accident has closed the off ramp and you are forced to go to the next junction.

You end up illegally entering the other state with a gun.

Does a mandatory prison sentence sound fair in such a circumstance?

You mean sorta like our boy in Mexico?

She's gotta know the laws of the states she borders if she lives close to said borders. I live within 10 minutes of both Indiana and Kentucky, and I know the laws and how they affect my carry license in both states.

At the same time, the minimum sentence nonsense is just that: nonsense. I'll echo the sentiment of a bunch of other folks here that have already said we need to let judges do their jobs.

**d-usa**

cincydooley wrote:

She's gotta know the laws of the states she borders if she lives close to said borders. I live within 10 minutes of both Indiana and Kentucky, and I know the laws and how they affect my carry license in both states.

That's a good example of what I mean with responsible ownership vs. negligence.

You might accidentally cross into another state, especially if you live close to a border. But you should know the laws for those states and be prepared for the possibility that you might accidentally cross. If you are not, and you break the law, then you were negligent IMO.

Cincydooley seems to be prepared and appears to be a good example of being responsible.

**CptJake**

How does knowing the law help when you accidentally cross the border?

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:
How does knowing the law help when you accidentally cross the border?

Because you follow it when you know that there is a possibility that you might accidentally cross the border.

**MrDwhitey**

cincydooley wrote:

You mean sorta like our boy in Mexico?

She's gotta know the laws of the states she borders if she lives close to said borders. I live within 10 minutes of both Indiana and Kentucky, and I know the laws and how they affect my carry license in both states.

Not only was that guy in Mexico by foot before coming back over the border then driving back in, his guns were fully loaded and ready out in his car, against California law (apparently, and he also had 400 rounds, a rifle, shotgun and pistol). So he was already breaking the law of the state he was in before getting into Mexico. He also lied to the Mexican officials about his familiarity with the border, which is peppered with signs. Though to be fair to the guy, in his own words:

"I was going to call them after I drove off the exit, but I never got off the exit, I blew right past it," he said. "I wasn't paying attention, thinking I had way farther to go. I ended up in Mexico with no way to turn around."

Then there's him going along with lying under his attorneys direction...

From the sounds of it, he is mentally unstable and also needs treatment, and I hope he gets it. The people clamouring for Mexico laws to be ignored and for him to be released immediately probably make the situation worse, with Mexico being forced to "look tough" for its people in this case, instead of quietly releasing him at a later date. Who knows.