From the first link, which goes to a U.S. News article:
[T]he U.S. attorney's office in the Northern District of Illinois maintains that federal weapons law enforcement is among the top priorities of their office. "We have a number of different methods of attacking gangs, guns, drugs and violent crime," says spokesman Randall Sanborn, who notes that many gun arrests are reviewed to determine whether the arrest should stay with the county or be brought to the federal level. "We look at which court the defendant is likely to get a substantially greater sentence... More cases that used to be brought federally are now staying in state courts because [they are] now able to get a sentence equally great or greater," he says....So Chicago ranks last in federal prosecutions because there's more state law regulating guns and there's more enthusiasm among state prosecutors about enforcing it. Street-level violence is more properly handled in state court. Unless you've got interstate webs of criminal activity, gun crimes shouldn't be cluttering up the relatively scarce federal district courts (which have to handle civil and criminal cases). What seems to be happening in Chicago is a preferable allocation of federal and state power.
While the districts that ranked lowest last year for federal gun crime prosecutions all contained major cities, the districts at the top of the list for its enforcement were almost exclusively rural. The districts of Southern Alaska, Kansas and Western Tennessee ranked first, second and third in prosecutions of federal weapons laws per capita last year.
Susan Long, a statistician and co-director of [Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks federal data], said the data revealed a stronger federal enforcement presence in rural areas than urban ones. "If taxpayers of [a certain area] don't pass strong gun control measures ... the feds pick up the ball," she said.
The reason other areas have a higher proportion of federal gun-crime prosecutions seems to be that there's much less state-level enthusiasm about gun crimes and the feds are stepping in to fill the gap. Depending on what crimes are prosecuted, you might want to criticize the feds for oppressing the people in the states that — following their vision of government — have a more easygoing attitude about what people do with guns (perhaps because people around them aren't doing such bad things, as they are in Chicago). But you've got to perceive the way these sparsely populated places are getting proportionately more prosecutions and thereby driving places like Chicago lower on the TRAC list of federal prosecutions rankings.
Posts
79 comments:
I rather enjoyed watching the left rush to the Internet to assure us that the NRA's assertion was wrong.
Now they can go about ignoring this thread because they have nothing sensible to say on gun control.
Lessee now, there's gotta be a very good reason why the Feds don't want to make a big deal out of all the crimes by firearm in the Second City.
What could it be?
Er, that still seems to support LaPierre's point that we don't need new federal gun laws.
The places with violent crime problems aren't making use of them, and they are instead being inflicted on states that have no interest in them.
O.K. So, then, let's have someone have a look at State/municipal gun law enforcement, add those stats to the mix and give us some totals.
Plus, what Revenant said.
"The places with violent crime problems aren't making use of them..."
You're missing the key point made in this post.
But I agree that what I'm saying means we don't need new federal gun laws. I just wish you wouldn't skip over the point about the statistics and what LaPierre is getting wrong about Chicago.
In making federal gun laws, a crucial question should be which kinds of crimes should be tried in federal court.
All federal crimes should be justified as belonging in federal court as opposed to state court and why a uniform national law is needed.
It should be: if a problem is serious or politically hot, then there should be a federal law.
Quite aside from the impulse to make a law, there should be a reason for it to be done at the national level.
This is the federalism question.
The Professor is swallowing the Federal prosecutor in Chicago's line whole.
The other comments we get from the people who actually live in the south and west sides of Chicago are outrage because the State, County, and City do not prosecute and convict the perpetrators of the street violence.
Lets cut through the bullshit, Ann.
1. Defendent A , a Billy Harley Gruber, was caught with a hot gun he didn't own legally in Kansas. He deals meth and Oxy.
Authorities determine he is in violation of numerous state, Federal, and local statutes as a ex-con .
2. Defendent B, a La Turquoises Mustafa Smith, was caught with a concealed hot .380 gun in Chicago. In violation of many state, local, and Fed laws. La Turquoises has several robbery and gun charges inc suspected involvement in 2 gang related shootings - and is related to a female Alderman in S Chicago.
Which person has a higher probability of being off the street for a long time due to the efforts of local, state, or Federal enforcement???
Note...When asked...People don't give a shit WHO locks either of the two up, in Chicago and Kansas. (But of course they are never asked) ..State does it, locals do it, Feds do it...whoever..just as long as this shit doesn't fly and the bad guys are made to pay.
My guess is Billy Gruber sees several birthdays spent behind bars. While La Tuquoises Smith is allowed to cop a far lower offense plea deal, and is out on the street again in under 3 months, if that.
That may or may not be the reason for the findings, but it's inescapable that places with ever increasing gun regulations are not fixing their problems with them.
I suspect the real reason is that people, including the courts, just don't value the lives of the victims there as much, consciously or subconsciously, and that leads to less effort at putting the shooters away. They are just acclimated to the level of gun violence as well as who the victims and assailants are. The water is warmer there, but it feels normal.
So Chicago ranks last in federal prosecutions because there's more state law regulating guns and there's more enthusiasm among state prosecutors about enforcing it. Street-level violence is more properly handled in state court.
But that prevalence of state gun law doesn't explain why the incidence of gun-related crime remains so much higher in that Toddlin' Town compared to other regions.
And where's the evidence to back-up the assertion that "there's more enthusiasm among state prosecutors about enforcing it"? The results certainly don't show that kind of efficacy when it comes to the incidence of actual violent crime.
Chicago epitomizes a city with a gun violence problem..
Chicago has a violence problem. Period. I'm sure if guns magically disappeared, they'd be hurling spears at each other.
LaPierre, at least as quoted, isn't getting anything "wrong" as regards Chicago.
His point is clearly to call the media out on their lack of attention to Chicago's crime wave amidst the call for new gun laws on the Federal level. His comments are directed at a lack of curiosity on the part of media about the crime stats from the president's old stomping ground.
What he says is factually accurate. Chicago is 90th out of 90 Federal districts in gun crime prosecutions at the Federal law level. That is absolutely true.
There may be reasons for that 90th out of 90 ranking, as noted, but LaPierre's point was clearly that no one in the MSM thinks it important to even ask why.
IOW, he's challenging the media on their framing of the gun-control issue, not making an objective point about Chicago, per se.
I thought that was pretty obvious.
Isn't LaPierre's rebuttal to Althouse's critique: "well, if you want to talk state gun law instead, I agree we should start repealing the more onerous state gun laws like they have in Chicago, because they obviously don't work, despite enthusiastic enforcement by their state prosecutors"?
If the State's and City is doing such an awesome job with gun related crime, why do we need Federal prosecutions at all?
I just wish you wouldn't skip over the point about the statistics and what LaPierre is getting wrong about Chicago.
LaPierre got nothing wrong about Chicago.
It's bullshit spin. Armed career criminal federal law is 15 to life. Look at the sentencing guidelines and no one convicted of this gets less than 20-30 years.
State law is nowhere near that tough.
And finally, federal resources should be expended in areas where the most harm is being caused.
C'mon Althouse sharpen up. Don't fall for lousy spin.
La Pierre is getting nothing wrong about Chicago, Ann.
YOU are missing the vital point here. Your statements regarding state laws are useless - Chicago is the second most dangerous place in America, and gun laws are failing to stop it. That's the ONLY point that matters.
But hey, let's parse the hairs, whil, wait another person was just shot in Chicago - and obviously Obama and his Justice department and a lot of law professors don't give a damn
One may also point out that it was the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald, that they brought in to prosecute Scooter Libby.
So even with a more localized approach, gun control is still an ineffective farce that punishes the very people who do not commit the crimes.
Were gun control an effective measure ; such places as Chicago, Detroit, Washington dc, and Camden would be garden spots. They most assuredly are not. And will never be. So long as the tyrant wannabes continue to punish and penalize the folks who do not commit crimes; with asinine gun control statutes, crime, firearms related crime, will never be controlled. The denizens and derelicts care not one wit about the law, any law.
--The reason other areas have a higher proportion of federal gun-crime prosecutions seems to be that there's much less state-level enthusiasm about gun crimes and the feds are stepping in to fill the gap. --
OR
Feds don't want to touch Chicago because it's hard?
What small states are we talking about?
Are these small states more red?
Statistics. A wonderful thing to fool the people who have no ability to understand math or statistics.
The prosecutions per captia in rural areas would be higher because there are less people. Duh!
Also what do those areas with the most crime and least prosecution of gun crimes have in common??? Well, gangs, ethnic minorities that we don't want to offend, drug activity, illegal aliens.
So instead of dealing with the crime and problems in the inner cities and where the gang activities are.....let's go after Billy Bob and his hunting rifle. Low hanging fruit.
So Chicago ranks last in federal prosecutions because there's more state law regulating guns and there's more enthusiasm among state prosecutors about enforcing it.
I didn't see any information demonstrating this. The study linked in the article is of federal data but there's no corresponding state data showing those particular jurisdictions have higher rates of state prosecution.
Maybe your bullshit detector isn't working.
How strict or not are their CCW laws?
So who are they really going after and why?
HT:http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/
Only 132 of the 507 murder cases in the city last year were closed last year. That makes for a homicide clearance rate of 26 percent—the lowest in two decades, according to internal police records provided to Chicago. (The true picture is even worse; more on that later.) To put it another way: About three-quarters of the people who killed someone in Chicago in 2012 have gotten away with murder—so far, at least. “Those stats suggest a crisis,” says Arthur Lurigio, a criminologist at Loyola University Chicago.
It’s a crisis every bit as pressing as the city’s high homicide rate, because the former feeds the latter. If murderers aren’t apprehended, they’re free to kill again. If other bad guys get the feeling that there are few consequences for their actions, they too will be emboldened. “The word has to be out [on the street] that the cases are not being cleared,” Lurigio says.
Given the record low clearance rate last year, more than 30 police sources, including current and former top commanders and 15 detectives, agreed to talk about the problem. These interviews—combined with the internal police data provided to Chicago—reveal a detective force that is undermanned and overextended, struggling against reluctant prosecutors and a notorious no-snitch code. Last year’s department-wide consolidation and reorganization, initiated by Superintendent Garry McCarthy, has made a bad situation even worse. As one South Side detective put it: “It’s a perfect storm of shit.”
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2013/Getting-Away-with-Murder/
Althouse:
It should be: if a problem is serious or politically hot, then there should be a federal law.
Quite aside from the impulse to make a law, there should be a reason for it to be done at the national level.
This is the federalism question.
There are many serious problems that are politically hot in one locale in the US but not an issue elsewhere - thus no demand "for a new Federal law" imposed on everyone...not just the area that has youth gangs, organized poacher rings stealing Indian artifacts or cactus.
Why would N Dakota want a Fed "youth gangs law" or Chicago need new Fed laws on cactus poaching??
As for Federalism - typically, what Fed laws that can be enforced at a state or local level are done that way. (State EPAs, Fish&Game, scams even if interstate scams)
But Federalism also has traditionally meant that states and municipalities overwhelmed can request Fed help if resource constraints, lack of expertise, suspects in other states - becomes relevant.
And existing Fed Law can usually be applied in those situations, without lawyers being paid handsomely to slather up dozens of new laws, then defend or prosecute "new offenses!".
Got a gun using problem involving organized gangs of black thugs? You have tried and tested RICO laws. You have enforcement of existing Fed law barring purchase, interstate transfer, and possession by anyone not legally entitled to have a gun. You have existing laws on Fed resources aiding a municipality in "emergency situations".
I say it's because they are willing to let blacks kill each other. Saves a little on welfare payments; keeps them on the voter rolls.
Cynical? Moi?
In 2012, Chicago police cleared 211 aggravated battery with a firearm cases — 11 percent of the 1,893 incidents where someone was shot and wounded during the calendar year.
But of those cases, only 111 shootings — about 6 percent — resulted in charges. The other 100 cases were "cleared exceptionally,” which means police know who the shooter is but were unable to bring charges, the state’s attorney wouldn’t bring charges, a victim refused to testify after identifying a shooter or the offender was dead.
Detectives in 2012 were able to clear 144 cases that happened before 2012. But even when you factor in those cases, Chicago's total clearance rate — 18.8 percent — is nearly half the national average cited in the most recent FBI report on clearance rates.
In 2010, eight police departments in cities with more than 1 million residents cleared 35.5 percent of nonfatal shootings with an arrest, the FBI report shows.
Read more: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130124/chicago/most-shooters-chicago-dont-face-charges#ixzz2OrHVPhql
Chicago epitomizes a city with a gun violence problem..
'cause the coppers won't go into those neighborhoods to arrest anybody.
They don't want to get shot either.
Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”
Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473 — required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm — is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and a judge’s discretion, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/
But they will, by deity, have LOTS of time and money to prosecute the NEW laws!
I think that the absurdity is that the violence in places like Chicago provide the bulk of the statistics being utlized to justify new federal gun laws, despite the federal gun laws already on the books not been utilized in the places where the gun violence is the worst. And, yes, that the gun violence is almosst entirely handgun related, so, they attempt to ban scary looking semiautomatic rifles.
I'm not swallowing anything whole here. I just opening up the topic of how to deal with these statistics.
LaPierre obviously got something wrong. Go back to the original post at the "dead last" link and you'll see he said:
"Out of 90 jurisdictions in the country... Chicago's dead last on enforcement of the federal gun laws'? Why doesn't the national press corps, when they're sitting down there with Jay Carney and the president and the vice president, why don't they say, 'Why is Chicago dead last in enforcement of the gun laws against gangs with guns, felons with guns, drug dealers with guns'?"
He slipped from saying "federal" to leaving it out and saying "the gun laws."
Put the federalism back in.
And of course, the statistics are per capita (as I make clear in the post), but think what this means in the federalism analysis. People in more sparsely populated places have a different experience with guns that shapes their political preferences and the actual real-world conditions that either threaten them or don't.
Federalism and guns. Think about it.
One thing about American federalism: If you don't like things where you are, you're free to move somewhere else that might be quite different.
Don't like Chicago: get out. That's what happened to Detroit.
You can also try to change it, but you're not a captive. You don't have to fix it. You can migrate. It's an American tradition.
The problem with national laws is you can't just move.
He slipped from saying "federal" to leaving it out and saying "the gun laws."
Alternatively,
Since he already said "federal" and the topic was federal, and he was on a time boxed TV segment, he left it out since everyone watching knew what he was talking about.
"So Chicago ranks last in federal prosecutions because there's more state law regulating guns and there's more enthusiasm among state prosecutors about enforcing it."
Chicago/Cook County officials seem to disagree.
Obviously, LaPierre is unserious because he didn't quote the exact federal laws he wants to see enforced.
That's your basis for a post on what he got wrong? That he didn't say "federal" each and every time he said "gun law" after he'd said "federal" once, then was speaking of Jay Carney, POTUS spokesbaby, and POTUS Obama?
Really?
I think that's why people have such a low opinion of most lawyers.
The federal government was given (siezed?) expanded powers to deal with crimes involving drugs and guns. The federal government doesn't use those powers in a city that could benefit from a couple of years of strict no tolerance enforcement.
But of course, LaPierre is the moron cuz he left out one word once. Never mind that he probably figured anyone listening to him with even an eighth of a functioning brain would look at the context and know what he meant.
LOL, Rabel.
May be there are lots of rooms in Chicago for both state and Fed prosecutions.
When the state is incompetent, the Fed should at least "help" out. If the Fed believes the State's laws are already doing the job, then why more Fed laws that won't be enforced anyway?
90th of 90 districts in prosecutions, guess someone has to be the 90th. At least they are the first in murder rate.
Ann Althouse said...
I'm not swallowing anything whole here
You concluded the reason federal prosecutions are low is in fact the reason offered by Sanborn even though he offered no proof. Sanborn pulled the same switch Pierre did. He told a plausible story, included a number, and left the impression his conclusion is supported by data. It wasn't.
We don't know state prosecutions are higher in that jurisdiction compared to others, nor do we have any data on relative enthusiasms, yet you're citing these as factual and thus discrediting to Pierre.
It seems to me both are telling an incomplete story in furtherance of their institution's goals. So why are you accepting one and attacking the other? And further, which of these two institutions owes the public a more complete truth? A political organization or a government agency?
Ann Althouse said...
One thing about American federalism: If you don't like things where you are, you're free to move somewhere else that might be quite different.
This is true of marriage laws as well. If you don't like your state's marriage laws, you can get married in another: link
One thing about American federalism: If you don't like things where you are, you're free to move somewhere else that might be quite different.
That's the theory. In practice federalism is all but dead.
It should be: if a problem is serious or politically hot, then there should be a federal law.
Quite aside from the impulse to make a law, there should be a reason for it to be done at the national level.
This is the federalism question.
Jesus Christ, you teach law and that's your understanding of federalism? Certain powers have been delegated to the federal government by the states. The question should be, "Is the federal legislation the federal government thinking of imposing at the federal level* allowed by the constraints imposed by the Constitution?"
* Didn't want to repeat LaPierre's error of only using the word "federal" one time.
I call bullshit. How much you want to bet those federal prosecutions in West Tennessee are primarily in a rural area called "Memphis," birthplace of DADvocate? Memphis is a cesspool of violent crime. Number 5 in the country on this list.
This page on federal weapons prosecutions supports my assertion. Knoxville, the city I grew up in, is in the top 10 along with Memphis. The legacy of Davy Crockett.
Based on the audio recordings and associated transcripts released form yesterday's SC hearings, we would be so lucky to have a Solicitor General of the US who made the kind of verbal "errors" Althouse wishes to castigate Wayne LaPierre for making.
By which I mean to put down neither SG Verilli's nor LaPierre's respective speaking/rhetorical styles, but rather to illustrate how Althouse doubles down on pedantry when caught out on her own original sloppy writing.
LaPierre wasn't "wrong" about Chicago, and he wasn't unclear about which level of law enforcement was being discussed at the time of his quote.
"from"
Lest I be accused by our hostess of being "wrong" or unclear.
Althouse is the most dangerous blog in which to overreach in the wrong direction.
Call in the feds - this is a tough room. We need help.
Why does Chicago have the least federal gun-crime prosecutions?
Because gun crime laws are not intended to be enforced. They're for the politicans, not the people.
The best solution to gun violence is a vibrant economy and jobs. Generally this means that the government needs to get out of the way of business and the people. Spending all this time on gun control legislation when the president will be 2 months late with his legally required budget proposal is immoral.
Maybe if kids could get an education in Chicago, but instead the teachers are whining about necessary measures to cut costs and close poor performing schools.
All the kids in Chicago see and learn is it's not what you know but who you know that counts. Graft, corruption and cronyism are the key to success and deflate many a dream.
"We have a number of different methods of attacking gangs, guns, drugs and violent crime,"
He forgot to add "None of which work."
The question should be, "Is the federal legislation the federal government thinking of imposing at the federal level* allowed by the constraints imposed by the Constitution?"
* Didn't want to repeat LaPierre's error of only using the word "federal" one time.
Which state's Constitution were you thinking of, bgates?
Kidding!!!
Didn't phx/garage say the Chicago stat is a lie made up by conservatives to smear the good city of Chicago?
If any US Attorney, in this Administration, told me that Adolf Hitler was a criminal, as a Jury Member I would vote to let Adolf "off he hook".
A federal question? I do not see that the Constitution assigned "gun control" to the Federal Government; About which please reread Article-X of the Constitution.
Chicago’s Criminals Are Getting Away With Murder
Only 132 of Chicago’s 507 murders were solved last year. Why is the Chicago Police Department struggling to bring so many killers to justice?
But that prevalence of state gun law doesn't explain why the incidence of gun-related crime remains so much higher in that Toddlin' Town compared to other regions.
As bad as Chicago's crime rate is, it is far from the worst in the country (that would be New Orleans), and is in fact similar to such pistol-packin' comparable cities such as Houston and Dallas.
Freder - how can you defend Chicago? It's a HELL HOLE!!!
Chicago has a violence problem. Period. I'm sure if guns magically disappeared, they'd be hurling spears at each other.
,Or railroad ties
ampersand - try committing a massacre with railroad ties. What gangs do to each other has nothing to do with trying to stop the next Adam Lanza or Dylan Klebold.
Freder - how can you defend Chicago? It's a HELL HOLE!!!
I will defend both Chicago and New Orleans.
You want to know what real Hell Holes are? Houston and Dallas. Sterile cities without a soul and crime every bit as bad. If you are going to be victim of a crime, you might as be one somewhere fun.
"It should be: if a problem is serious or politically hot, then there should be a federal law."
Shouldn't?
I just assumed a typo.
The right number of federal gun laws? Probably zero. The nation was doing just fine before the NFA was passed (which law was a gotta-do-something response to a moral panic, just like so many of the knife-control laws that Cramer, Kopel, and Olson just wrote about.)
The ones that would be constitutional, if not advisable? Anything to do with importing/exporting, or firearms being sold between states (and by "sold" I mean "commerce commerce", none of this "having moved in interstate commerce" bullshit.) In other words, hardly any of the existing ones we have.
And my goodness--that stuff from secondcitycop and Chicago magazine is fascinating! So what kind of prosecutors do they have? Enthusiastic, or reluctant?
Freder Frederson said...
As bad as Chicago's crime rate is, it is far from the worst in the country (that would be New Orleans), and is in fact similar to such pistol-packin' comparable cities such as Houston and Dallas.
There you go lying again...
Freder Frederson said...
Freder - how can you defend Chicago? It's a HELL
You want to know what real Hell Holes are? Houston and Dallas. Sterile cities without a soul and crime every bit as bad.
Total bullshit, silly liar.
You have an utter inability to distinguish between "murder rate" (New Orleans) and crime rate (Detroit has the highest). Note: Neither Dallas or Houston is the the top 10 of America's cities with the highest crime rates.
You're nothing more than a not that bright, easily misled propagandist.
"What seems to be happening in Chicago is a preferable allocation of federal and state power."
True unless the statistics asserted are bullshit.
The one statistic that is clearly not bullshit is the murder rate, which tells most of what you need to know about the success of the Illinois laws.
Or maybe people in Chicago are unusually murderous and vicious, which tells you about the success of other favored policies.
Neither Dallas or Houston is the the top 10 of America's cities with the highest crime rates.
Not violent crime, anyway.
I just figured Freder was pre-counting a bunch of next year's Obamacare non-compliance "criminals".
Unfortunately "the reason to do it at the national level" is often the desire of politicians to get credit for "doing something" and the impulse of prosecutors to find more things to do and add more staff.
"Fewest", not "least". ;)
I want to know what "If taxpayers of [a certain area] don't pass strong gun control measures ... the feds pick up the ball" means.
What "gun control measures" are at the Federal level that she thinks the Feds need to pick up the ball on, if they're not there?
Is the idea that a locale is "slacking" if it doesn't copy every Federal law, to "save" the Feds the work of enforcing Congress' whim?
Curious.
In these dire economic times when we are starving govt agencies of needed funds [snarc], I'd think the states would try and hand off as many cases as it could to the feds.
bpm4532 said...
The best solution to gun violence is a vibrant economy and jobs. Generally this means that the government needs to get out of the way of business and the people.
==================
Garbage.
Gun murder rates in black inner cities and by black thugs foraying out of their hoods was double what it is now when jobs and the economy were flourishing in Reagan's day, and higher than now under Clinton's great economy as well.
The black thug matter is one of culture, genetics, and one-parent families.
It has little to nothing to do with jobs and the economy.
One thing about American federalism: If you don't like things where you are, you're free to move somewhere else that might be quite different.
Unless of course, you're gay and want to get married. Then you must ignore the will of the people and shove gay marriage down everybody's throat.
Ann, You are doing "fact checking" a la Glenn Kessler. Was what La Pierre said correct? (YES) Is there additional information to be had. (YES) Did La Pierre indicate that there was no additional information? (NO) Did he make any inferences about local law enforcement? (NO)
There is always more info. Since you have designated yourself as "fact checker" you now need to analyze Chicago's enforcement of its local gun laws versus other similar sized cities before you draw conclusions. Your assumptions about enforcement in Illinois have no factual basis.
Do you let your students do this kind of sloppy analysis?
Do you let your students do this kind of sloppy analysis?
Don't you wonder why so many lawyers today are so full of fuzzy (at best) thinking?
The democrats are not interested in improving the lives of the poor or reducing crime. They don't care about black men shooting each other. New Federal gun laws are not about reducing crime and putting criminals in jail.
These laws are about creating more criminals.
If they can make more gun owners criminals it gives them more power to crush those who oppose statist rule. It is just another tool to increase their power over our lives.
You can apologize for them all you want Ann. But it is clear they are not intersted in enforcing the laws they have or actually improving quality of life.
Alex said...
ampersand - try committing a massacre with railroad ties. What gangs do to each other has nothing to do with trying to stop the next Adam Lanza or Dylan Klebold.
We can only hope that gang members murder each other. It's the innocent bystanders that are being killed.
Who walks up to a stroller and shoots a baby in the head? Who teaches that kind of hatred? There is an inner city problem here and it goes way past guns.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Basically, City people are herd animals. A few get shoved on the subway tracks and some get shot, but a huge percentage make it home every day.
Rural people are honeybadgers, and will fight back with a gun, tire iron or frying pan if need be.
Thats just biology: coping mechanisms according to each habibat they occupy.
Prosecutions have more with someone wanting to become Governor than anything else.
So, the original blog entry is indicating that Chicago, even though it has a plethora of state gun laws on the books, cannot control its violent drug dealers, felons, and gang-bangers.
Instead, authorities have decided to strip the citizens of their civil rights that would allow law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves against drug dealers, felons and gang-bangers?
What an entirely preposterous scheme. The people of Chicago have to suffer the ills of criminals while the authorities have means to protect themselves with their arms.
This attack on civil rights only allows the underbelly of Chicago to thrive while good, honest people scurry in fear.
Enough!
It's time to pass concealed weapon legislation so good people can conduct their business without harm from felons, gang-bangers, and drug dealers.
Illinois is one of only 2 states to actually have a mandatory prison sentence for a firearm violation. Federally, you would get less time for a firearms violation then the state actually gives you. Federal gun laws aren't nearly as tough as state ones for guns unless there is more to it such as possession of a silencer ect. So federally someone could get 2 years for their first firearms violation, which assumes they have some points already where as state level they could get 2-5 years for their first violation with no backround, with no backround federally you would be looking at doing months, not years. Violations to the foid card act are prosecuted severely in illinois.
Post a Comment