Did someone say no one wants to ban handguns?

[RoeBear]

http://www.handgunfree.org/HFAMain/about/why.htm

Why Ban Handguns?
"While this survey indicates it is still a minority of Americans who support banning handguns, HFA believes strongly that if the American public were aware of the extent of the handgun epidemic, the level of support for banning handguns would skyrocket. This is the goal of Handgun-Free America. In addition to this, there are also a large number of organizations and prominent individuals who support banning handguns in the United States."

I find it curious that they don't mention the names of the 'prominent' individuals who support a ban. Is it because they are politicians that know if they 'come out' on this issue it would cost them at re-election time?

[Cappurr]

1. Well...I'm not a politician

But I support banning handguns. And I know all the arguments about how then only the criminals would have guns.....but then you'd know who the criminals are. If youre found with a gun you go away....for a long time. Here in Jersey, any crime committed with a handgun (even if no-one is injured) is an automatic three year sentence with no parole. I once put a guy away for seven years for shooting a retired police dog who was just playing in his yard. The dog didn't even die. (Now I admit that is excessive, but I offered the guy 364 in county jail (which works out to 4 months) but he chose to turn it down and get on the stand and lie instead. So he was given seven years for using a handgun against the property of another....that is a second degree offense.

Handguns are statistically used against the owners, a family member or friend far more than they are used against intruders.

We should get rid of all of them. But being political, I'd take a compromise. One thing I'd never compromise is safety locks and assault weapons ban.

[billbuckhead]

3. They don't want death threats against their children like Rosie..

got from the gun enthusiasts. If a prominent person wants to be threatened by terrorism, just come out against the gun lobby.

[jody]

5. Where is your source for "Handguns are statistically used against the

owners, a family member or friend far more than they are used against intruders"?

[Cappurr]

6. Well....

I could get them for you on any reputable gun control site but I'm not doing your research.

My real source is experience. I prosecuted criminal cases for five years and defended for 15. In all that time only one case involved a victim shooting an ex-boyfriend who was stalking her. She used an illegal weapon but didn't kill him. Thank god she had a good attorney :) because the Grand Jury refused to indict her for either the weapon or the shooting. Anti-stalking laws would have made the shooting unnecessary because he had been at it for years, but there was nothing the police could do. As a matter of fact, my client and I went on Oprah to help her promote anti-stalking laws in several states.

I've prosecuted lots of people who have shot at neighbors, or neighbors dogs, or pointed guns at wives and one who killed his brother. Many of the crimes seem to occur when drinking and guns are combined.

[jody]

7. You don't have a reputable source. You are just repeating unsubstantiated

rumors. Do your own research.

[MrBenchley]

10. Try Kellerman, Jody...

He's more than proved it.

[LastDemInIdaho]

14. when drinking and guns are combined

Many of the proposed laws aimed at honest and law abiding gun owners
sound like they were created when their proponents were drunk.

[Fescue4u]

16. Im glad to hear that you defended her.

But its shocking that the DA would even pursue charges against a women defending herself.

In a just state, your (obviously excellent service), wouldnt even be required to defend her.

[Cappurr]

21. That is pure legal ignorance....

Just how many years did YOU go to law school? When a person is shot and the shooter has an illegal gun the prosecutor doesn't have much of a choice but to bring it to the grand jury. Otherwise you are going to have a victim raising holy hell. But the WAY the prosecutor presents the case to the grand jury is key. I SAID they didn't indict her didn't I? That had to do with two things....the prosecutor and me having enough trust in the prosecutor to let my client waive her fifth amendment privilege and testify before the grand jury. When that grand jury saw this frail, scared young woman, it was all over.

[DoNotRefill]

24. The Commonwealth's Attorney usually has absolute discretion....

as to the bringing of charges. They can refuse to bring ANY charges "in the interest of Justice." Of course, that's the "big fish" in the Prosecutor's office (usually elected). ACAs (or ADAs or whatever they're called where you practice) have less authority, and have to do what their boss says (or resign). But the Boss DOES have discretion, and I've NEVER heard of a CA or DA getting in trouble for refusing to press charges. They answer ONLY to the voters.

And BTW, the "Just how many years did YOU go to law school?" question is very, VERY dangerous to post here....this board seems to have a disproportionate number of J.D.s on it. I know of at least 4 regular posters here who have J.D.s, at least two of whom went to top tier schools in the US.

[RoeBear]

29. Me, too...

...or at least I watched 'L.A. Law' quite often. Almost the same thing.
:eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

33. One of my friends is a DA....

the elected kind. He refuses to prosecute anybody on firearms charges. If a person shoots somebody, he tries them for shooting somebody, not for a firearms charge. He's had no problem getting re-elected.

[Fescue4u]

26. Legal ignorance vs legal arrogance?

Im glad to hear that her fellow citizens saved her from the clutches of the prosecutor.

Of course I don't know about New Jersey details, I've tried to stay away from that particular area, but in my area prosecutors DO have discretion to not pursue charges...especially in a case like this.

While this scared young woman was saved by the Grand Jury process, she still had to incur needless persecution by the legal system.

If her 2nd ammendment civil rights were being honored, this "illegal gun" wouldnt be illegal at all.

[RoeBear]

30. But like in the thread about...

...the chef mushroom hunting there are those who would like the book thrown at her regardless because ; the law is the law.

[Cappurr]

35. Look.....I'm not getting in a flame war with you guys...

I told you the truth and I told you the Law. And I went to law school for three years (as every law student does) after four years of undergraduate. And I did it when I was thirty years old. After marriage, children and a year as a civilian worker in Vietnam when there was a real war going one I practiced since 1980, so none of you people hiding behind your computer keyboards are going to intimidate me.

First of all, illegal weapons are weapons not licenced by the state. That is perfectly within the bounds of the second amendment as any idiot knows.

Second, of course a prosecutor has absolute discretion on whether to prosecute a case or not. How long do you think a prosecutor would last if he just prosecuted the cases he felt like. Or just ignored the law and chose not to prosecute certain cases because he didn't agree with the law. A prosecutor takes an oath to uphold the laws of the state and thats what most, honerable prosecutors do.

If anything, prosecutors tend to overprosecute, not underprosecute. And a damn good way for a prosecute to exercise his or her discretion is to present a case to the grand jury in such a way that the grand jury is unlikely to indict. That is what this prosecutor did. And then no-one can blame him for not pursuing the case....he did. But the grand jury refused to indict.

And as far as the dog case, you know nothing about that defendant. You know nothing about his past record. You know nothing about other crimes he committed. So how the hell can you judge me? And I said I didn't much like doing it that way but if a fool wont take a decent plea bargain, then you try the case. He gets convicted and the law sets the sentence .....not me.

Why don't you try to learn from people who have had actual experience instead of shooting off your mouths and attacking without having the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.

I'm a computer idiot. So I try to learn from those who know computers. I'm not inferior to them, but I'm not dumb enough to try to tell them the way computers work.

[DoNotRefill]

37. Heh...

"You know nothing about his past record. You know nothing about other crimes he committed."

And here I thought that type of "evidence" was generally excluded at trial unless certain strict conditions were met (such as the defendant taking the stand, and it being used for impeachment on cross).

"If anything, prosecutors tend to overprosecute, not underprosecute."

That's a MAJOR flaw in our criminal justice system.

"And a damn good way for a prosecute to exercise his or her discretion is to present a case to the grand jury in such a way that the grand jury is unlikely to indict. That is what this prosecutor did. And then no-one can blame him for not pursuing the case....he did. But the grand jury refused to indict."

It's called "pass the buck" or "CYA". It STINKS.

"And I said I didn't much like doing it that way but if a fool wont take a decent plea bargain, then you try the case."

So much for the rights of the defendant... The whole idea of overcharging is basically to blackmail the defendant into giving up his or her rights. The basic idea is "if you don't scratch my back, I'll fuck you up, regardless of if you deserve it or not." That's a VERY strange position for a so-called "liberal" to take.

"How long do you think a prosecutor would last if he just prosecuted the cases he felt like. Or just ignored the law and chose not to prosecute certain cases because he didn't agree with the law."

Around here, and in many parts of the country, that goes over just fine. Of course, there are lots of places that jury nullification is still seen as a good thing (and I believe it is). Deciding which cases deserve prosecution is part of the job...it's a DUTY...and "passing the buck" is an abrogation of that duty.

This reminds me of a case I was involved with a while back. Some children were being abused, but the child welfare worker refused to take action because it wasn't "clear-cut" enough for her. Whatever her reasons, she ended up being charged with malfeasance of office, was convicted, and lost her job. By refusing to make a "hard call" (part of her job description), she got kicked in the proverbial teeth, and frankly, she deserved it.

[Cappurr]

38. Idiot

A person's prior record does NOT come in at trial. But it does at sentencing. And there was no overcharging. He was charged with using a firearm against the property of another. And he was convicted of it. And the NJ statutes say that is a second degree crime. And the sentencing guidlines say that is a seven year presumptive sentence.....could go as high as ten. The judge took his prior record into consideration and gave him the presumptive. I had nothing to do with it.

The only thing I had to do with is making him a plea offer and with his prior record (which most certainly CAN be considered in plea offers) what I offered him was fair.

And you know whats even funnier....you, of course, because of your obvious bias won't believe this.....but I ran into that guy in the jail about two years later. I was scared, gotta admit. We were both walking down an empty hallway. He stopped and he thanked me. He said he was a wise ass kid and I showed him that it didn't pay.

Whether he was being sincere or whether he was trying to get an early out, I'll never know....but he did say it. And I was never contacted for an early out recommendation.

And I NEVER overcharged. I had the reputation of the most liberal prosecutor in the county. All the defense attorneies wanted to deal with me. I found beds for addicts instead of sticking them in jail, I recommended PTI (Pre Trial Intervention) more than any other prosecutor at the time. Don't question my liberal credentials. You know nothing about me.

[DoNotRefill]

43. Have you ever considered drinking decaf?

It's just as tasty as the real thing, without the nasty side effects. ;-)

[Cappurr]

47. I don't drink much coffee at all

But people like you who talk about things they know nothing about and seem to be intimiation by a woman who does know a thing or two set me on edge. For that reason, I rarely come to this forum cause it is full of macho gun-totin types, sort of like our cowboy president.

I'm wasting my time here. See ya. :hi:

[Fescue4u]

50. You are a woman?

Funny how you need to throw out that "credential"

From the arrogance demonstrated, I fully assumed you were a dude with a big ego.

[DoNotRefill]

53. Hmmmm....

"But people like you who talk about things they know nothing about"

What on earth makes you think that? You think you're the only one with a J.D. here? You're wrong. You think you're the only person here that has worked for a State judicial system in a prosecutorial capacity or is an Officer of the Court? Again, you're wrong. You're making broad-based assumptions that are not supported by facts. And that, my friend, poses something of a problem.

"and seem to be intimiation (sic) by a woman who does know a thing or two set me on edge."

As for your being a woman, what POSSIBLE relevance can that have on an internet forum??? It's not like you've got some kind of "I am WOMAN!" sig line, or we're being distracted by staring at your anatomy. Here, you're represented ONLY by your words, and it's about as equal a situation as can be achieved on this planet. Frankly, before you so blithely stated that you're a woman, I had no idea. To me, it's irrelevant, even now that I know.

[jody]

41. Wrong in saying "illegal weapons are weapons not licenced by the state"

In every state, there are many "weapons" not licensed by the state, e.g. knives, baseball bats, and long-guns that meet federal standards for barrel length.

Most states do not require that handguns be licensed.

There is a difference between "illegal weapons are weapons not licenced by the state" and "requiring a license to purchase a firearm", but of course every lawyer knows that.

[Cappurr]

42. Wrong

I'll give you a little test. Put a handgun in your car, drive down the Parkway. Make sure you give me your licenceplate number and the time you'll be entering . I guarantee you you'll be stopped and charged with possession of an illegal firearm

And LOTS of weapons can have illegal purposes....that doesn't make them illegal weapons. Walk down the street with a baseball bat and you've got no problem. Swing the bat at the head of a neighbor and you are in possession of a weapon.

Hell, a sock can be a weapon if you use it to strangle someone.

[DoNotRefill]

44. I've heard about that....

"Put a handgun in your car, drive down the Parkway. Make sure you give me your licenceplate number and the time you'll be entering . I guarantee you you'll be stopped and charged with possession of an illegal firearm"

Folks in NJ charging people with stuff like that, even when stored unloaded in the trunk in a locked box, when the person is simply transiting the state, despite FOPA's superceding State law on that issue...

That's part of why I refuse to go through New Jersey...

The other reason is the NJSP's habit of beating deadheads to death...

[Cappurr]

48. Nah....

You won't get charged if you are just transiting. First of all, the cops probably wouldn't have probable cause to search your trunk unless you acted like an idiot and had to be taken into custody. I should have been more specific. Put the gun in your glove compartment. Then try to get through the state.

And there are signs as you enter New Jersey that fully explain our gun laws.

ON EDIT: Just for your info I defended a guy who brought a licenced gun from North Carolinia into NJ. He worked here for several months and was a real nice guy. Problem was his neighbors started some shit and he displayed the gun. Bad move. I got him into PTI (Even tho as a general rule gun charges are not for PTI but I argued he never pointed it at anyone). He did his community service and his record was wiped clean. I'm not a wild get rid of all guns and throw em all in jail type of person. I just don't like to be called that by people like some of the posters down here.

[CO Liberal]

49. And Speaking as a Former New Jersean ......

...thank you for staying out of the Garden State.

:-)

[jody]

46. "possession of an illegal firearm" or "illegal possession of a firearm"?

If a person has a fully automatic firearm that is not registered IAW the National Firearms Act, see CHAPTER 53 - MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS, then that person would be charged with possessing an illegal weapon.

Your example of driving down a Parkway with a handgun may result in a charge of "possession of an illegal firearm", but in many perhaps even most states that would be immediately dropped as a false charge because its not illegal to possess a handgun under such conditions.

Perhaps some other DU participant can comment on whether there is a state that "classifies a handgun as an illegal weapon" in contrast to "illegal possession of a handgun".

ON EDIT ADD
I believe a local, state or national government would have to ban all handguns for a charge to be "possessing an illegal weapon", otherwise the charge would be "illegal possession of a handgun".

[Fescue4u]

51. Its illegal just to have a gun in the car?

Incredible!

Thank god i live in a free state.

[demsrule4life]

28. You might have been to law school

to bad it didnt teach you any common sense.

[op6203]

62. Just one thing...

"My real source is experience. I prosecuted criminal cases for five years and defended for 15. In all that time only one case involved a victim shooting an ex-boyfriend who was stalking her."

That really doesn't prove anything. If the shooting was justified and nobody pressed charges, you wouldn't see them in court. Right?

Of course you've prosecuted people that "shot at neighbors", etc - but there's no reason to prosecute someone that used a legal handgun in self defense.
OP

[billbuckhead]

8. Where's YOUR proof?

It's seems fairly obvious from watching TV news that guns are mostly used against fellow workers and family members.

[demsrule4life]

31. TV news

not unbiased at all.

[Fescue4u]

15. Are you serious?

7 years in prison for shooting a dog on your own property!

Even 4 months is excessive.

Im shocked that you rationalize destroying a mans life by the "deal" you offered him.

The more I hear about New Jersey, the more facist it sounds.

[Fescue4u]

17. Cappur.. just curious

Do you also support banning handguns for everyone, including law enforcement?

[Cappurr]

22. Thats a hard one.....

In a perfect world yes. But it isn't a perfect world. And I know there are people who like to hunt and do target practice and they have a perfect right to do it. But you don't need Saturday night specials to hunt. Nor do you need assault weapons.

It would take so many years to get the handguns off the streets that are there now, it would be a long time before officers could go without weapons.

I think it is a lot more interesting to ask ourselves why we have this violent gun toting population? What is it about Americans that make them thing guns are the answer to disputes? You don't have that in Europe. You do in third world countries. But we are supposed to be civilized.

The answers to that question are very complicated and have a lot more to do with poverty, unmet expectations, expectations that are exploited by the media and advertising, corruption, I could go on and on but I'm sure you can come up with your own. I do know one thing...it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the 2nd amendment.

[DoNotRefill]

25. Hey Cappurr....

"It would take so many years to get the handguns off the streets that are there now, it would be a long time before officers could go without weapons."

How long have we been fighting the Drug War? You'd think all the drugs in the country when we started fighting it would have been used up by now. If drug smugglers can smuggle in tons of cocaine, why couldn't they smuggle in tons of weapons, too?

The idea of police being disarmed is a wonderful pipedream....but that's ALL that it is...a pipedream.

"I do know one thing...it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the 2nd amendment."

When you were sworn in as an Officer of the Court, what kind of oath did you take? Here, at least, part of the oath is to uphold the Constitution....even the parts you don't like. I guess NJ's oath is different...

[Cappurr]

36. A state prosecutor takes an oath to uphold the laws of the state

Not the constitution of the US. And in the state of NJ hand guns cannot be carried, they must be licenced and kept in the home or business of the owner. When they are moved from one place to another, they must have the bulletes removed, the gun separated from the magazine and kept in the trunk of the car.

Its a little easier to get a licence for a shotgun, but not much.

The Office I worked for once arrested and prosecuted some big Philly basketball star who went on to become even bigger for having an illegal handgun in his car. He got off on a technical motion. I wish I could think of his name, because you'd all recgonize it, but I don't want to say the wrong name and name someone who was never charged with anything.

New Jersey gun laws are strict. And I like it that way.

[DoNotRefill]

45. That doesn't make it OK....

"A state prosecutor takes an oath to uphold the laws of the state"

to violate Federal legislation and Federally protected civil rights, does it? I'm curious on your position on that, considering some actions taken by prosecutors in NJ in the past...

BTW, you DO recognize Federal supremacy there, don't you? If so, how would you justify charging an out of state resident travelling through New Jersey with an unregistered firearm stored in accordance with FOPA? Please keep in mind that FOPA states in part that:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console."


From that, it seems that New Jersey's prosecuting somebody transporting an unregistered firearm through New Jersey on the way to another place where the firearm is legal would violate the Federal statute.

[The Left Preacher]

65. Private citizens should not own handguns

Private citizens should be only allowed to own hunting rifles and shotguns. It would be possible to allow the firing of handguns at a firing range, but only with the guns owned by the range and kept at the range.

The private ownership of guns should be limited to hunting rifles and shotguns.

only law enforcement agents and licenced private security guards should be allowed to carry handguns.

[liberalnurse]

2. I'm a Constitutional Democrat......

I support the right to bear arms. I don't have the solution to the problem either......

[10digits]

4. Why?

Can ham dung?

[MrBenchley]

9. Gee, roe...

When did anybody say that?

Last time I saw a survey, about 47% of voters wanted a ban on handgun sales...

[Loyal]

11. I think it's more like 38%

n/t.

[Loyal]

12. Do you really want all handguns banned?

Look at Britain. Violent crime has tripled, and, no, I don't have a link.

[MrBenchley]

13. The reason you don't have a link

is because that's utter and complete RKBA rubbish.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=9808

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoeBear]

19. He's not anti-american...

...but his ideas will assure that more Republicans get elected in 2004. You can stay here Ben but just realize that supporting anti-2nd amendment laws will encourage large numbers of conservative voters to go to the polls on election day. If you quit poking the bear with the stick they'll stay asleep and miss it.

[billbuckhead]

20. The fight against terrorism begins at home. Gun violence is domestic terro

perpetrated by the gun lobby.

[LastDemInIdaho]

23. Absolute rubbish

Blaming those that support the RKBA for terror is no more valid than blaming the AAA for automobile deaths. Nice try tho.

[Fescue4u]

27. Virtually no terrorism is committed with guns

Virtualy all of it has been comitted with belt bombs, box cutters and jumbo jets.

[MrBenchley]

57. Surrrrrrre, Roe...

We should cave in to the GOP's shrillest and most extremem special interest group....

"supporting anti-2nd amendment laws"
What a pantload.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

56. Amazing, isn't it?

The RKBA crowd will peddle any sort of poison.

And isn't it wonderful to know that if one agrees with that the courts have said and the Second Amendment actually SAYS, one is "unAmerican?" As opposed to the "patriots" who embrace AshKKKroft's idiotic revisionist fantasy?

[CO Liberal]

32. No One Said "No One Wants To Ban Handguns", RoeBear

And it's also incorrect to assume that every person who favors reasonable gun control is out for total gun confiscation. It's just not true.

[RoeBear]

34. You say you're not...

...but I bet if you were 'king' you would enact alot of gun control regulations.

[CO Liberal]

39. "Gun Control" Does NOT Mean "Gun Banning"

There IS a difference.

[Fescue4u]

52. Indeed.

Gun control is a step on the way to banning.

While Im sure that are a handful of people who just want draconian gun control laws without the intention of banning, the reality is that most gun control zealots look at gun control as one of many steps on the way to a total ban.

[CO Liberal]

54. Are We Being a Tad Paranoid Here, Fescue?????

You seem to have a very low opinion of those who disagree with you.

[Fescue4u]

55. Well..present company excepted of course ;)

I think I may have overstated my case in the above post.

My opinion of folks whom I disagree is as varied as folks that I do agree with. Some are nuts, and some are quite normal.

When I talk about gun control zealots, Im mainly thinking of groups like HCI and others.

While HCI, aka Brady's platform is toned down now, I remember quite clearly back in 1992/3 that their stated goal was banning of all guns, to include paintball, bb guns and even squirt guns.

That sounds pretty paranoid until we remember that NJ is trying to ban airsoft guns (i.e. toy guns) as we speak.

[CO Liberal]

58. Try Using a Smaller Brush

Not all pro-control folks are out for gun roundups.

[jody]

59. CO, isn't "gun control" really "limited gun banning"? eom

[CO Liberal]

60. No, Not At All

It's allowing those who can legally possess guns to have them, while keeping them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them (criminals, the insane, etc).

[jody]

61. When you keep " them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them"

you are banning firearms to specific groups since "ban" is defined as "To prohibit, especially by official decree."

I don't see how gun-control can be anything other than "limited gun banning". The question then is how extensive a gun ban are the gun-control advocates seeking?

It is well documented that a number of very strident and well funded groups want to ban all handguns. That in spite of the fact that handguns are the choice of professionals concerned about self-defense, i.e. criminals and law enforcement officers.

[MrBenchley]

63. So armed criminals and lunatics

is hunky-dory, just as long as civilization doesn't intrude on the RKBA crowd's gun fetish...

"It is well documented that a number of very strident and well funded groups want to ban all handguns."
And even better documented that the phony "gun rights" issue is a pet cause of racists and right wing loonies.

[DoNotRefill]

64. So if they passed a law...

saying only law enforcement could have guns, that wouldn't be a ban?