HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Should People Convicted o...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:11 PM

 

Should People Convicted of a Gun Crime Be Required to Register With Police?

Prince George's County residents convicted of gun crimes may soon be required to register with police, reports the Washington Post.

On June 5, the Prince George's County Council, with all members saying they support the measure, are expected to vote on bill that would require just that. In addition to registration, offenders would be required to regularly check in with police and submit to home visits from officers. Similar laws are already on the books in Baltimore, the District of Columbia, and New York City.

Studies show that those convicted of gun crimes are likely to commit a more serious crime, and police say that the point of the registry is to provide a deterrent, and the District of Columbia claims the legislation has had an impact, according to statements made in the Post.

However, the National Rifle Association, which does not support the bill, claims that such legislation could take officers off the street and put them in administrative jobs, and the extra paperwork and computer equipment could end up costing taxpayers.


**MORE AT LINK**

http://bowie.patch.com/articles/shout-out-should-people-convicted-of-a-gun-crime-be-required-to-register-with-police

30 replies, 2513 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should People Convicted of a Gun Crime Be Required to Register With Police? (Original post)
Meiko May 2012 OP
Democrats_win May 2012 #1
Glaug-Eldare May 2012 #9
gejohnston May 2012 #2
Tejas Jun 2012 #28
Hoyt May 2012 #3
bongbong May 2012 #7
Hoyt May 2012 #12
Glaug-Eldare May 2012 #14
SGMRTDARMY May 2012 #16
Drale May 2012 #4
SGMRTDARMY May 2012 #17
ileus May 2012 #5
discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 #6
Glaug-Eldare May 2012 #8
discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 #10
rocktivity May 2012 #11
lastlib May 2012 #13
oneshooter May 2012 #23
Glaug-Eldare May 2012 #15
slackmaster May 2012 #18
discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2012 #22
Atypical Liberal May 2012 #19
krispos42 May 2012 #20
petronius May 2012 #21
Remmah2 May 2012 #24
Fredjust Jun 2012 #25
Glaug-Eldare Jun 2012 #26
gejohnston Jun 2012 #27
Glaug-Eldare Jun 2012 #30
BiggJawn Jun 2012 #29

Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:18 PM

1. Makes sense, protect the public from violent gun users.

We have a right to know if a violent gun user has moved into our neighborhood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democrats_win (Reply #1)

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:43 PM

9. I haven't been able to find the text of the bill,

but I haven't read anything that suggests it's limited to "violent gun users." There's a whole raft of criminal laws involving guns, and many of them have nothing to do with violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:21 PM

2. I would expand it to

violent felons regardless of weapon if I were to support the idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 2, 2012, 07:11 AM

28. /thread

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:23 PM

3. I see no reason why not. And, I think NRA is full of manure as usual. They don't care who totes

as long as more and more guns are sold. I bet they give Zimmerman a medal before long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:38 PM

7. A medal?

 

I hear they're planning to erect a 10-story high statue of Zimmerman in front of their national headquarters. The plaque will read, "For Defending Our Poor Widdle Defenseless Guns - All Honor to Motherland & Zimmerman"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #7)

Wed May 30, 2012, 03:10 PM

12. That's good/funny, and probably not far from the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Wed May 30, 2012, 03:12 PM

14. Am I missing something?

I haven't read a single communication from NRA expressing an opinion on Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. Have they sent any?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #14)

Wed May 30, 2012, 03:30 PM

16. I must have missed it also

 

unless it's just in their minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:24 PM

4. Anyone how has been convict of a violent crime

not just with guns but with anything from a gun to a fish to a wiffleball bat. If you try to harm someone that should follow you forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #4)

Wed May 30, 2012, 03:38 PM

17. I agree.nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:30 PM

5. WWMb2002 do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #5)

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:32 PM

6. Legally or illegally?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:39 PM

8. I'll say the same thing I said on the WaPo article

(I'm a PG county resident, and I'm already concerned about what we're going to go through when Woollard finally wins.)

This bill sounds reasonable at first, but my primary objection is that it doesn't distinguish between violent crimes and administrative crimes. In Maryland, we have partial state preemption, which means that *most* gun laws are easy to find in the Maryland Code. On the other hand, counties and municipalities can regulate guns in certain places and for certain people, AND can break preemption entirely if their law was passed before 1985. This means that unless I continually research the Maryland Code, twenty-three county codes, and up to 160 municipal codes, I can't be sure of whether I'm breaking the law or not. Even state law provides for many nonviolent, inadvertent, or even RESPONSIBLE actions to qualify as "gun crimes" that would presumably put you on the registry.

For example:

A Marylander who transports an unloaded handgun to a family member's house because their roommate threatens suicide is guilty of unlawful transportation of a regulated firearm.

A Marylander who moves in with a friend after experiencing domestic violence and brings a handgun with them for protection is guilty of unlawful transportation of a regulated firearm.

A Marylander who brings an unloaded handgun to a family member's house during a holiday trip, because they want to prevent its theft while they're away is guilty of unlawful transportation of a regulated firearm.

A Baltimorean who discharges a gun, at home, in defense of their life, is guilty of violating Baltimore's total prohibition on discharging firearms.

These are not people who deserve to be harassed, continually interviewed, and treated with suspicion by the County.



Maryland wear/carry/transport law is Maryland Code, Criminal Law, 4-203
http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/criminal-law/title-4/subtitle-2/4-203/

Baltimore no-discharge law is Baltimore City Code, Article 19, 59-2
http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/Charter%20and%20Codes/Code/Art%2019%20-%20PoliceOrds.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:48 PM

10. I thought Police had...

...access to that information already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 02:55 PM

11. They shouldn't be allowed to own guns anymore -- that's punishment enough.

But wouldn't that be a condition of their probation or parole anyway? Or would this be a lifetime thing?


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 03:11 PM

13. yeah, at the very least...

... since we can't string 'em up on the town square as examples.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #13)

Wed May 30, 2012, 08:39 PM

23. Soooo that is what you want to do?

" string 'em up on the town square as examples....."

Not very progressive of you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 03:19 PM

15. "Gun crime" does not equal "violent crime"

Say it with me...

"Gun crime" does not equal "violent crime"

We have extreme transportation restrictions, fuzzy laws on prohibited places, dozens of sets of local laws, and law enforcement officials who are vehemently opposed to the individual right to own, let alone carry, guns. There are many ways to be convicted of a "gun crime" without hurting anybody, without intending to hurt anybody, without putting anybody at risk, or even acting irresponsibly. What's so great about putting harmless people on a registry? Know what you're applauding before you applaud it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 04:03 PM

18. I thought that police, at least in general, already had ready access to conviction records

 

Studies show that those convicted of gun crimes are likely to commit a more serious crime...

Maybe they should be given longer sentences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #18)

Wed May 30, 2012, 08:03 PM

22. see post #10

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 05:22 PM

19. Violent gun crime? Sure. Gun crimes like transportation, etc? No.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 07:28 PM

20. Step 1: Make gun laws insanely complex and restrictive

Step 2: Arrest people for violating those laws.

Step 3: Harass people forever with registration and police surveillance.

Step 4: Create zoning laws where such registered persons cannot live.

Step 5: Arrest people for violating complex and restrictive registration laws

Step 6: Profit.



All of this, is, of course, MUCH better than legalizing pot.



Since African-Americans are arrested far out of proportion for crimes, this will be be abused just like loitering laws are. And of course we'd be depending on racist cops to apply this law fairly and equally, just like self-defense and loitering violations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 07:36 PM

21. I'd be curious to know whether those studies of repeat offenders compared

serious criminals who used guns to serious criminals who did not use guns - are violent gun users more like to re-offend than other violent offenders who used different weapons?

I'm also a bit curious to see some evidence to support that "had an impact" claim from DC.

Either way however, without further details I oppose this (even if it's really only about violent gun-crimes, and not all gun-involving crimes). It's one thing to require check-ins and searches when a person is on parole or probation, but this sounds like a long-term and automatic denial of 4th Amendment rights as well as general privacy. And I don't really see how the police could use this, except to 'round up the usual suspects' when an investigation hits a dead end...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 04:21 PM

24. What of other members of the household?

 

What of a spouse, domestic partner over the age of 21 that lives in the same house? Inspection could yield that they are gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 06:09 PM

25. Interesting....

 

I did not think about how this measure would effect African-Americans. Perhaps a sterling example of why we need an Affirmative Action justice system to correct the imbalance placed by whites upon minorities?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fredjust (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 07:10 PM

26. Every gun control law ever passed in Maryland, from 1634-2012

has been passed in order to disarm as many blacks as possible. The Attorney-General's legal team has literally made the case that there is an overriding public interest in specifically disarming urban Baltimore and Prince George's County, in order to promote public safety. That is, they believe the state will be safer if residents of the black parts of the state cannot carry guns, but the white parts of the state will be just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #26)

Sat Jun 2, 2012, 02:23 AM

27. Could it be that that could have something to do with

Maryland being one of the four slave states that stayed in the Union? I mean if people are going to knock Alabama in 2012.......................................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 07:42 PM

30. Definitely. Our free black population was the biggest in the country,

and the legislature found that scary as hell. The handgun permit law, specifically, was a reaction to racial violence in 1968, and an attempt to prevent those pesky negroes from menacing "normal" citizens with guns.

As for the registry, it passed the county council unanimously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Original post)

Sat Jun 2, 2012, 10:27 AM

29. Register with the Po-Leese...

Then you can't live within X feet of a school.

Then you can't live within X feet of a park.

Then you can't live within X feet of a daycare.

Then you can't live within X feet of a church.

Pretty soon the only place you can live is down by the rail yard with 3 guys who are on a sex "offender" registry because they got caught pissing in the alley behind some bar.

"Studies show". The slimiest weasel words in the dictionary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread