Prosecute crime — not guns, Hatch says

The Desret News ^ | January 29, 2004 | NA

[neverdem]

WASHINGTON — Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch says new Justice Department figures support longtime GOP claims that the best way to fight violence with guns is not to outlaw the guns, but to prosecute criminals.

Data released Wednesday showed that as federal prosecution of gun crimes increased 68 percent from three years ago under the Bush administration, violent crimes dropped 21 percent.

"Our law enforcement's tough-on-crime approach parallels what I have always advocated: protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and and strictly enforce our gun laws," Hatch said.

"Because of the stepped-up prosecutions, there were approximately 130,000 fewer victims of gun crime and over 980,000 fewer violent crimes in 2001-02 than there were in 1999-2000," Hatch said.

"Enacting and vigorously enforcing stiff penalties for those who commit crimes with guns deters violent crime," Hatch added.

Hatch added, "This reduction in gun violence is a direct result of the nationwide implementation of Project Safe Neighborhoods. In Utah alone last year, over 400 violent individuals were indicted under federal gun laws."

[neverdem]

Project Safe Nieghborhood or Project Exile, whatever it's called, needs some discretion. There are too many BS laws that make someone liable for federal prosecution.

[neverdem]

BANG

[BOBWADE]

I still like the idea of prosecuting every criminal otherwise our good little judges would let every thug slide.

[bereanway]

"Prosecute crimes-not guns"

Now there's a novel concept.

[neverdem]

BANG

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

And liberals can't understand it!

[Joe Brower]

[Mulder]

Data released Wednesday showed that as federal prosecution of gun crimes increased 68 percent from three years ago under the Bush administration, violent crimes dropped 21 percent.

I think Hatch is confusing causation with correlation. A more likely cause of reduction in crime is because more states now recognize the Right of their citizens to carry guns than 4 years ago.

I believe the day will soon come with honest gun owners regret the federalization of gun laws and the fact that the feds are spending more money enforcing them.

[Mulder]

I still like the idea of prosecuting every criminal otherwise our good little judges would let every thug slide.

If you're talking about murderers, rapists, and theives, I agree.

But in today's quasi-police state environment, most Americans are criminals in one way or another.

[FreedomCalls]

I still like the idea of prosecuting every criminal otherwise our good little judges would let every thug slide.

But in some places the mere possession of a gun is a crime unto itself, and therefore otherwise law-abiding gun owners become "criminals" who are then prosecuted heavily.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> "Our law enforcement's tough-on-crime approach parallels what I have always advocated: protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and strictly enforce our gun laws," Hatch said.

That is doublespeak. How can government "protect my rights" by diluting them or taking them away? Hatch conceals the fact that a citizen's "law-abiding" status can be instantly changed if he or she violates one of the bewildering array of federal and state firearms regulations, many of which are mere cosmetic in nature. Hell, citizens can become felons by the mere act of exercising their right to keep and bear arms, if they don't get government permission first. Only a fool would believe that government "protects our rights" by destroying them -- by transforming them into privileges.

Thanks, but no thanks, Hatch the Hypocrit. You might want to brush up on Alexander Hamilton's warning about disenfranchisement, before touting it as a good thing.

[neverdem]

But in today's quasi-police state environment, most Americans are criminals in one way or another.

That's why I offered "coloradan" the first shot on this thread. For what should be unjust, un-Constitutional misdemeanor offenses, with the current craze of mandatory, mininmum sentences, I noticed "coloradan" calling this policy "Project Prison Rape" with its terminal implications. He/she apparently is not available for comment. IIRC, the story was about a previously convicted felon who was found driving a vehicle that had a single loose round of .22 LR under the seat. The feds burned him. IIRC, there were other tales of injustice because of "Project Exile".

I am aware of the fact that mandatory minimum sentences were a result of the sentencing habits of absurdly liberal judges. The decrease in violent crime can't be attributed solely due to the increase in states recognizing the privelege of concealed carry permits, when you also have the positive effects of mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, the aversion that resulted from the backlash to the crack epidemic, and demographic shifts in the number of likely young criminals.

Too many variables were put in play simultaneously. That's one reason I don't like term "social science". At best it's just social observations. Almost no major city granted the new privelege of concealed carry, but most big cities experienced decreases in violent crime.

It certainly didn't happen in NYC or Boston with respect to concealed carry priveleges. I would be interested in learning what the numbers were in Baltimore, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, etc.

Los Angeles is going to be interesting to watch with Bratton as its new chief of police. He was chief of the NYPD under Guliani. Bratton was the author of most of the policies that reduced crime in NYC. Before Guliani and Bratton, NYC had over 2,100 homicides a year. Now, it's around 600.

[neverdem]

I may be wrong but hasn't Hatch backed several gun control laws himself?

From a libertarian point of view, he's been a typical "law and order" fanatic. But he also sponsored a bill to grant the citizens of Washington D.C. a limited RKBA within the last year, IIRC.