Posted on 09/27/2006 11:25:22 AM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com
In the wake of Charleston's 17th homicide, Mayor Joe Riley is calling for warrantless searches of offenders on probation, costly investments in the criminal justice system, and changes in state laws aimed at keeping gun-using criminals behind bars.Charleston Mayor Joe Riley is proposing a number of changes to state laws, including:
--Mandatory sentences for illegal firearm possession, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.
--Prohibiting those convicted of dealing drugs, or any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail, from possessing firearms.
--Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.
--Possession of a firearm during a drug offense, other than simple possession, would itself be an offense, with a mandatory five-year sentence.
--Allow probation officers to conduct warrantless searches.
--Increase the punishment for assault and battery with intent to kill to a mandatory minimum term of 10 years. There is currently no mandatory minimum.
--All offenders would have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Currently, the 85 percent rule does not apply to all offenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at charleston.net ...
Sounds like it applys to convicted felons. I don't have a problem with that. I don't want them voting either. Does this make me a Yankee gun grabber?
Flame away.
X2
How does wanting to do that make the mayor a "yankee gun grabber"
It seems to me that the worst thing the mayor has done is not to have instigated these measures long ago!
Fine with me too. The framers of the 2nd Amendment did not envision it as giving convicted felons an unfettered right to keep and bear arms. Conviction of a crime is understood to subject the convict to punishment which involves loss of some or all of the Constitutional rights ordinarily possessed by citizens. As long as there is due process for each individual who is subjected to such punishment, there is no conflict with the Constitution. Law-abiding citizens, acting through their government and courts, have a right to rid their communities of free-roaming armed drug-dealing gangs.
Sounds pretty gun-grabby to me.
Riley's proposal
Charleston Mayor Joe Riley is proposing a number of changes to state laws, including:
--Mandatory sentences for illegal firearm possession, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.
--Prohibiting those convicted of dealing drugs, or any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail, from possessing firearms.
--Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.
--Possession of a firearm during a drug offense, other than simple possession, would itself be an offense, with a mandatory five-year sentence.
--Allow probation officers to conduct warrantless searches.
--Increase the punishment for assault and battery with intent to kill to a mandatory minimum term of 10 years. There is currently no mandatory minimum.
--All offenders would have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Currently, the 85 percent rule does not apply to all offenses.
I disagree. The framers would have kept a person in prison if they were not fit to be set free in civil society. If they were fit to be free, they were also fit to keep and bear arms.
I carried a gun while hunting or just target shooting since I was young. Would that have made me eligible for five years?I'd say this needs to be clarified.
DOesn't sound like a "gun grab" to me, it sounds like cracking down on crime.
The way I read this, it only applies to criminals. It looks like he's just trying to toughen up the laws where they're concerned. Unless I missed something. Why do you think he's a gun grabber?
Most of the mandatory minimums make perfect sense. But I don't get where he's coming from on the "younger than 21" thing, and there's no way that a warrantless search can be legal on somebody out on probation. That'll get smacked down in the courts faster than anything. I'm no Joe Riley fan by a long shot, but there's nothing wrong with at least part of what he's doing here.
BTW, there's that whole thing about changing the title of articles. Y'know.
}:-)4
"Yankee gun-grab" What kind of stupid title to the article is this? The title makes it sound like this Mayor wants to take guns away from law abiding people but the isn't the case at all. He wants to take them away from felons. Good for him.
Ever hear of 16-year-olds on dove hunts in the tri-county, Mayor? GRRR-r-r-r-r!
Joe Riley is a complete fool but, unfortunately, he seems to have the editorialists at the Post-Courier under his right arm...Peter Manigault call your office. Resurrect Frank "Ashley Cooper" Gilbraith!
I disagree. The framers would have kept a person in prison if they were not fit to be set free in civil society. If they were fit to be free, they were also fit to keep and bear arms.
Too bad we can't return to the framers way of thinking and the individual liberty they enjoyed.
the SC will kill this one.
That a popular modern assertion, but I've never seen any evidence supporting it. Few jurisdictions even HAD prisons back then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.