Rohrabacher To Announce National Day Of Prayer For Jailed Border Agents

5/3/2008 | Dana Rohrabacher

[Mojave]

I’ve done more for FR and conservatism in one day than you could do in your lifetime.

You hate conservatism.

[Ladycalif]

We will have to pray them out.

[Pajamajan]

Bookmark

[calcowgirl]

It has no co-sponsors because congress intended the original legislation to be used against corruption in law enforcement.

There is a long history in the Congressional Record and testimony during Senate hearings directly to the contrary.

Do you have anything in the form of evidence to support this contention or are ya just blowin' smoke?

[calcowgirl]

Looks like a missed a couple bimbo eruptions?

[calcowgirl]

Sponsors are nice for PR campaigns. If it can get through committee, I don’t care who sponsors or introduced it.

I’d prefer to see them get rid of most all of the mandatory minimum sentiencing laws.

[Mojave]

He was flailing but I didn’t think that he had clearly crossed the line.

I’m still trying to make sense of his retroactive law theory.

[AndrewC]

It has no co-sponsors because congress intended the original legislation to be used against corruption in law enforcement.

The B.S. flag has been thrown on you.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200001/ai_n8892080

Who makes the call? Sentencing the firearms user under 18 U.S.C. sec 924(c) in United States v. Alborola-Rodriguez

Brigham Young University Law Review,  2000  by Williams, David J

II. BACKGROUND

A. History of 18 U.S.C. sec924(c)

18 U.S.C. sec924(c) was originally enacted as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.13 In its original form, the statute provided a mandatory minimum sentence of between one and ten years for those criminals who used or carried a firearm "unlawfully during the commission of any federal felony."14 Because of weaknesses that undermined the deterrent force of the statute,15 Congress amended the statute several times. In 1984, in light of an accelerated crime rate, the Act was amended by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (CCCA).16 The CCCA, among other things, made it clear that "Congress intended section 924(c) to be a separate offense and punishable in addition to the predicate."17 In 1986, sec924(c) was amended again by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.18 Two of the most important changes from this amendment were to make sec 924(c) applicable to drug offenses and distinguish among the types of firearms, "raising the mandatory minimum penalty to ten years if the firearm is a machine gun or equipped with a silencer."19 "Subsequent amendments in 1988, 1990 and 1994 have redefined a drug trafficking crime, expanded types of firearms covered by the statute and increased penalties up to life imprisonment without release."20 These amendments represented a shift in Congress's attitude toward sentencing.21

[calcowgirl]

I’m still trying to make sense of his retroactive law theory.

I never got answers to questions asked 3 months ago--go figure.

[calcowgirl]

In 1986, sec924(c) was amended again by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.18 Two of the most important changes from this amendment were to make sec 924(c) applicable to drug offenses and distinguish among the types of firearms, "raising the mandatory minimum penalty to ten years if the firearm is a machine gun or equipped with a silencer."19 "Subsequent amendments in 1988, 1990 and 1994 have redefined a drug trafficking crime, expanded types of firearms covered by the statute and increased penalties up to life imprisonment without release."20

Drug trafficking? Ya think?

Here's an excerpt from a recent Court of Appeals opinion (Tenth Circuit, 2007):

We have not had occasion to reach the question, and post-Bailey legislation has made it less likely we will have the opportunity to do so. Congress amended the relevant statutory text in 1998 to also criminalize possession of a firearm "in furtherance of" a drug trafficking crime.  924(c)(1)(A); An Act To Throttle Criminal Use of Guns, Pub. L. No. 105-386, sec. 1(a)(1),  924(c)(1)(A), 112 Stat. 3469, 3469 (1998). Whereas the pre-1998 language required courts to determine whether a defendant "used" a firearm, the amended language explicitly criminalizes simple possession "in furtherance of" a drug crime.

There are many, many more examples -- can't find a mention of an intent by Congress to apply this do Law Enforcement officers, unless they also happen to be drug traffickers.

[freespirited]

First, most of your comments are at best inoperable and at worst ignorant as support for this issue crosses party lines which has been amply demonstrated (including Dianne Feinstein) on FR over the past year.

DiFi was something of an exception. Look at the bill to deny funding to the Bureau of Prisons to keep R&C incarcerated. Did you see equal interest across party lines? That bill would have ended their incarceration too. If it were so easy, as you claim, why aren't they out?

My question to you is...why do you want SO BAD for peple to think this option to be difficult or impossible?

LOL. Have you ever lobbied a bill through Congress? I suspect the answer is no--that you have an overly optimistic notion of what is involved in passing legislation and that you are not tuned in to the realities on the Hill at the moment. Right now, cooperation across party lines is very difficult.

Wise up. Despite what you think, everyone here is not dumber or less knowledgeable than you.

[Cyropaedia]

Again : why is there a need to clarify a specific statute that Sutton never actually used...?? And the reason he never actually used it was because he knew he wouldn't be able to employ it successfully in this particular case. So Sutton wound up constructing his own particular statute and used that against the agents.

That is the premise of Mark Brewer's amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit. As Brewer points out, Sutton isn't the first prosecutor to try to reconstruct 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A), and the Federal courts have ruled that prosecutors can't pull this kind of stunt.

In Harris vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled ( upholding a ruling by the Fifth Circuit ) that "discharge of a firearm" did not constitute an element of an offense, or even a seperate offense under 924(c)(1)(A), but merely a sentencing guideline only to used after someone already had been convicted through the actus reus elements in the preceding subsection. Section 924(c)(1)(A) has to be prosecuted as a single crime.

Again, the instructions to the jury were in error because the statute in question was "in error".

[Cyropaedia]

Again, read this : Amicus Brief

Then you'll understand.

[deport]

Reference for actual wording

(c)(1)(A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime--
(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and
(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.

[freespirited]

Understand what? I read the brief months ago.

[Bob J]

BobJ to CBB - "This is the question though. Could congress pass a law that clarifies 924 in how it applies to LEO’s in the line of duty or “undeclare” it as you have stated in a way that would allow Ramos and Compean to be released from the 10 year mand?

CBB to BobJ - "Yea, they could.

[Bob J]

BobJ to CBB - "This is the question though. Could congress pass a law that clarifies 924 in how it applies to LEO’s in the line of duty or “undeclare” it as you have stated in a way that would allow Ramos and Compean to be released from the 10 year mand?

CBB to BobJ - "Yea, they could.

[calcowgirl]

Again, the instructions to the jury were in error because the statute in question was "in error".

I wish they had made the jury instructions available to the public on the court website. From what has been reported, they were indeed convoluted and caused the conviction to be more likely in this case.

[calcowgirl]

BobJ to CBB - "This is the question though. Could congress pass a law that clarifies 924 in how it applies to LEO’s in the line of duty or “undeclare” it as you have stated in a way that would allow Ramos and Compean to be released from the 10 year mand?

You have a link to where CBB actually said that? What date was that posted to FR by CBB?

I linked to the CBB quote which he posted on a date later than your purported conversation.

Congressman Billybob: "No, I did not say that Congress could "undeclare" the law. Nor can Congress issue a pardon. What Congress CAN do, is to pass a law saying that "no federal money shall be spent" to keep these two agents in prison. Such a law is pending, and if passed, it would force the Bureau of Prisons to free the two men. They would still be guilty. The law would still be there. But the two agents would be free. The cleaner result would be a presidential pardon, of course."

My follow up question went unanswered:

calcowgirl: "Do you know of any way where their convictions could be deemed 'not a crime', applied only to R&C retroactively, and result in their immediate release from prison?"

As you may or may not be aware, the House passed an amendment to the Justice department approriations, introduced by Ted Poe, to block funding. The Senate knocked it out.

[Cyropaedia]

Then I sincerely apologize.