• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

It’s just that there aren’t ENOUGH laws…..

rogersmithiii said:
www.cbsnews.com

New Hampshire Hospital shooter was banned from having guns, court documents say

The weapons ban against John Madore was part of bail orders unsealed by a judge in the case.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...
Serious question:

How would you change laws/policy/regulations to prevent people who are prohibited from possessing guns or ammo from doing so?

I’m all in favor of enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones, but it’s clear in this case existing laws/enforcement didn’t work.
 
67ray said:
Serious question

How would you change laws/policy/regulations to prevent people who are prohibited from driving from obtaining a car?
Click to expand...

This is a false equivalency and completely fails to answer the question.

We’re always saying, “enforce the laws that already exist!” when new anti-gun ownership laws are proposed. I think that’s the right answer. The question is “how”.

But to your question: there are no laws preventing people who are prohibited from driving (on public roads) from buying or owning a car; and there shouldn’t be.

And there are no laws that universally prohibit anyone from driving: it’s 100% legal for anyone of any age or driving record or nationality or license status to drive a car on private property.
 
If he bought the guns via a private sale, that seller(s) is frucked, at the very least he/she will have hefty lawsuits against him/her.
 
milktree said:
Serious question:

How would you change laws/policy/regulations to prevent people who are prohibited from possessing guns or ammo from doing so?

I’m all in favor of enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones, but it’s clear in this case existing laws/enforcement didn’t work.
Click to expand...
Well, since shooting someone without proper cause is already illegal. Discharging a firearm near a building without permission is illegal.

The only thing that could have stopped this removing the person from society when they became a prohibited person in the first place. For some reason, that's not civilized. I don't necessarily mean execution, but removal; penal colonies or prisons.

The only thing that would have made this more difficult, notice I don't say impossible, would be to go door to door and confiscate guns. So the only way to stop a crazy person is to stomp all over the rights of someone who has, and probably never will, break the law. It's relatively easy to get something in bricks of various sizes in the range of 20 lbs per brick into the country even with all the technology and manpower we put on the border. Evil people will always find a way to make money at the cost of society. We live in a society that accepts mentally ill and straight up dangerous people walking amongst us, this is the price we pay.
 
Woodsloafer said:
If he bought the guns via a private sale, that seller(s) is frucked, at the very least he/she will have hefty lawsuits against him/her.
Click to expand...
This, the existing law in NH for private sale is the buyer must be known to the seller if I remember correctly- there's supposed to be a self enforcement mechanisim "no way I'd let that guy have a gun!"

If that mechanisim continues to fail, it's obvious that the next law would have to be a private sale background check.


Nobody wants that on this forum, but there are not a lot of other choices. This of course won't stop the problem, but it will assign responsibility.
 
Laws are just words like a restraining order is just a piece of paper. You can't prevent prohibit or stop everything when there is a human element involved. If laws don't matter to someone they will find a way to do what they want, hell or high water. Only thing going to stop them is prison or death. Even in prison people kill people. So maybe solitary confinement or death. Good luck.
 
milktree said:
Serious question:

How would you change laws/policy/regulations to prevent people who are prohibited from possessing guns or ammo from doing so?

I’m all in favor of enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones, but it’s clear in this case existing laws/enforcement didn’t work.
Click to expand...
Simple answer is, you don’t.

The BIG LIE is that you can make laws that prevent crime. That is the biggest load of bullsh#t that the guv has everyone believing.

If a crime does occur it is because that person chose to commit that crime.

You will never make enough laws to prevent that and you shouldn’t.

Actions have consequences and only those that commit a crime should be punished.

Laws that restrict freedoms for all in an attempt to prevent crimes are unconstitutional and unjustly punish the innocent.

I don’t care how horrific the crime
Is; Prosecute the offender but leave my freedoms alone.

Any thoughts to the contrary are communist thoughts.
 
Drix said:
This, the existing law in NH for private sale is the buyer must be known to the seller if I remember correctly- there's supposed to be a self enforcement mechanisim "no way I'd let that guy have a gun!"
Click to expand...
“The buyer must be known to the seller” - I think this is waived if the buyer has a NH pistol license.
 
dfritz said:
Once the truth on the subject got out media, and the social media etc went dark on this one…..that was fast!
Click to expand...
I still can't believe how the Nashville school shooting went dark so damn quickly. Everything was in place: black killy rifle, school children murdered, white "male" perpetrator.
The anti-gun media was ready to milk it for all its worth.
 
milktree said:
Serious question:

How would you change laws/policy/regulations to prevent people who are prohibited from possessing guns or ammo from doing so?

I’m all in favor of enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones, but it’s clear in this case existing laws/enforcement didn’t work.
Click to expand...
Keep them in jail
 
milktree said:
Serious question:

How would you change laws/policy/regulations to prevent people who are prohibited from possessing guns or ammo from doing so?

I’m all in favor of enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones, but it’s clear in this case existing laws/enforcement didn’t work.
Click to expand...
The intent of the dealer background check, and the NH law where in a private sale the buyer must be know to the seller (P&R generally accepted to be sufficient) was to address this.
In a private sale this put the liability on the seller and as long as a revoked P&R is taken back (and there is enforcement) this is about as good as it gets for private sales. And I doubt there is more that can be done.
With dealer sales and the 4473 and background check, in most states this accomplishes the same thing. But NH is one of a very few states that do not include the adjudication as mentally ill (the prohibiting factor in this case) in the info submitted to the database. So if he went to a dealer and simply lied on the 4473, the background check would not stop him from getting a gun.

I know background checks are a touchy issue, and certainly what NH does for FtF is enough. And since we are not hearing about sellers being charged we can assume it is working.
As for the instant checks at dealers, well, I think we are stuck with them. They aren't going away. So it's best to refine the process to make it less onerous and more accurate. NH should include a mental health prohibitor. Before you go all hyperbolic, this is only when adjudicated as mentally incompetent (after a trial), it does not need to include any details just a yes or no. And there are processes for it to be removed should the person be deemed recovered.
Other refinements should be, an easier and quicker appeal process, liability on the reporters if they provide false information or fail to update changes, there should also be liability on the Gov for legal fees if an appeal uncovers a mistake. And absolutely keep the default proceed, require that 90% of inquiries must be determined in 1 hour or less during 8am to 10pm local time 7 days a week excluding Fed holidays, with any "delayed" timing out at 3 days (real days not business days, excluding Fed holidays).

Like I said, I don't see these going away, and if we can lock the process down to something not too bad, then we can focus on the underlying reasons and other issues. Like non violent felons, do they really need a lifetime PP. Even felons in general, after they serve their sentence, and a suitable grace period, shouldn't they get their rights back. Or reciprocity, and a preemption clause preventing states from having more restrictions than the Fed. Small changes add up.
 
LakeTrout said:
Keep them in jail
Click to expand...
not a bad option
in this case it would be the mental hospital he shot up

I suspect this would be a hard thing to get enacted, expensive too, lots more secure hospitals. But there is no doubt there are some walking the streets that belong in a hospital.

I still think adding the mental health prohibitor to the database would help, and it would be a lot easier to get through. Not as effective as just keeping them all locked up, but with current attitudes that's not likely to happen, so the half step of at least blocking a legal dealer sale is probably the best that can be done.
 
robjax said:
Simple answer is, you don’t.

The BIG LIE is that you can make laws that prevent crime. That is the biggest load of bullsh#t that the guv has everyone believing.

If a crime does occur it is because that person chose to commit that crime.

You will never make enough laws to prevent that and you shouldn’t.

Actions have consequences and only those that commit a crime should be punished.

Laws that restrict freedoms for all in an attempt to prevent crimes are unconstitutional and unjustly punish the innocent.

I don’t care how horrific the crime
Is; Prosecute the offender but leave my freedoms alone.

Any thoughts to the contrary are communist thoughts.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely true that laws cannot prevent crime. I don't think anyone argues (in good faith at least) that they can.

But it's naïve to say that it's impossible for laws to reduce crime.

We can get into the semantic argument about whether an action is a crime if it's not illegal, but for the sake of argument let's assume that "crime" includes "malum in se" and not "malum prohibitum", because the latter lead to a rat-hole of "greater good".

Do you really think that trespass and theft and assault laws are inefective at reducing (not preventing, but reducing) the frequency of those crimes?

We already accept lots of laws that "restrict freedoms" in an effort to reduce crimes against the innocent: Like drunk driving laws, and a bunch of (but absolutely not all of) traffic laws.

If your answer is, "murder is the cost of a free society", I'll accept that position.
 
LakeTrout said:
Keep them in jail
Click to expand...

That would work. So long as you can decide who should be in jail in such a way that it doesn't infringe on the freedoms of those who don't need to be in jail. (those who are not violent). Who decides, and by what criteria, goes to jail? (or a locked institution)

But that smells a lot like "pre-crime", which is a pretty terrible path to take. It's the fast road to an authoritarian/totalitarian state as soon as the state can decide who should be in jail because of something they might do.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Tell me when it's not the case?
Click to expand...

I don't think I understand your question. Can you rephrase?

The subject of this thread was a prohibited person. Existing laws/policies/regulations failed to prevent him from getting guns and killing someone.
 
milktree said:
This is a false equivalency and completely fails to answer the question.

We’re always saying, “enforce the laws that already exist!” when new anti-gun ownership laws are proposed. I think that’s the right answer. The question is “how”.

But to your question: there are no laws preventing people who are prohibited from driving (on public roads) from buying or owning a car; and there shouldn’t be.

And there are no laws that universally prohibit anyone from driving: it’s 100% legal for anyone of any age or driving record or nationality or license status to drive a car on private property.
Click to expand...

I'll answer your honest question with another honest question.... In a Constitutional Carry state, such as NH, how does one prevent a prohibited person from acquiring a firearm in a PRIVATE sale where no background check and no Federal Forms are involved?

Aren't we just relying upon the honesty of the criminal in such a case? That feels foolish... I'm not proposing policy or law. I'm just asking the question... What controls exist to keep such a transaction from occurring..
 
Woodsloafer said:
If he bought the guns via a private sale, that seller(s) is frucked, at the very least he/she will have hefty lawsuits against him/her.
Click to expand...

Maybe. It depends on how many private sales it went through since it was shipped from the manufacturer.

The only way your statement is true is with registration of guns. I'm pretty sure you're not advocating for that.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
I'll answer your honest question with another honest question.... In a Constitutional Carry state, such as NH, how does one prevent a prohibited person from acquiring a firearm in a PRIVATE sale where no background check and no Federal Forms are involved?
Click to expand...

That's a very good question.

One distasteful answer is a registry. It wouldn't prevent it, but it would surely discourage it.

Another distasteful option (but not nearly as bad as a registry) would be a shall-issue licence that's as easy and trivial to get as... actually, as it is in NH. My non-resident NH licence took like two weeks, and that included USPS in both directions. It wouldn't PREVENT illegal sales, but it would make them a lot less likely simply because the vast majority of gun owners (of people, really) would rather follow the law.

I'd be absolutely shocked if the guy who sold the guns to John Madore knew or suspected he was a prohibited person.
 
SKumar said:
I still can't believe how the Nashville school shooting went dark so damn quickly. Everything was in place: black killy rifle, school children murdered, white "male" perpetrator.
The anti-gun media was ready to milk it for all its worth.
Click to expand...

Wasn't "he" a trans? (answer: yes) Conservatives have long said transgender is a mental illness. The left disagrees. Having the shooter be a trans completely eviscerates their position. So naturally, they bury it. Trans people account for a hugely and exponentially disproportionate percentage of the mass shootings over the last 20 years too. But you won't hear about that either. But it's close to 40% the last time I did the math. Pretty astounding considering they make up 1% of the population.
 
42! said:
not a bad option
in this case it would be the mental hospital he shot up

I suspect this would be a hard thing to get enacted, expensive too, lots more secure hospitals. But there is no doubt there are some walking the streets that belong in a hospital.

I still think adding the mental health prohibitor to the database would help, and it would be a lot easier to get through. Not as effective as just keeping them all locked up, but with current attitudes that's not likely to happen, so the half step of at least blocking a legal dealer sale is probably the best that can be done.
Click to expand...
If you don’t keep someone locked up who can’t be around the instruments that he can use to commit murder, or he is going to commit murder, then he is going to commit murder.

I really don’t care what law we enact or Philosophical debate we have about this. If we feel that someone is such a threat to society that they would commit murder if they have access to a weapon, then they need to be locked up if society is interested in preventing them from murdering others.

We’re sitting here like a bunch of Neanderthals wondering what gun law we can make to stop these things from happening when most murders arent committed by using a gun and the most deadly mass murder in this country’s history was committed using stuff you can buy at a hardware store.
 
HARRYM said:
Ever been around someone who you know is truly insane and capable of violence.....I have.....

This has been, and continues to be, the great debate of what exactly what should be done with these folks but make no mistake that there are people who should not be allowed out and about.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that person was already serving life in Walpole State Prison. There were many murders in the prison, of which he was a prime suspect. Someone murdered him in the prison and the number of prison murders dropped significantly. The info in the last two sentences was given to me by one of the prison guards after the fact.
hpm said:
“The buyer must be known to the seller” - I think this is waived if the buyer has a NH pistol license.
Click to expand...
This is correct.
 
In theory, it is not about the laws preventing the crime, it is about the punishment being enough of a deterrent to dissuade all but the craziest of people look for alternatives to crime.
Make the sentence for armed car jacking, armed robbery, armed home invasion etc, life in prison.
Eliminate bail for any violent crimes.
Hold parole boards and judges responsible when violent offenders are released and immediately reoffend.
Make all prisoners work 16 hour days at hard labor.
Stop trying to rehabilitate child molesters. Just shoot them in the head.
 

Similar threads

When 17 rounds aren’t enough
Replies
9
Views
515
Dench
Dench
It’s Almost 2024 Party Shooting Season!
Replies
4
Views
169
slap shot
slap shot
Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Enough said. 🤪
2
Replies
35
Views
829
SpaceCritter
SpaceCritter
It used to be Bush’s or Trump’s fault. Now, it’s guns.
Replies
2
Views
189
FisherTech
F
Back
Top Bottom