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

[Roadglide]

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.

I think you answered your own question

 

[SKumar]

Having the shooter be a trans completely eviscerates their position. So naturally, they bury it.

AT THE EXPENSE OF MURDERED SCHOOL CHILDREN.

It's f***ing SICK how far the left-wing media will go to promote their agenda. The minute they realized they couldn't take it further because of the mentally ill he/she, that's it, gone. Nothing to see here (except dead school children). Even with the recent leaked manifesto, there's been no further investigation into the motives of the scumbag. Just moar LAWS LAWS LAWS LAWS that honest responsible Americans abide by.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

 

[fencer]

It's f***ing SICK how far the left-wing media will go to promote their agenda.

They shut down most of the global economy, locked down schools and businesses and forced the public to wear masks, knowing full well the masks did nothing and the survival rate was 99%, all to make sure Trump wasn't reelected. They changed the way the entire country votes, to be able to manipulate the ballots, and if you dare to ask any questions or present any evidence, they label you an extremist, crazy and an election denier.
Right out of the socialists play book. Pure evil.
They ruined lives, shuttered businesses, caused lasting emotional damage to an entire generation, physical damage to healthy people with a bogus vaccine and forced Americans to watch their parents and grandparents die alone, for nothing.
And none of it worked. Lock downs, social distancing, masks and vaccines, accomplished NOTHING to stop the spread of covid. The only thing it accomplished was it allowed them to get rid of Trump. And they were willing to ruin millions and millions of lives to get rid of him.
Pure evil.

 

[Fixxah]

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.

Cut off their hands?

 

[LakeTrout]

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.

It’s nothing like that. Someone who has already demonstrated that they’re dangerous enough to society for us to “prohibit” them from owning a weapon, has already done the thing that indicated to us that he or she should be barred from society. Thats post crime not pre crime.

 

[robjax]

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.

Reducing crime is not preventing crime. Crime still exists. Society will never rid itself completely of violent crime.

The cost of a free society is strong self defense laws protecting the intended victim and extreme limits on the power of government over its citizens.

Reverse all government intrusions on the b.o.r. And eliminate/abolish all gun control laws in the county and its territories.

 

[HARRYM]

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.

This is correct.

Interesting, the guy I knew was in Walpole for attempted murder and a host of career criminal activity. I believe he was also murdered in prison. Eighties if my memory serves me.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Interesting, the guy I knew was in Walpole for attempted murder and a host of career criminal activity. I believe he was also murdered in prison. Eighties if my memory serves me.

Sounds about right. His streetname was Baby Face John as I recall. A real scary character.

 

[milktree]

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.

This is only kinda true, for some crimes.

There's lots and lots of evidence that once the penalty gets over some (relatively low) pain threshold, "chance of getting caught" is far more effective at stopping a proscribed behavior than severity of the punishment.

For instance: the death penalty has basically zero effect as a deterrent. Nobody contemplating a murder does the cost:benefit analysis about the penalty, they do it around the chance of getting caught. I'm sure there are exceptions, (like in organized crime where there's families involved) but that's a very, very small percentage of murders.

Another example: What keeps people from speeding has little to do with the fine and insurance hits, and nearly everything to do with how often there's a cop on that stretch of road. If speeding was a $25 fine, but you had a 90% chance of getting caught, nobody would knowingly do it. In general, people speed up to the point where getting caught feels like a real risk. Likewise, if the penalty for speeding was $500,000 and loss of licence for 10 years, but there was only two cops in the entire state enforcing speed laws, nobody would take speed limits seriously. The chances of getting caught would be close to zero.

Make the sentence for armed car jacking, armed robbery, armed home invasion etc, life in prison.

Again, you're assuming that the penalty factors into the decision making process of someone willing to hijack a car or commit armed robbery or home invasion. People who do those sorts of things ... don't make good rational decisions based on data.

Hold parole boards and judges responsible when violent offenders are released and immediately reoffend.

This is a terrible idea. It would have the obvious unintended side effect of nobody ever getting parole.

Make all prisoners work 16 hour days at hard labor.

That seems more like a death sentence. It would be for most people.

Stop trying to rehabilitate child molesters. Just shoot them in the head.

Or keep them in prison. One problem with death penalties is that if it turns out the state was wrong (witness lied, evidence was corrupted, state withheld exculpatory evidence, etc) it's impossible to fix it.

 

[milktree]

Reducing crime is not preventing crime.

Exactly. I don't think anyone believes it's possible to eliminate crime in all forms.

(one could argue that it's possible to eliminate all drug crime by eliminating all drug laws, but that's a different discussion)

But, if the murder rate drops by 50% because of policy, that is absolutely "reducing crime". That policy could be "after school programs" or "eliminating lead in gasoline and paint" or "funding law enforcement to solve murders more".

 

[DJBrad]

Cause and effect. Crazies gonna crazy no matter what. Constitutional carry, ftf personal sales, etc are not the issue. Mental health is the issue at hand and we need to seriously consider what kind of reforms need to be implemented. I’m not a mental health expert but it’s common sense that we need more sanitoriums or locked units like Tewksbury hospital. Society has a serious defect right now.

 

[drgrant]

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”.

I'm f***ing not. I dropped that fallacy/fools errand a long time ago because it postulates that those laws are worth something. The only thing they are worth is demonstration pieces about how gun control is an abject failure.

 

[71montess]

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.

Threatening unlawful people with jail ? Boy oh boy it works. Instead, accept that unless violent people, or really efed up people need to be separated from society for looong terms, and if you dont take your phyc meds, same thing, bye bye long time, we will have repeated gun crimes at this rate.

 

[gerrycaruso]

As far as I know, things like rape, robbery, assault and murder are illegal. So why would anyone willing to do any of those things, case about complying with gun laws?

 

[Roadglide]

They shut down most of the global economy, locked down schools and businesses and forced the public to wear masks, knowing full well the masks did nothing and the survival rate was 99%, all to make sure Trump wasn't reelected. They changed the way the entire country votes, to be able to manipulate the ballots, and if you dare to ask any questions or present any evidence, they label you an extremist, crazy and an election denier.
Right out of the socialists play book. Pure evil.
They ruined lives, shuttered businesses, caused lasting emotional damage to an entire generation, physical damage to healthy people with a bogus vaccine and forced Americans to watch their parents and grandparents die alone, for nothing.
And none of it worked. Lock downs, social distancing, masks and vaccines, accomplished NOTHING to stop the spread of covid. The only thing it accomplished was it allowed them to get rid of Trump. And they were willing to ruin millions and millions of lives to get rid of him.
Pure evil.

And still doing it. Commercial on tv last night pumping vaccines (namely covid.) Still saying it prevents getting and transmitting.

 

[42!]

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..

In NH it's the requirement of a FtF seller for the buyer "to be known" to him.

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.

Not really, or more accurately, it can be self regulation. Consider this, if the gun did go through a number of private sales before getting into the hands of the shooter, there is still a dealer sale at the beginning of the trail, so that first buyer can be found. And when the cops ask him who he sold it to, he better be able to tell them because if the buyer isn't known to him he has admitted to a violation of the law. If they enforce this, very quickly common sense will dictate that private sellers do know who they sell to, since not knowing not only makes them liable for the actions of who they sold it to, but to all the unknown buyers down the line. You do not want to be the last known owner of the gun, when the law requires you to know who you sold it to.

It’s nothing like that. Someone who has already demonstrated that they’re dangerous enough to society for us to “prohibit” them from owning a weapon, has already done the thing that indicated to us that he or she should be barred from society. Thats post crime not pre crime.

In this case we are talking about someone adjudicated mentally ill, and in many cases this will be before the crime occurs, so it could be looked at as pre-crime. You are correct from a criminal conviction standpoint, but that won't work the same on the mentally ill side.

 

[HARRYM]

Sounds about right. His streetname was Baby Face John as I recall. A real scary character.

Different guy. The guy I knew was L. J. C. JR. I won't throw his name out there.

 

[fencer]

Again, you're assuming that the penalty factors into the decision making process of someone willing to hijack a car or commit armed robbery or home invasion. People who do those sorts of things ... don't make good rational decisions based on data.

That is not at all what I am assuming

I am assuming that violent offenders will very likely re-offend, based on the data. The data also supports the notion that if we keep scumbags in prison they won't commit armed robbery or home invasion, while they are there.

ETA: Why should we concern ourselves with trying to effect the decision making process of irrational criminals? How about we impose penalties whose objective is simply to protect the public?

 

[milktree]

In NH it's the requirement of a FtF seller for the buyer "to be known" to him.

I thought (and I can't back this up with any reference, it's just what I learned) that the requirement was "not known to be prohibited", rather than "known to the seller" or "known to not be a prohibited person" i.e.: unless you had reason to know the buyer was a prohibited person, you're good to go. The logic being that it's impossible for someone outside the system who doesn't have access to NICS or similar, to know that someone isn't a PP, and therefore unreasonable to potentially hold the seller to that standard under the threat of legal peril if they get it wrong.

Am I thinking of another state/circumstance?

Not really, or more accurately, it can be self regulation. Consider this, if the gun did go through a number of private sales before getting into the hands of the shooter, there is still a dealer sale at the beginning of the trail, so that first buyer can be found. And when the cops ask him who he sold it to, he better be able to tell them because if the buyer isn't known to him he has admitted to a violation of the law.

"I've sold a lot of guns to a lot of people. Sometimes to friends, sometimes to friends of friends. I don't remember all of them."

If that's insufficient, the implication is that ever seller would be required to keep a record of every sale, and could be held criminally responsible if they didn't. I don't think that's the worst plan (registration would be worse), but it's not one I'd want to participate in if there were alternatives.

If they enforce this, very quickly common sense will dictate that private sellers do know who they sell to, since not knowing not only makes them liable for the actions of who they sold it to, but to all the unknown buyers down the line. You do not want to be the last known owner of the gun, when the law requires you to know who you sold it to.

That seems like a great recipe for chilling the exercising of a right. I'd rather have near-zero effort licensing as it puts the burden of record keeping on the state.

In this case we are talking about someone adjudicated mentally ill, and in many cases this will be before the crime occurs, so it could be looked at as pre-crime. You are correct from a criminal conviction standpoint, but that won't work the same on the mentally ill side.

So.. then what? Required low-effort shall-issue licensing? Maybe attach it to a driver's licence so using licence records can't be used as a gun-owner directory? (e.g.: when you get your DL they automatically do a background check, and either mark the licence or have a quickie phone-in check or something) That would eliminate a vast majority of accidental transfers to prohibited persons, while not interfering with free exercise of 2nd amendment rights. I'm not advocating for this plan, just suggesting it for discussion.

 

[milktree]

I am assuming that violent offenders will very likely re-offend, based on the data.

I just did a quick web search, and got conflicting results. One said violent offenders are more likely to re-offend (≈60%) than non-violent (≈40%) but lumped all the re-offence types together: putting "assault" in the same bucket as "parole violations". That's obviously more than zero, so you have a point. But if the majority of post parole violations are things like, "missing a meeting with a parole officer" or "crossing state lines" and not "beating the crap out of someone", I'm not convinced it's reasonable to lump *all* violent offenders together. Should the ones that don't have any post-conviction violent incidents (the ones who aren't career thugs, but just got into a bad situation once) be punished the same as the ones who re-offend, simply because they're in the same legal bucket?

The data also supports the notion that if we keep scumbags in prison they won't commit armed robbery or home invasion, while they are there.

You mean because they're in prison?

ETA: Why should we concern ourselves with trying to effect the decision making process of irrational criminals? How about we impose penalties whose objective is simply to protect the public?

I dunno, that's a good question.

One risk is making the penalties unreasonably harsh "to protect the public"; which is on the same axis as, "if it saves just one life". That line of reasoning could very easily go down the path that leads to firearm related paperwork or safe storage violations having 2.5 year prohibited person triggering potential sentences. (because obviously you're not a responsible person)

 

[hunt4riches]

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.

you can't. Every law abiding gun owner could report one gun lost or stolen and hide it in the woods. Later, if/when they become PP, they're still armed. If their friends or relatives have guns, they could take a member of the house hostage at knife point and obtain weapons. They could whack a cop on the head who responds to shoplifting at Home Depot. A rogue agent can get a job at a manufacturer and just go rogue and wheel a bunch of shit out the back door.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Different guy. The guy I knew was L. J. C. JR. I won't throw his name out there.

I have no idea what the real name of Baby Face John was. I only met him as a visitor, we had formed a Jaycee chapter behind the walls.

 

[LakeTrout]

In this case we are talking about someone adjudicated mentally ill, and in many cases this will be before the crime occurs, so it could be looked at as pre-crime. You are correct from a criminal conviction standpoint, but that won't work the same on the mentally ill side.

Thats correct. I still feel the same way about it. If someone has been considered Mentally ill in such a way that they’re a danger to society they need to not be in society.

 

[42!]

I thought (and I can't back this up with any reference, it's just what I learned) that the requirement was "not known to be prohibited", rather than "known to the seller" or "known to not be a prohibited person" i.e.: unless you had reason to know the buyer was a prohibited person, you're good to go. The logic being that it's impossible for someone outside the system who doesn't have access to NICS or similar, to know that someone isn't a PP, and therefore unreasonable to potentially hold the seller to that standard under the threat of legal peril if they get it wrong.

Am I thinking of another state/circumstance?

Its personally knows the buyer, so the expectation is you know who you are selling to. There is no legal requirement to maintain a record, but given the liability is on the seller it's prudent to do so. The buyer having a P&R is an accepted alternative, but the sell probably should still keep a record for the same reason.

I would rather see this self regulated with the info in the hands of the seller, than a mandated record keeping or gov database. My reason is simply to find a way for the mental health prohibition to work for NH as it does elsewhere, without creating a whole new layer of gov bureaucracy and tracking. I also want to keep is simple because that makes it much more likely. Major changes in the incarceration of offenders would be difficult, take many years, and would come with new problems, cost just being one.


Very small changes is a far more effective way of improving things, than big sweeping changes that lead to new problems.

"I've sold a lot of guns to a lot of people. Sometimes to friends, sometimes to friends of friends. I don't remember all of them."

If that's insufficient, the implication is that ever seller would be required to keep a record of every sale, and could be held criminally responsible if they didn't. I don't think that's the worst plan (registration would be worse), but it's not one I'd want to participate in if there were alternatives.

Given the current laws it does work out this way, and franky, changing it will only give more power to the gov and likely end up with a database.

That seems like a great recipe for chilling the exercising of a right. I'd rather have near-zero effort licensing as it puts the burden of record keeping on the state.

NH P&R is already near zero effort and shall issue for both rssidents and non-residents. There are some rouge chiefs but the law provides for holding them personally responcible damages resulting from not following the RSA. And I do me personally pay, the RSA makes it clear its the person who pays, not the town/dept.

Still I'd rather people keep there own records than then a gov database.

So.. then what? Required low-effort shall-issue licensing? Maybe attach it to a driver's licence so using licence records can't be used as a gun-owner directory? (e.g.: when you get your DL they automatically do a background check, and either mark the licence or have a quickie phone-in check or something) That would eliminate a vast majority of accidental transfers to prohibited persons, while not interfering with free exercise of 2nd amendment rights. I'm not advocating for this plan, just suggesting it for discussion.

Not necessary, just making it more complicated, the NH P&R is good as is. Well, they should issue cards instead of typing them on tissue paper.

 

[fencer]

I dunno, that's a good question.

One risk is making the penalties unreasonably harsh "to protect the public"; which is on the same axis as, "if it saves just one life". That line of reasoning could very easily go down the path that leads to firearm related paperwork or safe storage violations having 2.5 year prohibited person triggering potential sentences. (because obviously you're not a responsible person)

I think the bigger risk is that it would lead to certain groups of people, the oppressed, under represented, protected classes spending more time in prison, and this would be politically unpopular.
Additionally, we were discussing violent crimes. I understand the argument you are trying to present, but I feel as though you are being adversarial just for the sake of being adversarial.

This is a terrible idea. It would have the obvious unintended side effect of nobody ever getting parole.

Yeah... and what is the downside? That violent criminals don't get released on parole? How about the judge that snuck the criminal through the basement exit? You are OK with that?

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that keeping violent criminals in prison is a bad idea and there are many potential issues with it. I disagree,
Many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, and we hear phrases like "lengthy criminal record", "career criminal" and " recently paroled", and you can try to spin that anyway you want, but I don't need to do a google search to know you are being disingenuous and just enjoy arguing on the internet just for the sake of arguing.

 

[milktree]

I think the bigger risk is that it would lead to certain groups of people, the oppressed, under represented, protected classes spending more time in prison, and this would be politically unpopular.

I'd argue that it *should* be politically unpopular.

Additionally, we were discussing violent crimes. I understand the argument you are trying to present, but I feel as though you are being adversarial just for the sake of being adversarial.

I'm not. I'm sorry I came across that way.

Yeah... and what is the downside? That violent criminals don't get released on parole? How about the judge that snuck the criminal through the basement exit? You are OK with that?

That's not really what I'm getting at. Parole is a good thing, if done right. Keeping people in prison is really expensive, and we shouldn't do it if we don't need to.

People who are actually a risk should absolutely stay in prison. But there are people who are *not* a danger to society, it'd be stupid to keep them locked up at taxpayer expense just because the parole board percieves a risk to their own freedom.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that keeping violent criminals in prison is a bad idea

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that keeping *EVERYONE* in prison because the parole board could get in trouble is a bad idea.

Many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, and we hear phrases like "lengthy criminal record", "career criminal" and " recently paroled", and you can try to spin that anyway you want, but I don't need to do a google search to know you are being disingenuous and just enjoy arguing on the internet just for the sake of arguing.

I'm not doing that. The nuance I'm trying to make is getting lost.

Repeat offenders have already proven they're a threat to society. I have no problem with keeping them in jail.

 

[42!]

I'd argue that it *should* be politically unpopular.

But politically unpopular also men it won't happen.

The way to deal with this is small relatively minor changes that can get enough support to get done, then keep making small changes, and continually reevaluate, until you reach an acceptable goal. Each time you make a small change and can show a positive result you will get more support for the next step. Play the long game.

 

[MisterHappy]

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.

I personally know someone that was driving, got a text, and pulled into a parking lot, to answer the text.

Cop pulled in behind him, and lit up the blues. Did not cite him, but told him, essentially, that since the parking lot connected to the street it was just as illegal for him to text there, as the street.

Also, I was on jury duty (did not get empaneled), where the defendant was charged with OUI. He was arrested while sitting in a car with the ignition off, on private property.

 

[42!]

I personally know someone that was driving, got a text, and pulled into a parking lot, to answer the text.

Cop pulled in behind him, and lit up the blues. Did not cite him, but told him, essentially, that since the parking lot connected to the street it was just as illegal for him to text there, as the street.

Pretty clear the cop is wrong on this

Also, I was on jury duty (did not get empaneled), where the defendant was charged with OUI. He was arrested while sitting in a car with the ignition off, on private property.

Not enough info here. If it was the parking lot of where he was drinking then, no, no OUI. But if he's alone, in some random lot, and he was drinking someplace else, then I can see it. He had to get there. I suppose if he was near where he was drinking he could have walked. But drunks don't usually keep their mouths shut and he just might say where he was drinking, thinking he was under limit. What it comes down to is totality of the circumstances.