Roadglide
NES Member
I think you answered your own questionBut 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.
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
I think you answered your own questionBut 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.
AT THE EXPENSE OF MURDERED SCHOOL CHILDREN.Having the shooter be a trans completely eviscerates their position. So naturally, they bury it.
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.It's f***ing SICK how far the left-wing media will go to promote their agenda.
Cut off their hands?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.
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.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.
Reducing crime is not preventing crime. Crime still exists. Society will never rid itself completely of violent crime.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.
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.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.
Sounds about right. His streetname was Baby Face John as I recall. A real scary character.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.
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.
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.
Reducing crime is not preventing crime.
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.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”.
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.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.
And still doing it. Commercial on tv last night pumping vaccines (namely covid.) Still saying it prevents getting and transmitting.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.
In NH it's the requirement of a FtF seller for the buyer "to be known" to him.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..
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.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.
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.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.
Different guy. The guy I knew was L. J. C. JR. I won't throw his name out there.Sounds about right. His streetname was Baby Face John as I recall. A real scary character.
That is not at all what I am assumingAgain, 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.
In NH it's the requirement of a FtF seller for the buyer "to be known" to him.
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.
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.
I am assuming that violent offenders will very likely re-offend, based on the data.
You mean because they're in prison?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?
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.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.
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.Different guy. The guy I knew was L. J. C. JR. I won't throw his name out there.
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.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.
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 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?
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."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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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)
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?This is a terrible idea. It would have the obvious unintended side effect of nobody ever getting parole.
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.
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
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.
But politically unpopular also men it won't happen.I'd argue that it *should* be politically unpopular.
I personally know someone that was driving, got a text, and pulled into a parking lot, to answer the text.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.
Pretty clear the cop is wrong on thisI 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.
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.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.