Springfield proposes to impound & sell cars found to contain "illegal guns"

[josh2600]

First off, none of MY friends will be picking up someone with an "illegal" firearm. I don't know who you associate with so maybe you will have that problem. Second, how is said illegal firearm located by said police when they are stopped? criminal activity? well shame on you then for letting said "friend" use your vehicle for criminal activity, get better friends.

You must be one of those "if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about" kinda guys.

 

[fsusoldier]

You must be one of those "if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about" kinda guys.

Just wondering how doing the right thing is a bad thing?

 

[06LemansC6]

Just wondering how doing the right thing is a bad thing?

I don't think anyone here is against "doing the right thing". Most are against .gov putting more laws on the books that are ripe for abuse.

 

[06LemansC6]

can you show proof of this?

This was posted earlier, but since you couldn't be bothered to read it I will post it again....

http://www.ij.org/about/4057

http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf

http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder...iture/inequitable_justice-mass-forfeiture.pdf

 

[Blitz1]

Maybe they should be seizing/impounding the criminals instead.

 

[pcgod]

The issue here is that there is too much emphasis on "Gun" when they talk about "Gun VIOLENCE". Guns themselves are not scary, but yes, VIOLENCE involving the USE of a firearm is scary. The city counsel's idea is not a bad one, to impound cars used in these crimes. Why not, nothing else seems to work. Maybe the thought of lossing your whip will deter them ALITTLE bit. BUT knowing what I know, it won't. SOOO why not make some money for the city by impounding and selling the vehicles. This is done with nacotics arrests all the time, which in turn raises money for narcotics funds. I think everyone here should be in support of any effort to curb CRIMINALS from committing crime. This has nothing to do with LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from possessing firearms and actually saves some tax money by raising money to fund these campaigns. My 2cents.....

Way back in Catholic School, I had a Nun who explained to us that everytime a law is written we give up a little more of our rights. You need to weigh the possible good with the unintended consequences. This excerpt does not actually state what an Illegal gun is nor give any real details on implemetation . On the surface, it may look like a reasonable idea but the actual implementation may violate peoples rights. Before you wholeheartly agree with this think it thru......The goal of this is to create a us v. them mentality. You are not (in your mind) a criminal so you say sure go for it, but in the implemetation you may find yourself a victim of this law. It happens friend.

 

[fsusoldier]

I have not written on this thread for a few days as I'm sure most people would agree that the back and forth bickering resolves nothing and all it does is raise people's emotions towards their own beliefs and no matter what is said, logical or illogical, you become defensive and refuse to agree with the otherside. I took some time and reviewed peoples posts, analyzed the "what if" scenarios and also thought of some of my own. I may have a bias to support the ordinance as I work in Springfield and understand the intentions of this proposed ordinance due to dealing with the issues first hand. I must say, some on here do have valid points, other posts deviate from the topic and for whatever reason, the poster feels the need to bash someone for their opinion on a topic instead of giving anything worth responding to. I am thick skinned so these posts do not bother me, but I am also a man and am open to listen to the other people that have something worthwild to bring to the table. That all being said, I agree with the purpose or intention of the proposed ordinance, but I do understand the areas of concern and feel that it does need work before being implimented. MHO

 

[ARV]

First off, none of MY friends will be picking up someone with an "illegal" firearm. I don't know who you associate with so maybe you will have that problem. Second, how is said illegal firearm located by said police when they are stopped? criminal activity? well shame on you then for letting said "friend" use your vehicle for criminal activity, get better friends.

You control what your friends do when your not around? And no, I dont have that problem, because I dont lend my car out. And who knows how its located? driver is speeding, and the passenger brought a friend along. Said friend of a friend is seen making some move that the LEO considers suspicious, and he pulls all of them out of the car for "officer safety". Fact of the matter is, when things aren't under your control, they aren't under your control. Shit happens. It could happen to you. Likely? no, Possible? yes.

Secondly, calm down Shirley and unbunch your panties, its called a hypothetical situation, so you can take little "shame on you get better" friends snip and shove it.

 

[bill o]

I have not written on this thread for a few days as I'm sure most people would agree that the back and forth bickering resolves nothing and all it does is raise people's emotions towards their own beliefs and no matter what is said, logical or illogical, you become defensive and refuse to agree with the otherside. ...

In Massachusetts, the burden is on the individual to prove his license status. A police officer who stops you and discovers your firearm does not have to accept your LTC as valid on its face, and can confiscate your gun (detain you?) until validity is confirmed.

Consider the abuses this proposal would expose us to.

 

[drgrant]

can you show proof of this?

If this law is set up the way most asset forfeiture crap is, then he is right on. The "normal rules" you think of in criminal proceedings don't apply to civil asset forfeiture. There is no "guilt" or "innocence" there is only whether or not the court believes in the merit of the claims bought by the police or not. You don't even need to break a law to have something seized by one of these processes.

-Mike

 

[shotgunwilly870]

Damn guns just going off all by themselves again!

 

[RichM]

Maybe they should be seizing/impounding the criminals instead.

You know, THIS is correct... we've ALREADY got plenty of laws that will allow us to jail lawbreakers, to include the "mandatory" 1-year jail term for possession of a firearm without a license. Assault is a crime; dealing and possession of drugs are crimes; murder / attempted murder and manslaughter are all crimes as well...

There is NOTHING to be gained by implementing ANOTHER new law...


Several years ago, they decided, after a fatality, that they needed MORE laws to control speeding / drag racing in Springfield. They did exactly the same thing (home rule petition, passed by the legislature, and signed by the Governor), because for some reason, reckless driving, driving to endanger, manslaughter, speeding, traffic light violations, marked lanes violations, and all the other traffic laws on the books just weren't enough... one MORE law would SURELY put an end to drag racing on city streets...

I hereby present the following exhibits of drag racing AFTER the new "seizure" law was enacted:

State police charge 2 Springfield men with drag-racing on Sumner Avenue
Published: Friday, April 09, 2010, 9:10 AM Updated: Friday, April 09, 2010, 5:42 PM

Sumner Avenue Springfield drag race isolated incident, police say
Published: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 3:30 AM Updated: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 3:36 AM

Springfield police arrest 2 city men for drag racing on Sumner Avenue in Forest Park neighborhood
Published: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 7:00 AM Updated: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 12:29 PM

Springfield police charge 19-year-old Luis Correa of Holyoke with drag racing in East Springfield
Published: Monday, September 27, 2010, 6:35 AM Updated: Monday, September 27, 2010, 1:22 PM

Those were found in just a couple of minutes...


Do you REALLY think that "just one more law" has ANY chance of stopping the gang- and drug-related gun violence in Springfield?