Common Sense Gun Control Measures For Michigan

[Bryce]

Almost daily, the local news outlets have a story of a felon in possession of a firearm using it with a bad outcome. Here's one from yesterday's Detroit News:

Detroit — Detroit parents were charged Saturday in the nonfatal shooting of their 3-year-old son on March 9, the county prosecutor's office said.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy charged Anthony Smith, 32, with second-degree child abuse, felon in possession of a firearm and two counts of felony firearm. Tenisha Christian, 39, has also been charged with felon in possession of a firearm and two counts of felony firearm.

The parents were arraigned Saturday in Detroit's 34th District Court. Smith's bond was set at $10,000 and Christian's bond was set at $5,000. Their preliminary examination has not been set.

Studies show that the vast majority of gun crimes are being committed by people who are in possession of an illegal firearm, as was the case in the above story. In many of the cases I've looked at, It doesn't seem that the justice system is treating "felon in possession of a firearm" as seriously as they might. Nor, does it seem that a lot of effort is being put into discovering where, and from whom, the illegal firearms were acquired.

If we are truly interested in reducing gun crime in our state, I think it's time to consider enacting much stiffer sentences for illegal ownership. If you're a convicted felon caught with a firearm, 20-years. Period. If you are caught providing a firearm to a convicted felon, again, 20-years. Period. I would also allow prosecutors to shave a portion of that sentence if the felon agrees to identify the person or persons that they acquired the illegal firearm from.

Focusing on the people that are actually committing crimes with guns just makes sense.

[bmw]

MW makes a good point about felonies being plead down. This is way more common than most people are aware. Perhaps the solution here is rather than mandatory prison sentences (a concept which I'm against generally speaking), instead a prohibition on prosecutors engaging in such practices. A felony is a felony and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. Maybe it should stay that way.

[Bryce]

I'm on board with every proposal you have made MW. I will add one. Because the majority of guns available on the black market in Detroit started out as legally purchased firearms and were obtained through home invasions or burglary, gun owners should be required to have a safe that is difficult to remove from the home in which their firearms are stored when not on their person or in their immediate control.

BMW, the issue I have with your felony is a felony proposal is that if the penalty for a felon in possession isn't such to act as a prohibition for them to do so, what difference would it make?

With the number of incidents we see of felons in possession in our area, the current penalty doesn't seem to be a deterrent.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

The individual at King Soopers bought his gun legally after a judge overturned a ban on assault rifles passed by the city of Boulder. Food for thought. We at least need background checks and gun training as well as a 21 day waiting period.

[Rate This]

Required mental health screenings where a psychologist signs off first. Possibly involving a days worth of psych tests.

[Bryce]

The King Sooper miscreant had mental health issues that family and friends were well aware of, AND was on the radar of the FBI. In an age before the fear of being accused of profiling, he would have probably been entered into the national database.

His family knew he purchased that firearm. Knew he had mental health and anger challenges. Why in the world was it not reported?

The FBI, his family and societal pressure all have a degree of culpability here.

[bmw]

BMW, the issue I have with your felony is a felony proposal is that if the penalty for a felon in possession isn't such to act as a prohibition for them to do so, what difference would it make?

Pursuant to Michigan law (as best I understand it), a person convicted of a felony that is punishable by 4 years or more in prison cannot buy a firearm for a minimum of 3 to 5 years. It doesn't matter whether said person was actually sentenced to that many years for his/her crime, rather, it just matters whether the crime they were convicted of has that as a maximum punishment. I believe this applies to plea deals as well - as in, either conviction OR pleaing.

So what commonly happens is someone is charged with a felony, and then as part of a plea deal, the prosecutor bargains it down to a misdemeanor, at which point, the prohibition on buying arms no longer applies. Look at the court section in your local newspaper sometime - these kinds of plea deals are all too common. If prosecutors were prohibited from plea-dealing a crime down from one classification to another, there would be a lot of additional people in this state who would now be prohibited from buying firearms. I don't necessarily take issue with the prosecutor having the power to plea down the sentence itself, but the crime classification should remain the same.

The penalty for violating the firearm ownership laws is a separate issue entirely.

EDIT - and since I didn't mention it before, I don't necessarily take issue with any of MW's proposals, at least broadly speaking. They all look like easy to implement proposals, the left would say they're not enough, the right would say they're too much, so to me that means they're probably fair. That said, I always worry about the slippery slope when it comes to gun control. Put these proposals into action and the left will always be on a mission for more restrictions.

[km1125]

The individual at King Soopers bought his gun legally after a judge overturned a ban on assault rifles passed by the city of Boulder. Food for thought. We at least need background checks and gun training as well as a 21 day waiting period.

I'd have to dig a bit more to figure this out, but I thought I read/heard he lived outside of Boulder and purchased the gun outside of Boulder. If so, how would the law in Boulder (or overturning of same) have affected him or this incident?

[km1125]

BMW, the issue I have with your felony is a felony proposal is that if the penalty for a felon in possession isn't such to act as a prohibition for them to do so, what difference would it make?

<snip>
So what commonly happens is someone is charged with a felony, and then as part of a plea deal, the prosecutor bargains it down to a misdemeanor, at which point, the prohibition on buying arms no longer applies. Look at the court section in your local newspaper sometime - these kinds of plea deals are all too common. If prosecutors were prohibited from plea-dealing a crime down from one classification to another, there would be a lot of additional people in this state who would now be prohibited from buying firearms. I don't necessarily take issue with the prosecutor having the power to plea down the sentence itself, but the crime classification should remain the same.
<snip>

Or make it a requirement - OR POLICY - for the prosecutors to request the judge leave the restrictions on gun ownership in place even though they are only convicted of a misdemeanor. That's possible right now, isn't it?

[bmw]

Or make it a requirement - OR POLICY - for the prosecutors to request the judge leave the restrictions on gun ownership in place even though they are only convicted of a misdemeanor. That's possible right now, isn't it?

I don't know the answer to this. Certain domestic violence misdemeanors act as disqualifiers, but these are statuatory. I don't know that a judge has the power to restrict one's Constitutional rights beyond what is permitted by statute.

[Matt]

MW makes a good point about felonies being plead down. This is way more common than most people are aware. Perhaps the solution here is rather than mandatory prison sentences (a concept which I'm against generally speaking), instead a prohibition on prosecutors engaging in such practices. A felony is a felony and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. Maybe it should stay that way.

You are putting way too much power in the hands of a prosecutor - plea deals happen as the result of an overcharge with the intent of getting a misdemeanor to stick. I do not support this specific component.

[tapeisrolling]

Maybe the problem is that most of the gun laws are so loose and up to a judge to make the call. If It was like owning a car then the law would be cut a dry. You own a gun you need to have some kind of record of owner ship like a license and if it's lost or stolen then you are responsible to notify police asap or you can be also included in any prosecution for illegal usage of the weapon.
When the Amendment was conceived a gun took between 1 and 3 minutes to load ! shot. Times have changed....

Cars were never thought of in 1790 but we keep updating the laws on owning and using all the time.

[Bryce]

Maybe the problem is that most of the gun laws are so loose and up to a judge to make the call. If It was like owning a car then the law would be cut a dry. You own a gun you need to have some kind of record of owner ship like a license and if it's lost or stolen then you are responsible to notify police asap or you can be also included in any prosecution for illegal usage of the weapon.
When the Amendment was conceived a gun took between 1 and 3 minutes to load ! shot. Times have changed....

Cars were never thought of in 1790 but we keep updating the laws on owning and using all the time.

Again, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people that aren't supposed to have a firearm in the first place. People under 21 and convicted felons. Strengthening the penalties for possessing and carrying a firearm illegally and increasing the enforcement thereof and a big dent will be made in our community virtually overnight.