Court Rules Gun Use in Drug Crimes Means Added 5 Years ...

[spin]

Published: November 15, 2010

WASHINGTON — People convicted of possessing a gun while selling drugs are subject to five-year mandatory minimum sentences on top of most of other sentences, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The ruling was the first signed decision of the term, and it was unanimous. But the court’s newest member, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate, having disqualified herself in light of her work as United States solicitor general.

***snip***

The question in the case was what Congress meant when it revised a 1968 federal gun control law in 1998 by, among other things, adding a new preface saying the five-year minimum for having or using guns while selling drugs applied “except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided.”

Mr. Abbott argued that his 15-year-sentence for being a career criminal was such a greater minimum sentence and that it should cancel out the additional five years for the gun charge. Mr. Gould said the same thing about his 10-year sentence.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court, said the defendants’ approach, which also relied on federal sentencing guidelines, might make sense as a matter of policy.

“We do not gainsay that Abbott and Gould project a rational, less harsh, mode of sentencing,” she wrote. “But we do not think it was the mode Congress ordered.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/us/16scotus.html?_r=1

[PavePusher]

1. I still don't understand...

what makes gun use during a crime more worthy of stronger punishment than any other weapon. I guess knives and clubs are kinder and gentler?

Perhaps we should create similar laws for abuse of other Civil Rights?

[spin]

2. Good point. (n/t)

[Kennah]

12. There is a fine line of distinction ...

... between lethal force with an impact weapon vs. lethal force with an edged weapon vs. lethal force with a firearm. However, they are all three lethal force, and this is within the continuum of force.

To use force, legal or criminal, one must be a determined person. A weapon is not a talisman, and one must be willing to use it.

To use a knife or a club one must be a more physical person. A 90 year old, small, frail woman could use a gun to commit a crime. Perhaps, the rationale for higher penalties on use of a gun is an odd disincentive program to deter crime by those unlikely to commit crimes. Assuming there's any merit to the argument, it's a very far reaching stretch.

[DissedByBush]

3. Guns shouldn't be singled out

Possession of a deadly weapon during a crime is a reasonable factor for sentencing.

Use of one definitely.

[spin]

4. As I look at the ruling, I believe that it might be fair to add five years ...

to the sentence of anyone committing any crime while using a firearm. I would also like to see stiff sentences imposed for carrying a firearm illegally, whether a crime was committed or not.

For many years we have focused gun control toward honest citizens. Some very reasonable and effective laws have been passed such as the NICS background check sometimes referred to as the Brady Act. We have reached the point where new laws directed at honest gun owners has reach the point of diminishing return.

Much if not the most of the violence in our nation that involves firearms is caused by the criminal element. It's my contention that future gun control law should focus on this segment of our population. If a person is caught illegally carrying a firearm and receives a stiff sentence, it may discourage his buddies in crime from always carrying. Fewer people with illegal weapons on the street should lead to fewer tragic incidents. At least, when some fool disrespected some other fool, they wouldn't both reach for their handguns and begin blazing away at each other endangering everybody within blocks of the incident.

In order to make room for the additional prisoners that my idea might create, I suggest we release all non violent drug offenders. We should also consider the War on Drugs a total failure and stop wasting money fighting it. Legalize and tax drugs such as marijuana and create drug clinics to help those who are addicted.

[lawodevolution]

5. I like most of what you said but

There are almost no illegal guns in the US (maybe some, like sawed off shotguns), it is not the gun that is illegal when a banned person has possession of a gun. The label illegal guns was meant for people to feel the gun was somehow tainted.

but yeah, we need to phase out the war on drugs.

[spin]

6. What I meant to say ...

was firearms carried or owned illegally, not the fact that the firearm itself was illegal to own.

I should also point out that if you are a citizen without a violent criminal record and are of legal age to buy a firearm, you should be able to without hassle. If however, you are an individual with a violent criminal record and are caught with a firearm, the punishment should be stiff enough that you will be seriously worried about being caught.

[Euromutt]

7. To some extent, that's already happened

The criminal element has developed a number of tactics which can only be in response to its members having been arrested and convicted for illegal possession of a firearm. If you've watched The Wire, you'll notice that the dealers on the street corners very consciously do not keep their firearms about their person, but place them on top of wheels of nearby parked cars. Other methods include having a female companion carry the firearm for them.

This suggests that the law does get enforced, and thugs do get nailed for illegal possession.

[spin]

8. I never have watched "The Wire" ...

but I understand that in some cities programs target violent felons and check for firearms.

To me, that should be the future of gun control. Take guns away from criminals, not honest citizens.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. I think you make some legitimate points and I totally agree with that last paragraph.

nice post.

[spin]

11. Thanks. (n/t)

[Atypical Liberal]

9. Sounds good to me.

I think drugs should be legalized, but I have no problem with stiffer sentences for people who commit crimes using firearms.

I'd wager that most firearm crimes are committed by people with past criminal histories, not law-abiding people. I guess one way to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals is to keep the criminals in jail.

But we have too many people in jail for non-violent drug offenses.

[spin]

13. You would win that wager ...

usually people who commit crimes while using firearms have a LONG rap sheet.

[safeinOhio]

14. A lot like child molesters.

A high % violent criminals are repeat offenders. Mandatory jail time that can not be pleaded out for handgun crimes as well as loss of other rights is fine with me. I would also extend some of that to those that facilitate transfers of handguns to criminals. Longer jail time would be cost effective in the long run. Indirect savings, like lower insurance rates and ER visits, would more than pay for jails.