Shot heard around the world be fired first in Conneticut?

[Cow Poke]

I thought it was important to stress that republicans were just as much on board with this as the democrats and they apparently knew they'd face backlash from their constituents...

And of course we all know about Tony Guglielmo. Thought it was important because I often see the word "liberal" associated with this, yet I don't really know what that term means in correlation with this subject. Does it mean a liberal agenda, because it can't mean just mean politicians that call themselves liberal that push for these policies?

I'd also like to hear from more gun owners and how you would handle this situation (the intended goal of the thread). Under this theoretical scenario, would you register your arms or face criminal felony charges?

If I might politely suggest that just because somebody has an (R) next to their name does not preclude them from being a liberal, or, as you're fully aware, can be on board with liberal ideals.

[Carrikature]

Ah... but the laws we DO have ... criminals should be made to comply with those. That's what I meant.

Er, uh.. then what DID you mean?

I agree with making criminals comply with the law. However, we both know that most criminals don't actually care about the law anyway. We don't make laws so that criminals will comply. We make laws so that society as a whole recognizes the lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and to give us foundations upon which to enforce compliance.

In other words, we make laws so that we know who the criminals are, so to speak.

[Carrikature]

Since no evidence has been presented that demonstrates any positive results from gun control, and much has been presented to the contrary, I am inclined to disregard the ignorance possibility. That leaves me with stupid. You are right that there may be s few who do not fall into that category. There is a lot of generalized fear of guns in the nation. Though that leans to stupidity in my mind more than it does ignorance.

Eh, there's a limit as to how important the distinctions are in practice. Even so, ignorance as "lack of knowledge or information" (to which I add experience) accounts for a lot of what I've seen. Your mileage may vary. Of course, stupid is as stupid does.

[Cow Poke]

I agree with making criminals comply with the law. However, we both know that most criminals don't actually care about the law anyway.

Well, not totally --- many criminals are pretty savvy about the law, particularly with respect to aggravating circumstances. To quote the great criminologist, Fonzie Fonzarelli, "a thief with a gun in his hand does 5 to 10 years in the can".

Seriously, many criminals are mindful of the factors that kick their crime du jour into the next codified category.

We don't make laws so that criminals will comply. We make laws so that society as a whole recognizes the lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and to give us foundations upon which to enforce compliance.

In other words, we make laws so that we know who the criminals are, so to speak.

Not all criminals are dumb. "White collar" criminals, particularly, will study the statutes to figure out how much risk they want to take on relative to the "reward" of the crime.

[Carrikature]

Well, not totally --- many criminals are pretty savvy about the law, particularly with respect to aggravating circumstances. To quote the great criminologist, Fonzie Fonzarelli, "a thief with a gun in his hand does 5 to 10 years in the can".

Seriously, many criminals are mindful of the factors that kick their crime du jour into the next codified category.

Not all criminals are dumb. "White collar" criminals, particularly, will study the statutes to figure out how much risk they want to take on relative to the "reward" of the crime.

You're right, and I failed to include that in my conception. The game with criminals is about penalties and making the risk/reward paradigm play out in our favor. Does that affect why we make laws or only how they should be implemented?

[Epoetker]

We don't make laws so that criminals will comply. We make laws so that society as a whole recognizes the lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and to give us foundations upon which to enforce compliance.

Not so much how it works out in practice:

As any cop can tell you, career criminals commit almost all crime.

[Carrikature]

Myth, thank you very much for that long response. It's incredibly helpful to articulate opinions as much as possible. I'll endeavor to do the same in my responses. Before we begin, let me state very clearly that I am not, nor have I ever been, an LEO. My brother-in-law is one, and when next we meet I shall be asking him some questions. Even so, what I'm saying rests entirely on my opinions and judgments formed on more philosophical premises.

I think, in general, we don't disagree very much. For my part, I think there is an important distinction between morality and legislation. While it's certainly true that legislation could be moral in nature, I deny that all of it is. Hence, when you discuss being held accountable for your actions, I see multiple levels to that statement. Your specific example is killing on sight those who have no vowels in their first name. This is a moral ill. Legislation or policy which dictates you act in such a way that you deem immoral should be ignored. The nuance, of course, is determining when the moral consideration actually comes into play and/or overrides other principles.

Unconstitutionality is a legislation issue that may or may not impact morality. However much the Constitution of the U.S. may be theoretically designed on a moral basis, there are a great many things it protects that are amoral in nature. There are also a great many things it protects that people will consider immoral in nature. More to the point is the process for determining when something is or isn't unconstitutional. We have a court system for this. If the court system is failing (assuming it is), we need to decide how to correct it. Taking it into our own hands is a recipe for disaster. Of course, we need to be very careful when deciding whether it's actually failing or merely not reaching the conclusions we would like.

Therefore, my claim is not that you should unilaterally enforce all legislation, but that failing to force it on the basis of unconstitutionality is something different than on a moral basis. The two can obviously coincide in that a given issue could fail on both counts. Even so, your personal responsibility as an officer and as a citizen is first and foremost to the moral basis. The cases where a given piece of legislation is questionably unconstitutional yet allowed to remain unchallenged are, to my knowledge, rare. The difference between morality and constitutionality I think sufficiently answers your example of Nazi Germany. The issue there was never with constitutionality, but whether the legislation was supportable on a moral basis.

As to your oath, I would be interested in seeing its actual terminology when/if it's convenient for you to provide it. Further analysis on its principles and how you've interpreted them will have to wait until that time.

With regards to discretion, I understand both its need and its principle, and I am against neither. There's a necessary amount of leeway given to someone "in the trenches" especially in the role of LEO. For what it's worth, I disagree that statutes and court rulings are where your legal authority comes from, but I think there's a difference between the basis of your authority and the rules that your authority is meant to ensure. The latter is where statutes and court rulings come into play. I don't know how this works in practice. I envision something more akin to the leadership of law enforcement devising policy while the officers follow that policy. To my mind, that doesn't eliminate the discretion per se, but it might limit the reality of how much the statutes and court rulings actively come into play in each decision. That said, I've no doubt that constant exposure grants a general working knowledge of the local system without necessarily including broader legal frameworks like the Constitution. I expect such knowledge is probably a personal LEO thing.

The personal aspect is the real kicker, and it's the reason I made my statement about what is and isn't your job. I've known a few LEOs. Some are great. Others are not. Some have no problem speeding whenever they want because they can. I've known at least one that didn't care about observing open containment laws because he knows he's not going to get into trouble for it. Most seem to pick and choose which ones they like and which ones they don't when it comes to personal conduct. From a standpoint of deciding which laws are unconstitutional or not, this presents a problem. I, and the general public, can't generically trust LEOs to make that decision. Some of them may be able to do so extremely well. Others...not so much.

More to the point, this discussion arises in the context of sheriffs, et. al., declaring outright that they will not enforce a given piece of legislation. This is a dangerous precedent, however legitimate it may or may not be in the given situation. In part, the institution of governance operates on the assumption that the rules it creates will be followed and enforced. When we break from either of these, we undermine the entire edifice. This is further undermined when the break comes from those elected into a position, as is the case here. While I grant that sometimes such a break is indeed warranted, I fail to see how this is one of those times. It seems like we have, or should have, a system in place for questioning unconstitutionality, and that said breaks are to be reserved for major moral issues a la Nazi Germany. Further, the manner in which such public declarations have been made does not indicate careful consideration but emotional reactions. Even if they're right to break as they have, it looks to have been poorly done.

[Cow Poke]

You're right, and I failed to include that in my conception. The game with criminals is about penalties and making the risk/reward paradigm play out in our favor. Does that affect why we make laws or only how they should be implemented?

In some cases, yes. For example, some states in the early 80's had eliminated the death penalty for capital murder cases - for example, a bank robbery where a cop or security guard was killed. Criminals figured out, "hey, if I'm not going to risk the death penalty for killing a cop or security guard, and it just "adds time" to my penalty, and I MIGHT actually get away, nothing stops me from killing!"

So, that's what I was talking about "aggravating circumstances" earlier.

Also, most states (probably should say "many", but I think it's most) have an "aggravated burglary" as opposed to "burglary" because breaking into an OCCUPIED home is an "aggravating factor" that increases the penalty over breaking into an unoccupied home.

Basically, the "aggravation" factor takes into account greater danger to the victim, and most (many?) criminals are pretty aware of each "ramp up".

[Carrikature]

In some cases, yes. For example, some states in the early 80's had eliminated the death penalty for capital murder cases - for example, a bank robbery where a cop or security guard was killed. Criminals figured out, "hey, if I'm not going to risk the death penalty for killing a cop or security guard, and it just "adds time" to my penalty, and I MIGHT actually get away, nothing stops me from killing!"

So, that's what I was talking about "aggravating circumstances" earlier.

Also, most states (probably should say "many", but I think it's most) have an "aggravated burglary" as opposed to "burglary" because breaking into an OCCUPIED home is an "aggravating factor" that increases the penalty over breaking into an unoccupied home.

Basically, the "aggravation" factor takes into account greater danger to the victim, and most (many?) criminals are pretty aware of each "ramp up".

Right, but that's the implementation part. A law is three-fold: what to do, how to do it, and how to make sure people comply. I'm asking if the third part actually affects the first part.

[Cow Poke]

Right, but that's the implementation part. A law is three-fold: what to do, how to do it, and how to make sure people comply. I'm asking if the third part actually affects the first part.

The bottom line is don't make laws you don't intend to enforce. Not sure what else you're asking.

[Carrikature]

The bottom line is don't make laws you don't intend to enforce. Not sure what else you're asking.

Do we refrain from making a law just because we know some people won't comply? That's the question. Assume that the law will be enforced to the best of its ability.

[Bill the Cat]

Do we refrain from making a law just because we know some people won't comply? That's the question. Assume that the law will be enforced to the best of its ability.

Unless a single judge disagrees with it and can manufacture a coherent argument on why it shouldn't be enforced.

[Cow Poke]

Do we refrain from making a law just because we know some people won't comply? That's the question. Assume that the law will be enforced to the best of its ability.

This is actually a good aside from this thread. I'll try to start another thread with this topic, because I've thought about it pretty much for the last our and a half while I've been "on the road again".

[Carrikature]

This is actually a good aside from this thread. I'll try to start another thread with this topic, because I've thought about it pretty much for the last our and a half while I've been "on the road again".

I'll continue the discussion there, then.