Tougher enforcement for lower level gun offenses

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/us/politics/jeff-sessions-gun-charges.html

Jeff wants to hammer the lower level gun offenders. Does this serve a real purpose? It is an empirical question as to reducing crime as compared to an ideological one, it would seem to me.

Are there more serious issues to use federal resources for? Does it serve the community? When these folks are incarcerated for a long time - does that do any good? We have more folks in prison than most countries.

For those of you law enforcement, is this a good idea?

[blues]

Back in the day, ATF would spend a lot of time in the field tracking down "straw purchasers" of firearms who often moved these guns on to various unsavory groups like 1%er motorcycle clubs and various criminal gangs. I've gone out with them on several cases of that sort, and they assisted my investigations with tracking down guns being transported across the border to gangs like the Rock Machine up in Canada.

If it ends up simply being a numbers game...it'll do little good. If it's used intelligently as another tool in the toolbox, then it can be very effective in going after valuable targets.

[TCinVA]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/us/politics/jeff-sessions-gun-charges.html

Jeff wants to hammer the lower level gun offenders. Does this serve a real purpose? It is an empirical question as to reducing crime as compared to an ideological one, it would seem to me.

Are there more serious issues to use federal resources for? Does it serve the community? When these folks are incarcerated for a long time - does that do any good? We have more folks in prison than most countries.

For those of you law enforcement, is this a good idea?

Chicago's murder clearance rate last year was 12%.

12.

If you want to solve crimes, you need information on criminals. If you want information, you often have to talk to other criminals to get it. If you want them to talk, you often need some sort of leverage to get them talking.

If DOJ starts actually prosecuting gun charges...charges that have the lowest rates of prosecution in the most violent areas of the country...then it's highly likely they'll start putting some murderers behind bars.

Federal charges and sentences are a whole different kettle of fish and they make bad guys talk. Bad guys like "Rabbit":

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_72a9b0a9-25f9-57ca-a7d7-7769476afd67.html

Does it serve the community to aggressively prosecute felons who have guns? Given that the vast majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by people with a felony record, you betcha.

When they are incarcerated for a long time, does it do any good? Given that they can't rob, rape, and murder members of the general public while they are locked in a cage, you betcha. "Rehabilitation" isn't really a thing for violent offenders so the best you can do is keep them in a cage before they end up killing enough people to force you to keep them in a cage forever.

There is ample evidence that when it comes to violent crime we have a severe under-incarceration problem in the United States. That is why places like Chicago, Baltimore, Memphis and others we could name have such terrible crime rates. There are so many violent assholes doing violent asshole things that we can't keep them all in a cage. They are routinely let out to re-offend over and over and over again.

Frankly if it weren't for the mandatory minimums on drug charges many of these dudes wouldn't ever catch hard time on anything. Ever. Witness the aforementioned "Rabbit".

The FBI's UCR is not uniform as lots of agencies do not report to it. When you start peeling back the layers of the onion and look at violent crimes in total accounting for the under-reporting going on, you will very quickly realize that the majority of violent crimes in the US are not solved. Meaning the perpetrators of them are not arrested, prosecuted, or incarcerated. Tom posted something that explains this last year:



Memphis Homicides So Far in 2017

I just went through a detailed report on the homicides reported in my old stomping grounds in Memphis. From January 1, 2017, until August 9, 2017, there were a total of 122 homicides in the city. None of these involved police action, but 2 were ruled justifiable homicides by private citizens.

In these cases, the weapons used were guns in 98 cases; knives in 9 cases; and other or unknown in 12 cases.

Arrests were only made in 42 of the cases, a clearance rate of 34%. Arrests were most common when the motive listed was “domestic” or “argument”. When the motive was “robbery” or “unknown” there was rarely an arrest made. This reflects the difficulty in solving “stranger” murders, in which the victim and the offender are not known to each other. These are most often street robberies and car-jacking incidents.

The break-down of motives listed was as follows:
Unknown- 91 cases (usually a robbery or attempted robbery)
Argument- 11 cases
Robbery- 10 cases (in these the motive was evident)
Domestic- 8 cases
Gang related- 1 case.

Thus, “Robbery” and “Unknown” accounted for 83% of the homicides. This completely debunks the narrative that most murders are domestics or gang related. They are certainly not. Note that only 1 case was determined to be “gang related”. This shows that by far the greatest threat is from a robbery or unknown (usually turns out to be a robbery or attempted robbery in some form). These are crimes that are committed in public places, such as convenience stores, shopping centers, and office parking lots. Be vigilant, and carry your gear.


...and that's just homicides. The picture doesn't get any prettier when you start to consider the other types of violent crime that don't rise to the level of killing. "Stranger" crimes...which are the sort of crimes most people on PF are really worried about...are solved only a fraction of the time.

And then the perp has to be tried and serve time. This is often a laughable amount of time because 90% of criminal cases are adjudicated by plea deals. So whatever dude actually did in a particular incident, it's a fair bet he's only ever going to see prosecution on a fraction of the charges and that only with a fraction of the maximum sentence served.

So working simple possession cases like felon in possession can have a significant impact. It had a significant impact in Richmond when it was applied, much to the chagrin of that fucktard Eric Holder.

[scw2]

So working simple possession cases like felon in possession can have a significant impact. It had a significant impact in Richmond when it was applied, much to the chagrin of that fucktard Eric Holder.

I remember hearing about that happening in Richmond. Why was the program stopped? Was it done in the name of political expediency because too many felons from certain neighborhoods were being rolled up and sent to federal prison?

[TCinVA]

I remember hearing about that happening in Richmond. Why was the program stopped? Was it done in the name of political expediency because too many felons from certain neighborhoods were being rolled up and sent to federal prison?

It was called Project Exile.

The NRA supported it. When Wayne LaPierre goes on TV and talks about enforcing existing gun laws, he's referring to the lack of enforcement on current gun laws that lets violent shitheads keep doing violent shithead things.

Eric Holder opposed Project Exile while he was the USA for DC.

You remember Eric Holder, right? Former attorney general?

There's a big clue as to why it was stopped.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/28/chicago-los-angeles-new-york-prosecuted-fewest-federal-gun-crimes

[BehindBlueI's]

A lot of dope rips, retaliation robberies, and other known thug on thug crimes end up not being prosecuted because the victim is either a lying shitbag, fails to cooperate, or both and the prosecution has to drop the case. In those instances, gun and dope charges are often the only things left. Dope charges aren't what they used to be.

So...yeah, it could make a difference.

I sometimes have robbers using pellet guns, and will admit to doing so because they know getting another handgun charge will result in more real time than the robbery. Note in my state a pellet gun that fires a metal projectile will still qualify you for armed robbery. So, at least a certain segment of the criminal population pays attention to that sort of thing.

[TCinVA]

A lot of dope rips, retaliation robberies, and other known thug on thug crimes end up not being prosecuted because the victim is either a lying shitbag, fails to cooperate, or both and the prosecution has to drop the case. In those instances, gun and dope charges are often the only things left. Dope charges aren't what they used to be.

So...yeah, it could make a difference.

I sometimes have robbers using pellet guns, and will admit to doing so because they know getting another handgun charge will result in more real time than the robbery. Note in my state a pellet gun that fires a metal projectile will still qualify you for armed robbery. So, at least a certain segment of the criminal population pays attention to that sort of thing.

When Exile was running and bad guys were hearing through the street that homeboy the next block over really was catching federal time on gun charges, the bad guys talked an awful lot about not wanting to catch gun charges.

[Lon]

I wish they would. We had a shooting back in December during a dope deal gone wrong that was an easy fed case. They wouldn’t take it because neither turd had a record. Was within 1000’ of parks/school. State law really doesn’t address what happened (did I mention OH Law is stupid?) so neither turd got charged with ANYTHING.

[Kyle Reese]

I agree with this effort 100%, for the reasons so artfully articulated above.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[TAZ]

This will last until some stats are leaked showing what some consider a bad trend, then it will be scrapped once again like Exile.

[Cypher]

It was called Project Exile.

The NRA supported it. When Wayne LaPierre goes on TV and talks about enforcing existing gun laws, he's referring to the lack of enforcement on current gun laws that lets violent shitheads keep doing violent shithead things.

Eric Holder opposed Project Exile while he was the USA for DC.

You remember Eric Holder, right? Former attorney general?

There's a big clue as to why it was stopped.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/28/chicago-los-angeles-new-york-prosecuted-fewest-federal-gun-crimes


If I remember right project Exile was shown to be very effective. Also if I remember right the reason that Holder opposed it and because it's supposedly disproportionately targeted poor blacks you know the people that commit most of the crimes in America

[KPD]

2006ish I got asked politely to quit visiting a specific gun shop.
I was making up to 3 cases a week on straw purchases and/or felons in possession of firearms. All I had to do was pay attention and wait a little bit. All my local regulars were coming there to either have a girl buy a gun for them or get their guns fixed.
I recall one guy brought his Glock 36 in because his “beams was broke”. His blaster had half the SN plate broken off as well. This was a felon I had arrested several times and paid me no attention as I stood next to him and he described his guns problem to the gunsmith. He felt comfortable because he knew that there was almost no state prosecution on gun cases.
I was lucky that I had a great working relationship with BATFE and they were adopting all of my gun cases. These cases allowed me to lock up some people who richly deserved a lengthy time out. They also allowed me to leverage very useful information from some of them.
So yes, I support this enforcement effort. Used properly it will make a huge difference in the crime rate.

[ssb]

In my area we have historically had a difficult time getting the Feds to take gun cases, though I do have a recent success story on that front. My recollection is that under Obama's DOJ in a different part of the state which was mentioned in another member's post, the local USA was disinterested in gun cases period despite an agreement between the office I worked for and his office for referrals for prosecution (we'd get maybe one out of every hundred referrals taken up). I don't know if that climate is changed under Trump and Sessions.

In my state it is a crime for a felon to possess a handgun (class E felony, 1-6 years). It is not a crime for them to possess a long gun unless they have a felony drug conviction or a violent felony conviction. The plus side is that, thanks to a recent law change, it is a class B felony (8-30) for a felon with a violent prior and a class C (3-15) felony for a felon with a drug prior, regardless of whether it is a handgun or a long gun. The latter two charges are non-probatable, thankfully. Thanks to our lack of truth in sentencing, however, those big scary numbers get shaved down to a fraction of the actual sentence once in DOC custody.

In my happy recent example from ATF, the individual was on parole for agg assault on a police officer and in possession of a rifle and a handgun plus a significant amount of ammo and a ski mask and was likely on his way to do some gangbanger shit at the time he was caught. The ATF guy I spoke with gave me a realistic estimate of 4-6 years based on his history. Better than the 2.5-3.6 he'd actually do if I got what I wanted. Furthermore, had that law change not occurred last summer, I'd only have him on an E felony for the Glock he threw out the window. I am aware of some rather violent people who were previously let go with AKs in the trunk. In my opinion the long gun thing needs to be changed, but the legislature seems uninterested in taking it up.

By policy we don't get to bargain away things like possession of a handgun in a dangerous felony, which is a happy little non-probatable charge which must run consecutive to whatever underlying dangerous felony we convict them of. My boss takes a dim view of drug dealers with guns.

[TC215]

In my area we have historically had a difficult time getting the Feds to take gun cases, though I do have a recent success story on that front. My recollection is that under Obama's DOJ in a different part of the state which was mentioned in another member's post, the local USA was disinterested in gun cases period despite an agreement between the office I worked for and his office for referrals for prosecution (we'd get maybe one out of every hundred referrals taken up). I don't know if that climate is changed under Trump and Sessions.

In my state it is a crime for a felon to possess a handgun (class E felony, 1-6 years). It is not a crime for them to possess a long gun unless they have a felony drug conviction or a violent felony conviction. The plus side is that, thanks to a recent law change, it is a class B felony (8-30) for a felon with a violent prior and a class C (3-15) felony for a felon with a drug prior, regardless of whether it is a handgun or a long gun. The latter two charges are non-probatable, thankfully. Thanks to our lack of truth in sentencing, however, those big scary numbers get shaved down to a fraction of the actual sentence once in DOC custody.

In my happy recent example from ATF, the individual was on parole for agg assault on a police officer and in possession of a rifle and a handgun plus a significant amount of ammo and a ski mask and was likely on his way to do some gangbanger shit at the time he was caught. The ATF guy I spoke with gave me a realistic estimate of 4-6 years based on his history. Better than the 2.5-3.6 he'd actually do if I got what I wanted. Furthermore, had that law change not occurred last summer, I'd only have him on an E felony for the Glock he threw out the window. I am aware of some rather violent people who were previously let go with AKs in the trunk. In my opinion the long gun thing needs to be changed, but the legislature seems uninterested in taking it up.

By policy we don't get to bargain away things like possession of a handgun in a dangerous felony, which is a happy little non-probatable charge which must run consecutive to whatever underlying dangerous felony we convict them of. My boss takes a dim view of drug dealers with guns.

We're doing large amounts of federal gun cases on our end of the state with our USAO. We're bringing new cases to them on a weekly basis. I've recently been tasked with bring back Project Safe Neighborhoods at my department with the USAO to help increase gun prosecutions even more. They've made a couple of us "firearms expert", so we can testify to the interstate nexus of the firearm with out getting the ATF involved.

However, with our local DA's office, possession of a handgun during a dangerous felony will get dropped every time, along with any other non-probatable charge.

[BJJ]

I support gun ownership by law abiding citizens. I also support enforcing the law when someone is a violent felon in possession of a firearm. I do not consider someone who has an armed robbery conviction and is in possession of a firearm to be a “low level offender.” I guess they are in the sense that they are not El Chapo, but if you or your loved is the one who gets shot by them, it will be cold comfort that they were a “low level offender.”

If I understand correctly, the NYT is rabidly anti gun, advocates for more gun laws, but doesn’t want people arrested for illegally possessing guns? Am I missing something or does that make absolutely no sense?

My experience with state prosecutions as a police officer is the following:

1) Felon convicted of robbery, aggravated assaault, etc gets arrested for possesssion of a firearm.
2) The wise D.A. makes the following offer: forfeit the firearm, plead guilty to misdemeanor weapon possession, 11 months/29 days on probation with no jail time.
3) Felon decides that sounds pretty good and takes the deal
4). Not all the time but often enough, while the felon is on probation for the felony charge pled down to a misdemeanor, they shoot, kill or rob someone with a gun. If they had been in jail they would not have been free to do that.

My experience with the feds picking up felon in possession of a firearm cases is that the feds were very serious about prosecuting these cases and the offenders did some real time.

One case that I had go federal was from a domestic violence call. The felon threatened his girlfriend and her 12 year old son with a gun while he was drunk. He would not let them leave the house but the 12 year old managed to run away and call police . The felon had several armed robbery convictions that were 15 to 20 years old. The girlfriend and the 12 year old were both scared shitless. What do you think they would say about this guy being a “low level offender?” He was looking at something like 15 years federal time. It would have been much, much less time at the state level. If prosecuting a guy like that isn’t a priority, when does it become a priority?

Sorry if this seems like a rant.

[Chuck Haggard]

We used the felon in possession cases to good effect here in the '90s, one of the tools that helped us shut down some very serious criminals.

[scw2]

If I understand correctly, the NYT is rabidly anti gun, advocates for more gun laws, but doesn’t want people arrested for illegally possessing guns? Am I missing something or does that make absolutely no sense?

It's almost as if they really don't care about making people safer when they spout off about common sense gun reforms, especially if it seems to work really well for certain politically favored in-groups...

[ssb]

We're doing large amounts of federal gun cases on our end of the state with our USAO. We're bringing new cases to them on a weekly basis. I've recently been tasked with bring back Project Safe Neighborhoods at my department with the USAO to help increase gun prosecutions even more. They've made a couple of us "firearms expert", so we can testify to the interstate nexus of the firearm with out getting the ATF involved.

However, with our local DA's office, possession of a handgun during a dangerous felony will get dropped every time, along with any other non-probatable charge.

All prosecution is local. For better or worse, given the state of our laws, sometimes the best way to put somebody in prison is to put them on probation and call their sentence into execution a few months down the road when they violate.

I should clarify my "we don't get to bargain away..." statement: we have a policy guideline which states that we are not do that. We can deviate from that guideline (and others), but we must have a justifiable written reason. "He won't plead to a to-serve sentence" is not a justifiable reason and will draw attention. We likewise have guidelines for any sale of drugs (must include some jail time, second or subsequent must be a DOC sentence), any crime involving violence with a weapon or a threat of same, and guidelines for various classifications of offenders (Range II or above must be a to-serve sentence even if the range is reduced for bargaining purposes).

Glad to see your people are cooperating on the Federal gun stuff. I will say that in my area I have not personally had to deal with many of them yet, so I don't have much of a basis for comparison apart from the word of more senior prosecutors. The current USA for the area where I once worked is a good man and I believe he'll do things a little different with regards to taking up gun cases.