How about, instead of treating law-abiding gun owners as criminals, we treat the criminals like criminals?
Dori is rarely optimistic about anything coming from Olympia, but one bill being proposed by State Representative Mike Hope is getting Dori excited: a proposed registry for violent offenders involved in gun crimes.
Mike came on The Dori Monson Show to explain a bill he says targets the real criminals, not responsible, law-abiding gun owners.
“The person has already had to have committed a violent felony with a firearm. And that’s the type of person we’ll be going after,” said Mike.
Mike says the law requires these felons to register on a list much like the sex offender registry. If the person fails to register or fails to update their address, police officers can arrest them. That would give them probable cause to search the offender’s residence and find any illegal guns they might have.
Similar programs have already been implemented in Baltimore, Washington, DC, and New York City. But this law would be the first state-wide program of its kind.
“What we’re seeing with Baltimore is that there was a common denominator that, when you look at their numbers, sticks out,” said Mike. “Ninety-six percent of all of the homicide suspects that have used a firearm had a prior firearm gun offense.”
Mike cites statistics from New York and Baltimore that back up the effectiveness of the law in bringing down the murder rate. In 2007, a year after New York passed tougher laws on illegal guns, the murder rate went down 17 percent.
Representative Hope isn’t just thinking from a policy-standpoint, but from a practical standpoint; Mike spends his time away from Olympia serving with the Seattle Police Department.
A list of violent criminals that is easy to access? Having their name and photo up where the world can search it? Like, OMG!
Certainly, the progressives would prefer that it was just the law abiding gun owners on a website. Thankfully, they can’t do that in Washington State.
Not too sure about this one. If it is limited to criminals who get put on the list because they commit actual violent gun offenses (not something like a victimless crime, paper-work violation, or a domestic abuse accusation for which there is no actual evidence other then the spouse claiming “he was waving a gun around” for legal/divorce posturing), and was done in a way that could not be turned into a registry for lots of other, more problematic things, then I might consider it. But if a person is too dangerous to be on the streets, and needs to be tracked, why isn’t he in jail? If it gets expanded too much, then with so many people getting listed it become meaningless.
It’s one of those things that makes me think it sounds like too much is being promised for too little, and triggers the automatic “what’s the catch?” reflex.
It’s only going to work if the data-management resources are there to make it work.
It’s only going to work if softie judges can’t make the extra time for the offense run concurrent with time for other crimes, or suspend that sentence.
It’s only going to work if it can be displayed to the public in graphical manner, say, on a Google Map.
In other words, it’s only going to work if the justice system wants it to work. Given the current directorate of the justice system, that does not look likely.
Sorry about the failed boldening attempt, Phil. I’m not ready for HTML.
So, if I violate a magazine ban, like in NY, and become a felon, I go on the list. Swell.
This isn’t helping our cause. We have *WAY* too many laws. We need to get rid of laws and stop making up useless feel good ones.
And Rivrdog wins the cupie doll for seeing the biggest hole in the idea.
I am not saying it is a “great” idea, just that if they are going to start making lists, this one should come before a list of people who purchase firearms, which is what they want.
Don’t worry. As long as politicians are allowed to keep making lists, eventually they will make that one too. First they came for sex offenders…
I would prefer fewer laws on the books also. It would be nice if we could amend the Constitution (State or US, preferably both) to put a hard cap on the number of laws that could be on the books at any one time. You want a new law? Find one to repeal. Oh, and no silly riders and extra totally unrelated nonsense. Your law had better focus on a specific issue.
Alternately, I would be OK with an automatic sunset amendment, a law lasts ten or a dozen years, you compare actual results with the stated intent of the law (included in writing when the bill is voted on) and if the intent was not met, buh bye law.