In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Legislative Updates(MA)
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Massachusetts Legislative Update
As gun owners and sportsmen are aware, your NRA-ILA and Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) have been working with the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety in an attempt to draft a bill that makes positive reforms to our gun laws. NRA-ILA and Gun Owners Action League ask you to show your support for the positive changes to gun laws outlined in the reformed version of H.1087. Call Speaker of the House Tom Finneran (617-722-2500), Senate President Thomas Birmingham (617-722-1500), and your Representative (617-722-2000) and urge them to support the reformed version of H.1087. http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=375
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
As gun owners and sportsmen are aware, your NRA-ILA and Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) have been working with the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety in an attempt to draft a bill that makes positive reforms to our gun laws. NRA-ILA and Gun Owners Action League ask you to show your support for the positive changes to gun laws outlined in the reformed version of H.1087. Call Speaker of the House Tom Finneran (617-722-2500), Senate President Thomas Birmingham (617-722-1500), and your Representative (617-722-2000) and urge them to support the reformed version of H.1087. http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=375
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Mon Jun 24,10:46 AM ET
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that judges can lengthen the prison sentences of people who use guns while committing other crimes, even if the defendant hasn't been convicted of any charge specifically involving the weapon.
With the 5-4 decision, justices avoided a ruling that could have threatened prison sentences of thousands of inmates and put in doubt sentencing laws in nearly every state.
At issue was federal prosecutors' practice of winning convictions for crimes such as drug dealing, then having a judge consider stiffer sentences because weapons were involved.
The Supreme Court said judges can decide whether defendants used guns in their crimes, using a lesser proof standard than juries.
The case, involving a former pawn shop operator, had called into question mandatory minimum sentences nationwide. Circumstances of a crime dictate the lowest sentence a judge can give.
Every state has some type of minimum sentencing system, and 24 states had urged the Supreme Court to rule as it did.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said "not all facts affecting the defendant's punishment are elements" which must be proven by a jury.
Justices upheld the seven-year prison sentence given William Joseph Harris, who pleaded guilty in 1999 to selling marijuana out of his pawn shop in Albemarle, N.C. He was wearing a pistol in a hip holster, his usual practice at the store.
Because of the weapon, a judge said Harris was also guilty of brandishing a gun while engaged in drug trafficking and gave him the Congress-mandated sentence of seven years in prison.
Justices ruled two years ago that allegations that bring harsher penalties must be put in an indictment and proven to a jury.
The Supreme Court handled three follow-up cases this year - involving death penalty convictions, drug cases and crimes with guns.
In the drug case, justices limited appeals of people who received longer sentences when a judge, instead of a jury, determined that the amount of drugs involved was enough for a longer sentence. The court said in cases decided before 2000, defendants had to object at trial.
In the most closely watched of the three cases, the court ruled Monday that juries, not judges, must impose the death penalty.
In a dissent in the gun case, Justice Clarence Thomas ( news - web sites) said prosecutors were wrong not to include the weapon allegation in Harris' indictment.
Joining Thomas were Justices John Paul Stevens ( news - web sites), David Souter ( news - web sites) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ( news - web sites).
The states that intervened in this case are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia.
The cases are Harris v. United States, 00-10666 and United States v. Cotton, 01-687, and Ring v. Arizona, 01-488.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=4&cid=514&u=/ap/20020624/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sentences_6
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Bob Pope, organizer of Bob Pope's Gun Shows, publicly announced his endorsement of United States Senate candidate Lamar Alexander.
"Lamar Alexander is right on guns, that's why I'm endorsing him to be our next Senator from the state of Tennessee," said Pope. "Fred Thompson is a friend to the gun owner and Lamar Alexander is just like him."
Alexander attended the Bob Pope Gun Show in Smyrna, Tenn., on Saturday where Pope and Alexander addressed approximately 2,000 attendees.
"Gun owners know we've got to beat Bob Clement in November and Lamar is the best prepared candidate to do that. Make your vote count, vote for Lamar Alexander," Pope told the crowd.
"I appreciate the support from Bob Pope, one of the best known and respected gun enthusiasts in Tennessee," said Alexander.
"I am a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights. As Governor, I protected Second Amendment rights by enacting the Class X crime bill to place stiff penalties on those who commit a crime with a gun. Criminals - not guns - cause crimes."
Alexander also noted that he believes the 1994 federal ban on guns and magazines should be repealed or allowed to sunset.
Bob Pope's Gun Shows are the largest gun shows in Tennessee. Pope has been in the gun business for more than 25 years. In 1975, he opened Gun World in LaVergne, Tenn., and throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Pope promoted the Nashville Gun Show.
Alexander is a candidate in the August 1 Republican primary for the seat being vacated by Senator Fred Thompson.
http://www.alexanderforsenate.com/News.asp?FormMode=Release&ID=78
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
6/24/02 1:46 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that judges can lengthen the prison sentences of people who use guns while committing other crimes, even if the defendant hasn't been convicted of any charge specifically involving the weapon.
With the 5-4 decision, justices avoided a ruling that could have threatened prison sentences of thousands of inmates and put in doubt sentencing laws in nearly every state.
At issue was federal prosecutors' practice of winning convictions for crimes such as drug dealing, then having a judge consider stiffer sentences because weapons were involved.
The Supreme Court said judges can decide whether defendants used guns in their crimes, using a lesser proof standard than juries.
The case, involving a former pawn shop operator, had called into question mandatory minimum sentences nationwide. Circumstances of a crime dictate the lowest sentence a judge can give.
Every state has some type of minimum sentencing system, and 24 states had urged the Supreme Court to rule as it did.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said "not all facts affecting the defendant's punishment are elements" which must be proven to a jury. He said this case involved a sentencing factor.
"These facts, though stigmatizing and punitive, have been the traditional domain of judges," Kennedy wrote.
Stephen Halbrook, a defense attorney in Fairfax, Va., said the court is "allowing the whittling away of the right to a jury trial in a dramatic way."
"They think that by calling it a sentencing factor, they can make an end-run around the right to jury trials," he said.
Kent Scheidegger, an attorney for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said the decision avoids a "colossal upheaval of our sentencing laws and endless litigation."
Justices upheld the seven-year prison sentence given William Joseph Harris, who pleaded guilty in 1999 to selling marijuana out of his pawn shop in Albemarle, N.C. He was wearing a pistol in a hip holster, his usual practice at the store.
Because of the weapon, a judge said Harris was also guilty of brandishing a gun while engaged in drug trafficking and gave him the Congress-mandated sentence of seven years in prison.
Justices ruled two years ago that allegations that bring harsher penalties must be put in an indictment and proven to a jury.
The Supreme Court handled three follow-up cases this year -- involving death penalty convictions, drug cases and crimes with guns.
In the drug case, justices limited appeals of people who received longer sentences when a judge, instead of a jury, determined that the amount of drugs involved was enough for a longer sentence. The court said in cases decided before 2000, defendants had to object at trial.
In the most closely watched of the three cases, the court ruled Monday that juries, not judges, must impose the death penalty.
In a dissent in the gun case, Justice Clarence Thomas said prosecutors were wrong not to include the weapon allegation in Harris' indictment.
Joining Thomas were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The states that intervened in this case are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia.
The cases are Harris v. United States, 00-10666 and United States v. Cotton, 01-687, and Ring v. Arizona, 01-488.
http://www.nj.com/newsflash/washington/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0631_BC_Scotus-Sentences&&news&newsflash-washington
Copyright 2002 Associated
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
AP
The Supreme Court building, Washington D.C.
Monday, June 24, 2002
WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that judges can lengthen the prison sentences of people who use guns while committing other crimes, even if the defendant hasn't been convicted of any charge specifically involving the weapon.
With the 5-4 decision, justices avoided a ruling that could have threatened prison sentences of thousands of inmates and put in doubt sentencing laws in nearly every state.
At issue was federal prosecutors' practice of winning convictions for crimes such as drug dealing, then having a judge consider stiffer sentences because weapons were involved.
The Supreme Court said judges can decide whether defendants used guns in their crimes, using a lesser proof standard than juries.
The case, involving a former pawn shop operator, had called into question mandatory minimum sentences nationwide. Circumstances of a crime dictate the lowest sentence a judge can give.
Every state has some type of minimum sentencing system, and 24 states had urged the Supreme Court to rule as it did.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said "not all facts affecting the defendant's punishment are elements" which must be proven by a jury.
Justices upheld the seven-year prison sentence given William Joseph Harris, who pleaded guilty in 1999 to selling marijuana out of his pawn shop in Albemarle, N.C. He was wearing a pistol in a hip holster, his usual practice at the store.
Because of the weapon, a judge said Harris was also guilty of brandishing a gun while engaged in drug trafficking and gave him the Congress-mandated sentence of seven years in prison.
Justices ruled two years ago that allegations that bring harsher penalties must be put in an indictment and proven to a jury.
The Supreme Court handled three follow-up cases this year -- involving death penalty convictions, drug cases and crimes with guns.
In the drug case, justices limited appeals of people who received longer sentences when a judge, instead of a jury, determined that the amount of drugs involved was enough for a longer sentence. The court said in cases decided before 2000, defendants had to object at trial.
In the most closely watched of the three cases, the court ruled Monday that juries, not judges, must impose the death penalty.
In a dissent in the gun case, Justice Clarence Thomas said prosecutors were wrong not to include the weapon allegation in Harris' indictment.
Joining Thomas were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The states that intervened in this case are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia.
The cases are Harris v. United States, 00-10666 and United States v. Cotton, 01-687, and Ring v. Arizona, 01-488.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56062,00.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Susan Helen Moran
for United Press International
From the Think Tanks & Research Desk
Published 6/18/2002 5:38 PM
View printer-friendly version
WASHINGTON, June 18 (UPI) -- Project Safe Neighborhood, which was created by President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft and promises tougher federal enforcement of existing state firearm laws, violates the U.S. Constitution and can lead to serious miscarriages of justice, according to a policy analyst and attorney with an influential Washington think tank.
Analysts at some think tanks agree with the conclusions of the study, "There Goes the Neighborhood," released by the libertarian Cato Institute. Others say the arguments of Gene Healy, the report's author, are unfounded and based on a narrow political agenda.
No one, however, disputes the far-reaching effect of the "Safe Neighborhood" plan. About $230 million is being spent on it in 2002, and another $200 is million is planned for 2003, to hire and train at least 113 new assistant U.S. attorneys and 580 state and local attorneys exclusively to prosecute firearm violations. The new assistant U.S. attorneys will coordinate the effort with state and local prosecutors in each of the 94 federal judicial districts across the country.
In his report, Healy argues that Project Safe Neighborhood flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution's Tenth Amendment, which enumerates the federal government's powers and states that all other powers not mentioned there will be left up to the states or the people to determine.
"The Constitution provides an exceedingly slender grant of authority over criminal law," enumerating only three crimes that are federal: counterfeiting, piracy, and treason," Healy says.
Safe Neighborhood brings with it a host of troubling consequences, says Healy. "Project Safe Neighborhood's federalization of crime ... distract(s) the federal courts by greatly exacerbating the strain on the court system," he says. Under Project Exile -- the prototype program for Project Safe Neighborhood -- "the number of civil trials has decreased (in federal court) to make way for a growing number of criminal cases, often run-of-the-mill crimes traditionally handled by the states," he says.
Under Project Safe Neighborhood, Congress can circumvent Constitutional limits, says Healy. By giving the states $75 million to hire and train the 580 new state and local prosecutors, Congress, not the states, is in charge because the funding is available only if it is used to hire the prosecutors who pursue gun law violations full-time.
"By employing spending power, Congress can direct the administration of state-level criminal justice ... and dictate prosecution of virtually any crime within the ambit of state police powers," says Healy. Here the separation of state and federal authority, as stated in the Constitution, is endangered, he says.
Healy says that Project Safe Neighborhood prosecutors now have the monetary incentive from the federal government to focus on the numbers and to indict and convict regardless of a case's merit, which leads to "assembly line justice," says Healy. "The incentive structure that Safe Neighborhoods sets up will lead to the proliferation of 'garbage' gun charges -- technical violations of firearms statutes on which no sensible prosecutor would expend his energy," he says.
Even worse, Healy believes, are the "appalling miscarriages of justice" for individuals. In April 1999, for instance, Brian Ford went to into a Fairfax County, Va., pawnshop to hock a Civil War era rifle for $35. A few weeks later, due to a police background check, Ford was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm because of previous convictions for burglary.
"Had his case gone to federal court, he would have faced extensive jail time," writes Healy. "But Fairfax did not have a federal Project Exile program (at the time), so the jury was free to recommend a $1,250 fine and no jail time."
Allowing prosecutors to determine the court -- federal or state -- in which an individual will be tried also causes severe problems, says Healy.
"In some cases, federal prosecutors have deliberately used Project Exile to secure a jury with a different racial composition than would otherwise be available at the state level," says Healy. "In Richmond, Va., where Project Exile was first implemented, the jury pool for the state-level circuit court is approximately 75 percent African American. In contrast, the jury pool for the Eastern District of Virginia, from which federal criminal cases are drawn in the Richmond area, is only about 10 percent African American," according to the report.
"Federalizing street crimes offends our Constitutional separation of powers and damages the federal and local justice systems by clogging federal courts with individual small-time criminal cases," says Andres Soto, policy director of the Pacific Center for Violence Prevention in San Francisco. The center, which is part of the Trauma Foundation at San Francisco General Hospital, addresses causes of youth violence.
A letter cited in Healy's report, from Richard L. Williams, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Richmond, to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist, confirms Soto's point: "Project Exile 'transformed (our court) into a minor-grade police court,'" it says.
"These tactics also create a false impression of state courts being incapable of handling serious crime," Soto adds.
"If you look at the (state) court records (in Richmond before Project Exile) prosecutors have had good reasons not to prosecute," says John Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Lott agrees with Healy that Safe Neighborhoods give the wrong incentives to prosecutors. "You have ... the local government getting benefits without bearing the costs," says Lott. When federal monetary incentives are used to control state or local agencies, they often do not work as intended, he says.
Analysts at several other organizations disagree with Healy, including think tanks and lobbying groups with very different political tilts, such the liberal Progressive Policy Institute, the National Rifle Association, and Handgun Control, Inc.
"Instead of chasing gun makers into court, this administration is going to chase violent criminals into prison," said James Jay Baker, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Affairs, in his speech at the organization's 2002 annual meeting. "Attorney General Ashcroft ... is going to run the system as Congress intended, so that only criminals, not honest citizens, are denied access to firearms," he said. "We welcome his move to take Project Exile nationwide. It is a move long advocated by this organization," he said.
"The Supreme Court has looked at all these (possession) statutes over the years, and I don't think (Safe Neighborhoods) is (causing) a Constitutional crisis," says Sean Kirkendalo, director of government relations for PSComm, LLC. "Over the long haul, the idea is to turn the effort back to the states," says Kirkendalo, who works on policy issues with John Cohen, director of the Progressive Policy Institute's Community Crime Fighting Project.
Instead, Kirkendalo worries that Safe Neighborhoods is not adequately publicized. Project Exile's success was based largely on its publicity campaign, he says. Billboards along highways in Richmond warned potential violators: "Illegal gun possession gets you five years in federal prison."
When he announced Project Safe Neighborhoods, Attorney General Ashcroft made a strong case for its effectiveness: "Since 1997, when Project Exile was begun in Richmond, homicides have dropped 48 percent, the lowest level since 1983," he said.
Healy, however, finds even this argument unconvincing. "Gun-related homicides and other violent crime dropped significantly all across the country during the same time period (from 1997 to 1999), and criminologists do not agree about the cause of that decline," he says. "If a more aggressive crime control effort would bring substantial benefits, there is absolutely no reason that it cannot be undertaken by state law enforcement personnel," he says.
Healy believes the president should withdraw his support for Project Safe Neighborhoods and adhere to his campaign promise to "respect federalism and the Tenth Amendment."
"Federal, state and local resources are better spent supporting violence prevention efforts and comprehensive regulation of firearm manufacture and distribution, than on the costly and ineffective federal prosecution of individual gun crimes," says Amy Fairweather, co-author with Soto of a study on Project Exile, and an attorney with the Pacific Center for Violence Prevention.
"Promising federal programs include federal financial aid for community-based violence prevention programs, a uniform database of firearm death and injury ... and regulatory oversight of gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers," says Fairweather.
Copyright c 2002 United Press International http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=18062002-051624-4210r
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878