Supreme Court upholds 5-year mandatory sentence for gun possession

[SerriaFox]

From wikipedia: Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force and/or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.

If the store personal see the gun it can be construed as putting fear in the victim. If it is concealed completely, but your caught "red-handed" at the crime scene the gun would enhancement would apply. But might not be consider robbery if the store personal did not see the gun.

 

[JollyRoger]

JR,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Regardless of what the 2A does or does not allow why do you, personally, want such broad gun rights?

I am generally for more freedom than less. I grew up with a gun nut and learned to shoot a muzzleloader at age 7, which makes me more open to gun rights than the typical American liberal. Being a liberal however, I don't stop where most gun nuts stop - my idea of shall not be infringed extends beyond theirs when it comes to such things as the right of ex-felons to carry.

I can also accept some compromises (super licenses for campuses rather than standard licenses, for example).

 

[emzie]

From wikipedia: Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force and/or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.

If the store personal see the gun it can be construed as putting fear in the victim. If it is concealed completely, but your caught "red-handed" at the crime scene the gun would enhancement would apply. But might not be consider robbery if the store personal did not see the gun.

Then charge the person with intimidation, that is a crime you know. Hell, change the law quoted in the OP to be intimidation by use of a lethal instrument during the commission of a crime and I won't object.

 

[Cutlass]

From wikipedia: Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force and/or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.

If the store personal see the gun it can be construed as putting fear in the victim. If it is concealed completely, but your caught "red-handed" at the crime scene the gun would enhancement would apply. But might not be consider robbery if the store personal did not see the gun.

Shoplifting is taking an item from a store and concealing it and sneaking out. It has no resemblance to armed robbery.

 

[GhostWriter16]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/11/a-day-for-criminal-law/

Looks like gun grabbing is back in force at the Supreme Court. In an 8-0 decision, the Court upheld a law that infringes mere possession by imposing a mandatory five year sentence for posession. Note that the punishment is for possession. The underlying crime is punished separately. Mere possession of the gun is needed to trigger the mandatory five year sentence rather than actual use of the gun in the crime. At least Justice Kagan had the good sense to recuse herself from the case.

That's crap.

If it were using the gun to commit the crime, even if the gun wasn't fired, or actually carrying the gun while committing a crime, that's fine. But possession has nothing to do with it.

And, drug crimes, what do they have to do with guns anyway? Not to mention that the idea that taking any drug is a crime is abhorrent.

 

[SerriaFox]

If the clerk who see the shoplifting also see a gun, even if partially concealed not actively used, it is robbery.

 

[JollyRoger]

If the clerk who see the shoplifting also see a gun, even if partially concealed not actively used, it is robbery.

No it is not. You would have to prove intent to exert force or the threat of force by the gun possessor.

 

[Cutlass]

If the clerk who see the shoplifting also see a gun, even if partially concealed not actively used, it is robbery.

Not even remotely close to reality.

 

[Behind The Mask]

No it is not. You would have to prove intent to exert force or the threat of force by the gun possessor.

I'm pretty sure if their intent on making off with the goods they're willing to exert whatever means they can to escape with it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not even remotely close to reality.

It is ROBBERY. Robbery is stealing something, period, by definition.

It may not be ARMED ROBBERY though. Not sure what they'd consider it in that case.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm pretty sure if their intent on making off with the goods they're willing to exert whatever means they can to escape with it.

You don't know that. Speculation.

 

[Behind The Mask]

You don't know that. Speculation.

You could also speculate that I carry condoms around because I expect random school children to run up to me asking for balloon animals.

You'd be wrong but you can speculate that all you like.

Our you could consider the more reasonable option...

Point is if you go through the trouble bringing a gun to the scene of your planned crime, I'm willing to bet their is a possibility that its because it could very well be used rather then he was taking it for a walk and saw the poor thing was hungry and decided to steal a chocolate bar for it.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm pretty sure if their intent on making off with the goods they're willing to exert whatever means they can to escape with it.

Speculation that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Speculation that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

(See The Above Post)

Again, you can speculate on everything, what is left though in this case can be one rather silly reason, and another more likely one.

Thats just my feeling on the matter; I respect your stance on the 2A (I'm not really against, actually quite for it) however in some circumstances I do believe a line has to be drawn somewhere and this is one of those places I feel it is reasonable to draw it.

 

[lovexylitol]

So if you're smoking a marjuana cigarette (aka a joint) and have a gun on you, you could spend 5 years in jail? Plus whatever other time you'd get for the joint?

I think that is one way to put it.

On the other hand, if you are smoking marijuana while DEA tries to arrest you, and you have a gun, that does mean something to the officers. An officer busting people with guns should not and would not assume them as the same level as people with no guns.

And also, why would a person smoking a marijuana cigarette carry a gun for?

 

[Karalysia]

Mandatory minimums are an abomination which destroy judicial freedom.

 

[Berzerker]

Robbers don't want to be robbed?

No, well yes I imagine they dont wanna be robbed either, but drug dealers (and many people with valuable stuff) carry guns because they dont want to be robbed - this law actually punishes people for self defense. Its one of those obvious consequences of the drug war prohibitionists dont tell us when preaching and legislating their hatred of freedom. If drugs are made extremely valuable by prohibition, more people fight over them.

Case in point: Nixon's war on the pot smoking anti-war hippies led to increased trafficking in cocaine and heroin - highly concentrated, easier to hide and more valuable than gold because of prohibition - and that led to the cocaine wars. In the 80s Reagan and Congress followed by many states (not Kansas ) seriously upped the punishments for adults in the drug trade. The result was an explosion in gang recruitment in major cities of minors who were not subject to the penalties and expansion of those gangs across the country. Crime went up, in many places the kids could make more money than mom and dad, or working at McDonalds... Hell, many moms and dads were sitting in jail for drugs already.

.... I wonder if this counts for things like shoplifting?

I think this case is about federal law, Congress doesn't make it illegal to shoplift within state jurisdiction. But it certainly could, the states could call that possession of a gun during the commission of another crime. It'd be very unwise to be packing heat while shoplifting, that could lead to an armed robbery charge real fast

 

[Berzerker]

On the other hand, if you are smoking marijuana while DEA tries to arrest you, and you have a gun, that does mean something to the officers. An officer busting people with guns should not and would not assume them as the same level as people with no guns.

True, more caution becomes warranted - but neither is a crime. No victim, no intended victim, no malice of any kind, just someone with a gun and smoking pot. If anyone is the criminal, its the politicians and police who are violently interfering in other people's pursuit of happiness.

And also, why would a person smoking a marijuana cigarette carry a gun for?

For fun? We used to go out to the California desert loaded down with booze and pot and...so on and so on, and shoot guns. Nobody got shot in the face with birdshot or anything

 

[Camikaze]

Why not an added five years for possessing a knife? Gun supporters have me believe that a knife is just as dangerous, so why shouldn't the penalty be just a great? I sense inconsistency.

This does seem rather ridiculous, though. It would make sense to add five years to a sentence if a gun was used a part of a crime, but a mandatory five years for possession is missing the mark.

 

[Masada]

Five years for a pen, the SAS has me believing that those are as dangerous, if not more-so, than guns.