Gun laws are easyer to pass than enforce

[Plane]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pastor-who-won-ar-15-rifle-raffle-wont-be-charged/ar-BBwfMSZ?ocid=UE12DHP


Ok so the new law is intended to do something , but as soon as it is broken the police realize that it is a waste of time to try to enforce.


    Would you really want people locked up for transferring possession of a firearm without a background check?

    What if your house is flooded or burned or otherwise damaged , if you give your guns to someone with safer storage while your house is collapsed , you have broken this law.

   What if you are a criminal with stolen guns to sell , you are definitely going to break this law , but you have already broken several others so what was the point?

[Xavier_Onassis]

All laws are easier to pass than to enforce.
I can think of no exceptions.

One assumes that judges are smart enough to interpret the spirit of a law and its effect on society before any trial and/or sentence.

[sirs]

"Spirit of the" law is not for Judges.  WORDS of the law are.  "Spirit" is subjective, and can mean anything to anyone.  That's why you have LEGISLATORS to work out the words, and deal with whatever politically correct spirit is present.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Exhibit your ignorance, sirs. Perhaps there is a contest on.

[Plane]

All laws are easier to pass than to enforce.
I can think of no exceptions.

Ok then why pass a law that is not enforceable at all.

[kimba1]

I always thought judge does both spirit and word of the law. It pretty much why he got the job.thier are things the wording of the law can do cover. Example circumstances that to save a life laws needs to be broken like speeding and ignore traffic laws.

[sirs]

You'll not find one Judicial Application reference "spirit" as a job description

[Plane]

  Tricky isn't it?

     Judges are people too and we want them to be chosen for their good judgment.

      Then we do as much as we can to limit their discretion with mandatory minimums and automatic sentences.

        When a few Judges make bad decisions and punish too lightly , it gets famous and legislatures try to reduce the freedom of Judges to determine sentences .

      But legislators are people too and are even further from the action than the Judge.


    In this case , prosecutors and police have a clear infraction of a silly law that iis at best redundant and is probably useless.  So will legislators endeavor to force the Police and prosecutors to bring cases and then bind judges to sentences?

      This is like many other anti-gun laws , poorly thought out.

[Plane]

https://youtu.be/zCJJxJ1LlEM


Chelsea kicks her mothers discretion.


With Hillary working hard at saying less than half of what she means, Daughter steps forward and spills the beans.

[Xavier_Onassis]

calling a random bunch of  gun owners a Constitutionally legal "well organized militia" is an interpretation based on the supposed "spirit" of the law.

[sirs]

No one is calling them that

[kimba1]

But I think a job description can only handle word of the law. So in spirit would not be covered. But either way can be open to abuse and harm.

I prefer word of law but understand a need for spirit of the law.

[Plane]

But I think a job description can only handle word of the law. So in spirit would not be covered. But either way can be open to abuse and harm.

I prefer word of law but understand a need for spirit of the law.

Well said.


In this case I think that both the word and the sprit of this particular law , is too flawed to allow realistic enforcement.

[Plane]

calling a random bunch of  gun owners a Constitutionally legal "well organized militia" is an interpretation based on the supposed "spirit" of the law.

I see the well organized militia as constitutionally mandated , and is missing.

[sirs]

You would be in error however, Plane.  The context of the 2nd amendment provides that the Government is in charge of the "well regulated" version defense for this country, currently our military & national guard.  The unregulated portion is the rest of us.  Let's review the 2nd amendment, in its entirety: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, let's apply the context via analogy.....While a well balanced breakfast, being necessary for a good diet and beginning to a day, the right of the people to eat twinkies shall not be infringed

Now, that doesn't mean to say our 2nd amendment right amounts to being able to eat twinkies.  The point is in the context of the 2nd amendment, we, the people, are not mandated to be part of anything "well regulated".  That's simply a good idea to have on top of the 2nd amendment, which we have.  The right of the people in exercising their 2nd amendment right does not require being well regulated, nor shall be infringed