Lets do some serious talking about gun laws.

How often is a grand jury used in Kansas? Nice try. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Every time there is a felony charged, unless the Defendant waives the indictment!
(I notice in Kansas it's an option not a mandate. In Texas its a mandate and many others as well.)


U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment

Learn more...

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;.....

No wonder you are struggling with something constructive to suggest in the way of further burdening this country more more "gun laws"!

You still haven't mastered the 2nd Amendment, so the 5th amendment is a ways off for you, I can see.

Or are you just interested in "gun laws" that apply to Kansas?

Four bills went before the Senate today. Three would have had no effect on the attack in Orlando. One would have maybe prevented the shooter from LEGALLY buying guns but would have prevented many other innocent people from buying guns as well. One bill, by Senator Cornyn of Texas (R) may have actually done some good but the democrats voted it down. That last would have established a three day waiting period by local authorities on anyone that they thought might have questionable motives.

So when it comes to the politics of gun control, the democrats are opposed to common sense gun laws....

Four bills went before the Senate today. Three would have had no effect on the attack in Orlando. One would have maybe prevented the shooter from LEGALLY buying guns but would have prevented many other innocent people from buying guns as well. One bill, by Senator Cornyn of Texas (R) may have actually done some good but the democrats voted it down. That last would have established a three day waiting period by local authorities on anyone that they thought might have questionable motives.

So when it comes to the politics of gun control, the democrats are opposed to common sense gun laws.... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

He would have just gotten his wife to buy it for him. Remember the couple in San Bernadino had a "friend" buy them guns. What happened to the friend?

I get tired of the "gun show loophole" argument. Come down to a gun show and try to buy a gun inside the hall. Why don't they talk about the "Chicago from the trunk of my caddy loophole?"

They can't find and round up 11 million illegal aliens, but they can ban and confiscate 300 million guns?

The only people whose guns will be confiscated are law abiding citizens.

In 25 years, I defended only one person indicted by a grand jury, and that was a federal case. It's rarely used here.

They can't find and round up 11 million illegal aliens, but they can ban and confiscate 300 million guns?

The only people whose guns will be confiscated are law abiding citizens. Originally Posted by Jackie S

When they start the free citizenship and the give aways, they'll find 22 million illegals.

In 25 years, I defended only one person indicted by a grand jury, and that was a federal case. It's rarely used here. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What does that have to do with "gun control" .... ?

All it does for your suggestion is it allows a Judge to determine PC? That can be done with an indictment in the form of a motion to dismiss based on the lack of evidence to support an element of the offense.

Since you have "defended" numerous cases then it is appalling that you would suggest a "negligence" level of conduct to support a conviction for "facilitating" the commission of a capital murder. Even "criminal negligence" should not be the basis for the charge of "facilitating" the commission of a capital murder.

Texas Penal Code § 46.13. Making a Firearm Accessible to XXXX.

It's a misdemeanor even if someone is killed. But under the Model Penal code, upon which both Texas and Kansas (and most of the other states) base their general concepts of penal code violations, "criminal negligence" offenses are generally "misdemeanors" ....

.. and if you read the statute, which comes about as close to what you proposed you can see "a problem" with shifting the criminal liability to the gun owner/possessor. See "affirmative defenses."

And since you have extensive experience in jury trials in murder and aggravated assault cases in which a firearm was used you have personal knowledge of the difficulty of convincing a jury that your clients were not even "negligent" and/or the weapon was "stolen" (as opposed to be sold).

What happens is .... the weapon is confiscated and retained "as evidence" and it is equally likely that a "protective" order would be entered prohibiting the defendant from acquiring and/or possessing a firearm until a "final" adjudicating of the offense of FAILING TO SECURE A FIREARM IN THE HOME!

http://smartgunlaws.org/XXXX-access-...ion-in-kansas/

Kansas might want to start by protecting .... XXXX ... and then graduate to the public!

JD, one example would be in the area of domestic abuse.

Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession of a firearm if you've been convicted of domestic violence. Only 5 states require that they surrender what they already own. Every state should require this and this is an example of where a registry would be helpful. Statistics show that those states have a lower incidence of DV deaths. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913578/).

Mandatory firearm use and safety training would be sensible. We have to learn to drive a car and become licensed beforehand. People with certain disabilities are not allowed to drive. We don't allow doctors to cut us open without a license. And we don't allow children to do either.

Guns are lethal. Period. That is and always has been the beef for gun control advocates.

They can't find and round up 11 million illegal aliens, but they can ban and confiscate 300 million guns?

The only people whose guns will be confiscated are law abiding citizens. Originally Posted by Jackie S

No, they can't ban and confiscate 300 million guns. And no one is trying to ban and confiscate 300 million guns. Over 100 million guns have been purchased since Obama took office. Yet no one has come for them.

Title II weapons are heavily regulated by the feds. The government knows where they are and who owns them. Their lives have not been disrupted. Their freedoms remain in tact.

And we own more guns than the military and law enforcement combined. What are you all so worried about?

If we want to have a productive conversation about this, a good start would be to stop creating and responding to arguments that simply don't exist. It's the definition of insanity.

JD, one example would be in the area of domestic abuse.

Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession of a firearm if you've been convicted of domestic violence. Only 5 states require that they surrender what they already own. Every state should require this and this is an example of where a registry would be helpful. Statistics show that those states have a lower incidence of DV deaths. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913578/).

Mandatory firearm use and safety training would be sensible. We have to learn to drive a car and become licensed beforehand. People with certain disabilities are not allowed to drive. We don't allow doctors to cut us open without a license. And we don't allow children to do either.

Guns are lethal. Period. That is and always has been the beef for gun control advocates.



No, they can't ban and confiscate 300 million guns. And no one is trying to ban and confiscate 300 million guns. Over 100 million guns have been purchased since Obama took office. Yet no one has come for them.

Title II weapons are heavily regulated by the feds. The government knows where they are and who owns them. Their lives have not been disrupted. Their freedoms remain in tact.

And we own more guns than the military and law enforcement combined. What are you all so worried about?

If we want to have a productive conversation about this, a good start would be to stop creating and responding to arguments that simply don't exist. It's the definition of insanity. Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

There is historical precedence for rejecting your uninformed and overly simplistic views on this issue. For example, and despite what you may have read, Hitler and the Nazis were not the authors of the first anti-gun legislation enacted in Germany during the 1920s. Those laws were written and passed by the Weimar government, and Hitler and the Nazis inherited them. Hence, Hitler and his Nazi minons became the arbiters who decided who could keep their guns and who had to surrender their guns. And we all know how that worked out for the Jews and other people the Nazis considered "undesirables".

FYI, the definition of insanity would be to entrust people like you -- or Barbara Feinstein and Odumbo -- with the prescriptive right to determine whether I, or any other gun owner, can possess a gun. By your statement, and by Odumbo and Feinstein's statements, it's easy to see that you and your ilk have already made a prejudicial determination about anyone who argues in favor of the Second Amendment: they must be "insane"; thus, per your congenital bias, must have their constitutional rights abridged.

There is historical precedence for rejecting your uninformed and overly simplistic views on this issue. For example, and despite what you may have read, Hitler and the Nazis were not the authors of the first anti-gun legislation enacted in Germany during the 1920s. Those laws were written and passed by the Weimar government, and Hitler and the Nazis inherited them. Hence, Hitler and his Nazi minons became the arbiters who decided who could keep their guns and who had to surrender their guns. And we all know how that worked out for the Jews and other people the Nazis considered "undesirables". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Not sure if you're aware, but we are not in Nazi Germany.

FYI, the definition of insanity would be to entrust people like you -- or Barbara Feinstein and Odumbo -- with the prescriptive right to determine whether I, or any other gun owner, can possess a gun. By your statement, and by Odumbo and Feinstein's statements, it's easy to see that you and your ilk have already made a prejudicial determination about anyone who argues in favor of the Second Amendment: they must be "insane"; thus, per your congenital bias, must have their constitutional rights abridged.

Again, creating arguments that don't exist. When you're ready to come back to reality, let me know and I'll be happy to discuss.

Not sure if you're aware, but we are not in Nazi Germany.

Again, creating arguments that don't exist. When you're ready to come back to reality, let me know and I'll be happy to discuss. Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

Not sure you are aware of it, but there is a truism that the oblivious willfully ignore:

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

And you'd be the clown living in la-la land if you for one moment don't believe that the prescriptive powers you and your ilk mandate won't be abused by the petty politicians and bureaucrats you favor -- and defenders of the Second Amendment know this: they know history.

The OP asked for suggestions. I made a suggestion.

Not sure you are aware of it, but there is a truism that the oblivious willfully ignore:


And you'd be the clown living in la-la land if you for one moment don't believe that the prescriptive powers you and your ilk mandate won't be abused by the petty politicians and bureaucrats you favor -- and defenders of the Second Amendment know this: they know history. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Because name calling is the hallmark of genius, yes?

If you are going to engage someone in conversation, you should make an effort to pay attention. If all you can extract from this is Obama and Feinstein and left/right then it speaks to the extent of your processing.

I don't have monsters under my bed. But I'll leave you to yours.

They can't find and round up 11 million illegal aliens, but they can ban and confiscate 300 million guns?

The only people whose guns will be confiscated are law abiding citizens. Originally Posted by Jackie S

+ 1 !!!!!!

Because name calling is the hallmark of genius, yes?

If you are going to engage someone in conversation, you should make an effort to pay attention. If all you can extract from this is Obama and Feinstein and left/right then it speaks to the extent of your processing.

I don't have monsters under my bed. But I'll leave you to yours. Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

"Because name calling is the hallmark of genius" says the supercilious hypocrite who in one broad stroke called everyone that disagreed with her POV "insane".

FYI, you'd be the clown living in la-la land where you ignore history and fail to fully process the words of your overlords.

For your edification, consider Odumbo's vocal condescension and misplaced affections, and let it be known that we understand, unlike you who doesn't wish to understand, exactly what he means:

"... it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion ..." Odumbo.

"The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer" Odumbo.


Odumbo's lie: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", and we know how that worked out now, don't we, and that statement by Odumbo can just as easily be changed to read: "If you like your guns, you can keep your guns," because we all know what a *sincere* liar he is.

Plus, there's Feinstein's shrill cry for a total ban on and confiscation of "assault weapons" -- as she wishes to define them:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it." Feinstein.

However, Feinstein and your ilk are so misinformed and ignorant of the facts that you cannot even find a working definition of an "assault weapon" that can be entrusted to petty bureaucrats and politicians to enforce without bias and prejudice.

Now crawl under your bed and process the monstrous reality of their words.