A man broke into a storage facility with three other accomplices. Together they burglarized 10 storage units. (They were consecutive units that were right next to each other. After gaining access to the first unit, they then broke through the drywall to gain access to each subsequent unit) The men were quickly caught by authorities, and the man was sentenced to 8 years in prison. He did his time. 17 years later after the burglary had been committed, the man was arrested because police found a rifle in his mobile home. There was both a state law and a federal law that makes it a crime for a person to possess a firearm if they have been convicted of a felony. The state of Georgia ended up deciding to drop the charges against the man. But the federal government came in and decided to pursue charges. The man ended up being sentenced by the judge to 15 years in prison. For having a rifle. (This obviously not counting the 8 years he had already spent in prison) The prosecutor had twisted the meaning of a certain law to convince the judge that a certain enhancement should apply. But it was an asinine reading of the law. Despite this, an appeals court refused to overturn the sentence. That left only one option, the Supreme Court. But it is a rare thing for the Supreme Court to take up cases like this. But the Supreme Court finally did take up the case. The man had to wait 6 years in prison before the Supreme Court decided in his favor. It was a unanimous decision, all the judges on the Supreme Court said it was wrong. But if you think the man can sue to try to get any money, you are wrong. Even though the sentencing guidelines recommend a prison sentence of 2 years, the law still theoretically allows a person convicted in this situation to be sentenced to up to 10 years. So the man will not be able to claim his rights were violated, because he had no "rights" for this not happen to him in the first place. Despite the Supreme Court saying he should not have been sentenced to that additional time. If the Supreme Court had taken 7 years to take up that man's case, that man would have been in prison for 7 years. If they had waited 8 years to look at his case, he would had to wait for 8 years. article here: Wooden v. United States shows what the Supreme Court might look like without bias. (slate.com) Another thread that discusses more details of that case here: Supreme Court overturned abusive twisting of law that added on 13 more years in prison To make matters even more outrageous, the police officer who found the rifle didn't even have a warrant to enter the mobile home. The man claims the officer pushed his way in and entered without his permission, but the officer claimed the man had given consent.
No, it isn't. The best form of gun control is life sentences for people who illegally own, possess, buy, sell, or use guns. To set up a costly bureaucracy and then penalize the people who can legally have guns when they legally obtain guns is stupid. These people who aren't allowed to have guns for whatever reasons, whether it's their age or they have a felony conviction, you strip them of US citizenship, give them $10, a brown-bag lunch, a parachute, and you kick their asses out the back of a C-130 on a drag run over Myanmar, or Somalia, or Afghanistan, or Libya. They'll be right at home in those places.
In my personal opinion, if guns are indeed an individual right, then it would be unjust and a violation of that right if you punished an individual for having that gun with more than the amount of punishment that could possibly have conceivably been justified by their original crime in the first place.
Man sentenced to 15 years in prison after being found in possession of a firearm with 20 prior felony convictions Florida - Deveon Jenkins, 29, of Ocala is sentenced to 15-years in prison for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. A federal judge imposed the sentence five months after he pleaded guilty. Jenkins had 20 prior felony convictions. Jenkins was in the backseat of a car when Ocala police pulled over the vehicle. Police say they found the gun next to his feet. Man sentenced to 15 years in prison after being found in possession of a firearm with 20 prior felony convictions (wcjb.com) abc 20 news, April 22, 2022 I realize that this guy was a career criminal, and should have had some of the mercy for his past crimes taken away, but that seems like a lot of prison time just for having a gun that would have otherwise been legal to own. It is worrying that the law allows this. The law could theoretically allow this even if the man had only been convicted of one felony that wasn't that bad. In my opinion it would be more fair if the law more specifically defined some sort of inherent connection between past crimes and later possession of a gun, rather than just making possession of a gun by anyone who has been convicted of a felony a blanket crime. I was not able to find any information about this specific man (there seems to be several different criminals with that same name), but I am guessing this man must have committed armed robbery in the past, in which case his new prison sentence may have been understandable. Regardless, this law still leaves a huge amount of discretion up to the judge, and this could end up being very unfair to some persons. The fact that the federal level of government is involved in this is all the more troubling from a Constitutional perspective. (So much for the Second Amendment?) Most likely all this criminal's prior crimes fell under state jurisdiction, and now a federal court is the one sending him to prison for 15 years for having an ordinary gun? You might believe this was totally right and fair, but what bothers me is that this same law could theoretically be used in other situations that are very different and much less fair.
Were they violent felonies? I think there's a distinct difference between "a felony" and "20 felonies" especially if any of them were violent ones. At a certain point you have to ask yourself if someone is safe to be in society.
That is a little bit better and more specific, but I think that is still an oversimplification. People are just looking for easy answers and simple rules. My main point wasn't "Was it fair to put this specific man in prison for 15 years?" but rather asking us to take a look at the law which allowed this. That same law could be used in other situations. But I guess you just totally trust the discretion of the judge and are okay with a law like this. (Imagine a really anti-gun judge gets appointed and starts using this as an excuse to punish people because they don't believe anyone should be allowed to have guns) It's the natural human psychological state to try to make excuses and justify the way things are, so they don't have to believe things are wrong, which can be very psychologically troubling and uncomfortable.
I just think a guy with 20 felonies is a bad example and has too many questions to have a fair debate on it, but I see your point.
You're missing the point. The point is not whether what happened in this individual case was acceptable; it is whether this law that was used is acceptable. Because it could cover a broad range of different situations. I believe just saying "It's all okay" is falling into a simplistic overgeneralization fallacy. Casual lazy thinking. A cookie-cutter approach. I think if people are going to be sent to prison for 15 years for having an ordinary gun, the law should have to make a very clear and specific connection between what their past crimes were. Not just oversimplify and say they were convicted of one or a certain number of felonies in the past so now it is okay to make this a serious crime. Maybe that is just "too complicated" and seems to require too much thought for some people? It is also the principle of the thing. The law should be reworded to clarify that the criminal is being sent back to prison and additionally punished for the old crimes he already committed and served time for. If we have a "rationale" why this is okay, it should be clearly written into the law. Coming up with stupid simplistic rules could violate rights in some cases, and could also set a precedent that should not be set. If it's okay to send past convicted felons to prison for 15 years for having a gun, that could reflect badly on the rights of every other citizen as well.
Sometimes that is true, often that is true, but is not always true. Over in another thread I suggested the possibility of exiling some criminals off to an island-like place. I don't think they all need to be in prison. Some of them should just be away from the rest of society. Too bad we can make them learn Spanish and send them to Mexico.
My opinion is that the man should have been given a prison sentence because he broke the law. 15 years is not just unjustified, it is beyond the pale. A couple of years would have done the job and cost less.
