State Senator Proposes Gun Offender Registry

[Bill Mattocks]

While this is slightly off topic, let me ask you this: do you feel that the current sex offender registry is running as it should?

I am of mixed opinion. I have a bit of a problem from a liberty standpoint with certain aspects of the way we treat those convicted of 'sex' offenses in the USA. For example, long term or permanent civil confinement following a completed prison sentence for those judged to be 'sexual predators'. On the one hand, I don't want sexual predators running around loose - society must be protected. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable with locking up people who have served their time. Perhaps a better solution would be indeterminate prison sentences for some sex offenders, but locking up people who are technically no longer under the sentence of a court for the crime of which they were convicted strikes me as not American.

That flows down to the various sex-offender registries. I have a number of problems with them, not the least of which they are too broad; they place people who pose absolutely no threat to the public safety in a category of second-class citizen, doomed to be punished for the rest of their lives for a transgression that can be as simple as public urination or paying for a hooker. I can certainly understand why those convicted of sex crimes who are sexual predators - child molesters and rapists and so on - are a threat to public safety, perhaps forever, and I understand what makes it important that society have the ability to know if there are such people living in their neighborhoods.

However, whether the list contains real threats or people who took a drunken pee in an alley, I am also concerned that the various registration lists have gone from a means of keeping track of such people to a means of actual punishment; sometimes cruel and unusual punishment that never ends. In Florida, as I recall, we have stories of people on the sex offenders registry who are actually forced by law to be homeless, living under bridges and in tent cities because there is no legal residence in their city in which they can live and comply with law restricting how close they can come to certain buildings and areas. Was that really the purpose of the registration law - to force weenie waggers to go live under a bridge for the rest of their lives? Yeah, weenie waggers are not nice people, they're disgusting, they are undeserving of sympathy; but really, even murderers get released from prison when they've served their time; weenie waggers can't even hold a job or live in a room with walls and a roof for the rest of their lives?

In other words, the various registration lists seem to go from being a tool for citizens to be aware of real threats to their safety to lists of people that it is OK to torture and torment to satisfy whatever popular political thought thinks is best, not to mention actions I have mentioned previously in this thread by vigilantes against those whom they wish to punish themselves.

No one wants to defend sex offenders. No one wants to stand up and say they have rights. To defend a sex offender is basically to invite criticism that one is 'soft on crime' or fond of sex offenders for whatever reason. I get that. But I *do* defend our legal system, and I think in many ways these registries have gone far beyond what their intent was, and have strayed into really questionable behavior by vigilante citizens and lawmakers who want to propose popular laws that will get them reelected.

Long story short; I'm not basically against sex offender registries; but I do not believe they are being used in a useful or even a legal manner. They capture too much and too many; they allow for infinite punishment and denial of basic human rights to those on such lists - which may reflect our common dislike of sex offenders, but which is really not legal - and they are open-ended; they are constantly open to revision and additional requirements being added to make the lives of those on the lists more onerous and difficult. This doesn't protect public safety and really isn't even about public safety anymore; they're about public anger and retribution.

If we really want to bring back public stocks and lock sex offenders in them forever, then let's man up and do that; this registration list thing is just a modern way to lock a person in stocks forever and never let them out; nothing to do with public safety in the end analysis.

 

[Hudson69]

Why have anyone register weapons related crimes, it won't stop them from getting a firearm if they really want one and should they do that, commit a crime and be caught, it just makes them a special offender. This is as long as the charging officer pulls a criminal history. If the bandit has been adjudicated a felon then the firearm alone is another felony. If drugs are involved then there is more.

Registering is just one more way for the government to get into someone's privacy (even bandits have rights) and would be another drain on resources.

Why don't we just try and enforce the laws that are out there, actually lock up the bad guys who like guns (the way Sheriff Joe would) when they commit crimes, and carry on.

I can see the value in having a RSO registry but that isn't going to stop an offender on the street from re-offending if they want to.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I would think that any criminal who wants to get around this will simply work on obtaining false identities, I mean really we have laws in place to deal with crimes, a gun offender registry.... seems to me that the bad guys who something like this would be created to keep tabs on would simply graduate to a new relatively minor set of crimes in identity fraud so that at first glimpse they would not be able to be associated with this..
seems to me like most other laws, and programs in place it would end up being a problem only for those that are trying to live within the law, and just be another minor hoop for real bad guys to get through.... all while costing taxpayers millions of dollars for another ineffective tool, that requires more government officials to run poorly, and more tax dollars to sustain on life support.... no thanks

 

[Flying Crane]

As well, other laws based on the registries have been passed in some places. From keeping track of where sex offenders live, there are some places that disallow them to live within certain distances of public places like schools. While well-intentioned, in at least a couple states, it turns out that sex offenders have no choice but to live under bridges and in tents in the woods, because there IS no legal residence that passes the 'distance test' within a given city's jurisdiction. Google for it if you don't believe me. And as much as many might be happy to see sex offenders punished for the rest of their lives and would consider living under a bridge to be a good idea, one might also suggest that the desperate and homeless might be a tad more prone to committing crimes than one who has a job and a place to live. Just saying.

Well said, Bill. This issue in particular I am aware of, as San Francisco is the perfect example. State law mandates a 2000 foot distance between where an offender lives, and the nearest school, playground, church, place where children congregate. I believe there is one corner of one apartment building in the entire city that fits the bill. Offenders are required to live within the county of their offense/conviction. They cannot live outside the county. Since San Francisco is both city and county, the option of moving to another community where there is more space, is non-existant. So the offenders are forced to live on the street where they defeat the whole spirit of the law, because they are now untrackable by the registry and systems put in place to monitor them.

another really screwey issue is that while they cannot live within 2000 feet of these locations, there is nothing preventing them from otherwise being close to these locations. An offender can spend all day long at a playground, in a park, or hold a job next door to such a place, and nobody can stop him. He just cannot sleep there or have a mailing address within that distance. It's a pointless law, it doesn't protect anybody, and there are often a shortage of funds to have personnel to do the monitoring anyways.

 

[MJS]

I am of mixed opinion. I have a bit of a problem from a liberty standpoint with certain aspects of the way we treat those convicted of 'sex' offenses in the USA. For example, long term or permanent civil confinement following a completed prison sentence for those judged to be 'sexual predators'. On the one hand, I don't want sexual predators running around loose - society must be protected. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable with locking up people who have served their time. Perhaps a better solution would be indeterminate prison sentences for some sex offenders, but locking up people who are technically no longer under the sentence of a court for the crime of which they were convicted strikes me as not American.

That flows down to the various sex-offender registries. I have a number of problems with them, not the least of which they are too broad; they place people who pose absolutely no threat to the public safety in a category of second-class citizen, doomed to be punished for the rest of their lives for a transgression that can be as simple as public urination or paying for a hooker. I can certainly understand why those convicted of sex crimes who are sexual predators - child molesters and rapists and so on - are a threat to public safety, perhaps forever, and I understand what makes it important that society have the ability to know if there are such people living in their neighborhoods.

However, whether the list contains real threats or people who took a drunken pee in an alley, I am also concerned that the various registration lists have gone from a means of keeping track of such people to a means of actual punishment; sometimes cruel and unusual punishment that never ends. In Florida, as I recall, we have stories of people on the sex offenders registry who are actually forced by law to be homeless, living under bridges and in tent cities because there is no legal residence in their city in which they can live and comply with law restricting how close they can come to certain buildings and areas. Was that really the purpose of the registration law - to force weenie waggers to go live under a bridge for the rest of their lives? Yeah, weenie waggers are not nice people, they're disgusting, they are undeserving of sympathy; but really, even murderers get released from prison when they've served their time; weenie waggers can't even hold a job or live in a room with walls and a roof for the rest of their lives?

In other words, the various registration lists seem to go from being a tool for citizens to be aware of real threats to their safety to lists of people that it is OK to torture and torment to satisfy whatever popular political thought thinks is best, not to mention actions I have mentioned previously in this thread by vigilantes against those whom they wish to punish themselves.

No one wants to defend sex offenders. No one wants to stand up and say they have rights. To defend a sex offender is basically to invite criticism that one is 'soft on crime' or fond of sex offenders for whatever reason. I get that. But I *do* defend our legal system, and I think in many ways these registries have gone far beyond what their intent was, and have strayed into really questionable behavior by vigilante citizens and lawmakers who want to propose popular laws that will get them reelected.

Long story short; I'm not basically against sex offender registries; but I do not believe they are being used in a useful or even a legal manner. They capture too much and too many; they allow for infinite punishment and denial of basic human rights to those on such lists - which may reflect our common dislike of sex offenders, but which is really not legal - and they are open-ended; they are constantly open to revision and additional requirements being added to make the lives of those on the lists more onerous and difficult. This doesn't protect public safety and really isn't even about public safety anymore; they're about public anger and retribution.

If we really want to bring back public stocks and lock sex offenders in them forever, then let's man up and do that; this registration list thing is just a modern way to lock a person in stocks forever and never let them out; nothing to do with public safety in the end analysis.

Sorry for the late reply Bill. RL stuff is taking a front seat to the forum. Anyways...thanks for your reply. I do see your points, and as I said, its very possible that what you say, could happen. However, I wonder...the old saying, "Dont do the crime, if ya can't do the time" comes to mind here. I do feel that someone guilty of a sexual offense, ie: rape, regardless of the age or sex of the victim, is a crime that needs to be punished by jail time. Is it embarassing for someone to be on a list for sex offenders, and have that list avail. to the public? Probably, but oh well. Maybe these offenders will think twice about their actions. Of course, that list could expire after a set time.

I think that many times, there isn't a set protocol for who goes on the list, what they have to do to get on the list, etc. Maybe there is, I really dont know, but if there isn't a protocol, lets get one. And lets have a standard, set in stone procedure of who's in charge of the list, who goes on, for what time, etc. I dont think that the list should be influenced by anyone.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sorry for the late reply Bill. RL stuff is taking a front seat to the forum. Anyways...thanks for your reply. I do see your points, and as I said, its very possible that what you say, could happen. However, I wonder...the old saying, "Dont do the crime, if ya can't do the time" comes to mind here. I do feel that someone guilty of a sexual offense, ie: rape, regardless of the age or sex of the victim, is a crime that needs to be punished by jail time. Is it embarassing for someone to be on a list for sex offenders, and have that list avail. to the public? Probably, but oh well. Maybe these offenders will think twice about their actions. Of course, that list could expire after a set time.

I think that many times, there isn't a set protocol for who goes on the list, what they have to do to get on the list, etc. Maybe there is, I really dont know, but if there isn't a protocol, lets get one. And lets have a standard, set in stone procedure of who's in charge of the list, who goes on, for what time, etc. I dont think that the list should be influenced by anyone.

I think you touched on one of my points; what is the list for? You see it as acceptable that it causes 'embarrassment'. Well, in my opinion, I don't much care if a rapist is embarrassed or not, like you; but I also don't think the purpose of such lists is to create a public stockade where we throw rotten vegetables at people convicted of crimes. I think the list was supposed to be to keep track of serial offenders and sexual predators; not to make it easy to find and humiliate them.

If the list doesn't serve its purpose, then what is the purpose of it? Seems to me that many consider it a way for the public to 'get back' at those whom they despise. Nah, I'm not down with that. If you want to sentence rapists and sexual predators to life in prison, then fine. Letting them out and creating lists so they can be tortured forever by anyone with a grudge or an axe to grind? Not so much.

 

[MJS]

Why have anyone register weapons related crimes, it won't stop them from getting a firearm if they really want one and should they do that, commit a crime and be caught, it just makes them a special offender. This is as long as the charging officer pulls a criminal history. If the bandit has been adjudicated a felon then the firearm alone is another felony. If drugs are involved then there is more.

Thats a good point. Just like a restraining/protective order doesnt ensure the protected person is really protected. Just something that in the event its violated, the cops can tack on an extra charge. Of course, in many cases, the protected person ends up dead. So much for the order.

Registering is just one more way for the government to get into someone's privacy (even bandits have rights) and would be another drain on resources.

True, but IMO, I still feel that the average law abiding person should have nothing to worry about. I've gone thru DUI check points, not sweating anything. Why? Because I dont drink and drive and keep everything on my car legit and up to date. I'm not giving them a reason to stop me, yet I still pass thru. Same with a cop running radar. Go ahead and clock me....I've yet to get a speeding ticket.

Why don't we just try and enforce the laws that are out there, actually lock up the bad guys who like guns (the way Sheriff Joe would) when they commit crimes, and carry on.

Amen!!! This is a huge pet peeve of mine. Maybe if the jails/prisons were more like Joes place, people would not want to return. OTOH, the BHC (bleeding hearts club) thinks that Joes place is too harsh. Again, dont do the crime, is ya cant do the time. I like Joe, because while the BHC tries to find ways to show that Joe is too harsh, Joe gets just close enough to the line...but doesnt cross it.

I can see the value in having a RSO registry but that isn't going to stop an offender on the street from re-offending if they want to.

Agreed.

 

[Flying Crane]

If you want to sentence rapists and sexual predators to life in prison, then fine. Letting them out and creating lists so they can be tortured forever by anyone with a grudge or an axe to grind? Not so much.

bingo.

 

[MJS]

I think you touched on one of my points; what is the list for? You see it as acceptable that it causes 'embarrassment'. Well, in my opinion, I don't much care if a rapist is embarrassed or not, like you; but I also don't think the purpose of such lists is to create a public stockade where we throw rotten vegetables at people convicted of crimes. I think the list was supposed to be to keep track of serial offenders and sexual predators; not to make it easy to find and humiliate them.

If the list doesn't serve its purpose, then what is the purpose of it? Seems to me that many consider it a way for the public to 'get back' at those whom they despise. Nah, I'm not down with that. If you want to sentence rapists and sexual predators to life in prison, then fine. Letting them out and creating lists so they can be tortured forever by anyone with a grudge or an axe to grind? Not so much.

I'm not asking you to dig up a bunch of stats for me, but I think it'd be interesting to know exactly how many people, all over the US, actually read these offender lists, and actually seek out and do something to these offenders. If an offender is in my area, fine. No, I'm not going to picket and protest the guys house, crying for him to move out. As long as he keeps to himself, fine. But once he starts attacking kids in the area, etc., then yes, LE action should be taken.

Of course, I'm speaking for myself. I'm sure there are nuts out there who have nothing better to do than sit on their ***, reading a SO list, and trying to light the guys house on fire. No, Charles Bronson I'm not.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think that many times, there isn't a set protocol for who goes on the list, what they have to do to get on the list, etc. Maybe there is, I really dont know, but if there isn't a protocol, lets get one. And lets have a standard, set in stone procedure of who's in charge of the list, who goes on, for what time, etc. I dont think that the list should be influenced by anyone.

I am personally aware of some of the issues Bill has raised in this. I do know of one young man who had a sexual relationship with his girlfriend, while they were both teenagers. i don't know their exact ages, but there was a big enough difference that it caused a problem. When the relationship went sour, she suddenly accused him of rape. He now has that "sex offender" label for the rest of his life.

I know of another man who was caught by law enforcement urinating in a public park. I believe there was nobody else around to be offended by it. Guess what? he was charged with indecent exposure and is now a registered sex offender.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm not asking you to dig up a bunch of stats for me, but I think it'd be interesting to know exactly how many people, all over the US, actually read these offender lists, and actually seek out and do something to these offenders. If an offender is in my area, fine. No, I'm not going to picket and protest the guys house, crying for him to move out. As long as he keeps to himself, fine. But once he starts attacking kids in the area, etc., then yes, LE action should be taken.

Of course, I'm speaking for myself. I'm sure there are nuts out there who have nothing better to do than sit on their ***, reading a SO list, and trying to light the guys house on fire. No, Charles Bronson I'm not.

It happened out here a few years ago. Sex offender was released from prison, was registered and had to be monitored. He couldn't find anywhere to live, was rejected and kicked out everywhere he went. I believe a priest gave him shelter in the parish, but somehow ended up at odds with the law over it, maybe because of the proximity of a school or something. The guy was hounded until he committed suicide.

I just don't accept that that was the proper way to carry out justice.

 

[MJS]

I am personally aware of some of the issues Bill has raised in this. I do know of one young man who had a sexual relationship with his girlfriend, while they were both teenagers. i don't know their exact ages, but there was a big enough difference that it caused a problem. When the relationship went sour, she suddenly accused him of rape. He now has that "sex offender" label for the rest of his life.

I know of another man who was caught by law enforcement urinating in a public park. I believe there was nobody else around to be offended by it. Guess what? he was charged with indecent exposure and is now a registered sex offender.

Points taken Mike. The only thing I could say to this is it'd have to be on a state by state basis, just like all the other laws. I've sent cops to calls for people urinating in public. AFAIK, 1 of 2 things happens...the cops tell the guy to cut the ****, and move along before they get arrested or they give them a ticket. I may be wrong, but I dont recall hearing about someone ending up on the SO list for pissing in public.

It happened out here a few years ago. Sex offender was released from prison, was registered and had to be monitored. He couldn't find anywhere to live, was rejected and kicked out everywhere he went. I believe a priest gave him shelter in the parish, but somehow ended up at odds with the law over it, maybe because of the proximity of a school or something. The guy was hounded until he committed suicide.

I just don't accept that that was the proper way to carry out justice.

Like I said, I'm sure some cases of that stuff, unfortunately do happen. I guess it'll vary from person to person, area to area. Oh and for what its worth, I dont think that people should take the law into their own hands either. Is beating the **** out of the guy, who lives 3 doors down, really making you a better person or solving the problem? IMO, no.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Points taken Mike. The only thing I could say to this is it'd have to be on a state by state basis, just like all the other laws. I've sent cops to calls for people urinating in public. AFAIK, 1 of 2 things happens...the cops tell the guy to cut the ****, and move along before they get arrested or they give them a ticket. I may be wrong, but I dont recall hearing about someone ending up on the SO list for pissing in public.

In Michigan, minus any local law to the contrary, public urination is not indecent exposure. However...

http://www.brucealanblock.com/pages/Sex_offenses.html

The offenses automatically requiring registration are:

• Accosting, Enticing or Soliciting a Child for Immoral Purposes.
• Child Sexually Abusive Activity or Material.
• Crime Against Nature or Sodomy if the victim is less than 18 years of age.
• Indecent Exposure While Engaging in a Lewd/Lascivious Act if you had a prior conviction of MCL 750.335a.
• Three convictions of any combination of: Disorderly Person and Indecent Exposure.
• Gross Indecency Between Male Persons if the victim is less than 18 years of age.
• Gross Indecency Between Female Persons if the victim is less than 18 years of age.
• Gross Indecency Between Male & Female Persons, if the victim is less than 18.
• Kidnapping, if the victim is less than 18 years of age.
• Leading, Taking, Carrying Away, Decoying, or Enticing Away Child Under 14.
• Soliciting, Accosting, or Inviting to Commit Prostitution or Immoral Act.
• Pandering (See MCL 750.455)
• Criminal Sexual Conduct 1st Degree.
• Criminal Sexual Conduct 2nd Degree
• Criminal Sexual Conduct 3rd Degree
• Criminal Sexual Conduct 4th Degree
• Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct.
• A violation of state or local law that constitutes a sexual offense against an individual less than 18.
• Any offense committed by a person who was, at the time of the offense, a sexually delinquent person.
• Any offense substantially similar to a listed offense under a law of the U.S., a state, a country, or tribal or military law.

And in some Michigan cities, public urination is indeed prosecuted as 'indecent exposure'. If there is no city statute to the contrary, then public urination may not be a 'sex crime'. However, in Grand Rapids (one city I recall reading about), public urination is indeed a sex crime, and you *will* be placed on the sex offenders registry.

While most of the crimes on the list above are things I'd be concerned about, there are several (bolded) that I don't agree with. Is a hooker a sex offender, or his or her customer? I don't really see them as a threat to children in the neighborhood.

I mean, I just want to be clear here. The public has a right to know that a guy who took a leak in the alley lives in their neighborhood, but a murderer out on parole they DO NOT need to know about? I think a lot of people are really hung up on sex crimes. Way overboard in my opinion.

But witness the 'it serves them right' comments or 'maybe they should have thought about that first' comments. Yeah, perhaps. So now it's OK to punish them for the rest of their lives? Seems a bit extreme compared to murderers, is all I'm saying.

And imagine you got caught as a 18 year old with a hooker; and now you try to teach martial arts and guess what? You're on the sex offender registry - the headlines scream it as soon as some parent does a search. You're no more likely to molest their kid than the next decent guy, but you were with a hooker at a youthful age; or you got caught peeing in an alley (in Grand Rapids, at least). Now you can't be a martial arts instructor; you might even go to jail for trying. Does it 'serve you right'? Does the punishment fit the crime?

I guess what I'm saying is that the sex offender registry has gone way beyond what it was intended to be. You argue that it's a tool for law enforcement; OK, so why not restrict it to law enforcement access only? Well, it seems a lot of people think that part of being a sex offender is being punished in perpetuity, so no. That's why no one has a problem with the idea of sex offenders in Florida being forced to go live under a bridge; and no one much cares that at least some of them are guilty of such minor infractions as getting a hummer from a hooker.

And a gun crime registry list is going to be better somehow? Gun grabbers aren't going to get their hands on it and use it to persecute everyone who ever failed to dot an "i" or cross a "t" on their paperwork? Imagine that. Forgive me for not believing it for a second.

 

[MJS]

In Michigan, minus any local law to the contrary, public urination is not indecent exposure. However...

http://www.brucealanblock.com/pages/Sex_offenses.html



And in some Michigan cities, public urination is indeed prosecuted as 'indecent exposure'. If there is no city statute to the contrary, then public urination may not be a 'sex crime'. However, in Grand Rapids (one city I recall reading about), public urination is indeed a sex crime, and you *will* be placed on the sex offenders registry.

Hey Bill,

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that taking a leak in public wasnt a crime. I said that depending on the act, it may/may not lead to an arrest, the SO list, etc. Thanks for the link.

While most of the crimes on the list above are things I'd be concerned about, there are several (bolded) that I don't agree with. Is a hooker a sex offender, or his or her customer? I don't really see them as a threat to children in the neighborhood.

Agreed, and frankly, I dont think the billboard advertising the local strip club is a threat either, yet there're many parents who'd probably disagree.

I mean, I just want to be clear here. The public has a right to know that a guy who took a leak in the alley lives in their neighborhood, but a murderer out on parole they DO NOT need to know about? I think a lot of people are really hung up on sex crimes. Way overboard in my opinion.

This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn, as we went from guns to SO's but nonetheless, I do feel that it is a productive thread. Back to this point...who said the public doesnt have a right to know? The SO list is public, so what the hell...make the public aware of killers on parole, living in the area. I think its important to know whats going on in the area/neighborhood.

But witness the 'it serves them right' comments or 'maybe they should have thought about that first' comments. Yeah, perhaps. So now it's OK to punish them for the rest of their lives? Seems a bit extreme compared to murderers, is all I'm saying.

Well, be that as it may, why should we protect the criminal from the crimes they commit? Personally, when I read about 12 and 13yo punks beating the **** out of people, but oh wait...their names can't be published due to age...**** that! Print their names! Let everyone know what a piece of **** they are. IMO, it seems to me that the law is more concerned with the badguy and his feelings. People need to start taking responsibility for their actions. I'm not saying that its ok for people to grab the torches and pitchforks and go on a witch hunt, but heres an interesting idea....did nobody notice the behavior of the SO prior to them getting so out of control, they land in jail and on the SO list? Lets start getting these people some help, treatment, whatever, so maybe, just maybe, they'll change.

And imagine you got caught as a 18 year old with a hooker; and now you try to teach martial arts and guess what? You're on the sex offender registry - the headlines scream it as soon as some parent does a search. You're no more likely to molest their kid than the next decent guy, but you were with a hooker at a youthful age; or you got caught peeing in an alley (in Grand Rapids, at least). Now you can't be a martial arts instructor; you might even go to jail for trying. Does it 'serve you right'? Does the punishment fit the crime?

As I said, this probably isn't SO material, but hey, I know its not the popular phrase, but again, people need to think before they act. If you **** up, accept it and deal with it.

I guess what I'm saying is that the sex offender registry has gone way beyond what it was intended to be. You argue that it's a tool for law enforcement; OK, so why not restrict it to law enforcement access only? Well, it seems a lot of people think that part of being a sex offender is being punished in perpetuity, so no. That's why no one has a problem with the idea of sex offenders in Florida being forced to go live under a bridge; and no one much cares that at least some of them are guilty of such minor infractions as getting a hummer from a hooker.

Hey Bill, I'm not disagreeing that it may be out of hand, but I'm not making the rules...the state is. Apparently the state of Fl, is fine with SOs living in a box. I never said that was ok.

And a gun crime registry list is going to be better somehow? Gun grabbers aren't going to get their hands on it and use it to persecute everyone who ever failed to dot an "i" or cross a "t" on their paperwork? Imagine that. Forgive me for not believing it for a second.

Again, the SO list, the GR list (gun reg) is no different than a protective/restraining order. All it is is paper. Its not some magical paper that'll protect the protectee. Its a piece of paper. All these things are, is tools to track offenders, nothing more, nothing less. By no means am I suggesting they're magical solutions to a problem.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Link



Thoughts on this? Personally, I think its a great idea.

What exactly is the point? And who exactly is able to access the list? And what crimes will be included on it? And is there any evidence that, unlike the sex offenders registry, where sex offenders are uniquely predisposed to commit the same sex crimes over again, that this remotely has any actual validity?

Sounds more like the kind of asinine legislation some legislature pulls out of his orafice in order to 'appear' tough on crime.

I am increasingly cynical about newly proposed legislations, as should everyone be..........keep in mind the law of unintended consequences.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Except it's demonstrably untrue. Lifetime recidivism rates for all crimes is in the range of 60%, for sex crimes it's about 5-10% (can't remember the exact figure). It's almost like politicians care more about "looking tough on crime" to the voters instead of making fact-based decisions.

The problem with those statistics is what was included under the term 'sex crimes'.

The kind of sex crimes that are the reason those lists were created, child sexual predators, for example, have a far higher incidents of recidivism than 5-10%.

However, the problem is that EVERYTHING remotely sex related ended up on the list, and many of those other categories were one time incidents.

 

[MJS]

What exactly is the point?

I'm assuming it'd be along the lines of the SOR.

And who exactly is able to access the list?

I think we touched on this in another post on here. It could a) be just LE only, b) anyone, just like the SOR list. If it were to actually happen, I'd imagine that would be determined by the people in charge of the list.

And what crimes will be included on it?

Again, I think this was touched on earlier. That would be determined.

And is there any evidence that, unlike the sex offenders registry, where sex offenders are uniquely predisposed to commit the same sex crimes over again, that this remotely has any actual validity?

Dont know...its only in the talking stages AFAIK, right now. Again, all these lists are just like a protective order....basically useless. LOL. Is the SOR some magical thing that prevents SOs from raping and molesting? No of course not. Do protective/Restraining orders contain some magic that keeps the crazy ex from stalking and killing the protected party? No of course not. Will this gun reg. keep badguys from getting guns and robbing, killing, etc.? No, of course not.

Sounds more like the kind of asinine legislation some legislature pulls out of his orafice in order to 'appear' tough on crime.

You're probably right.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm assuming it'd be along the lines of the SOR.



I think we touched on this in another post on here. It could a) be just LE only, b) anyone, just like the SOR list. If it were to actually happen, I'd imagine that would be determined by the people in charge of the list.



Again, I think this was touched on earlier. That would be determined.



Dont know...its only in the talking stages AFAIK, right now. Again, all these lists are just like a protective order....basically useless. LOL. Is the SOR some magical thing that prevents SOs from raping and molesting? No of course not. Do protective/Restraining orders contain some magic that keeps the crazy ex from stalking and killing the protected party? No of course not. Will this gun reg. keep badguys from getting guns and robbing, killing, etc.? No, of course not.



You're probably right.

Yeah, I don't trust legislatures further than I can throw them........I have zero doubt that the powers that be would find a way to turn this kind of legislation against law abiding citizens in some fashion.......knowing that their stated intent is really a bit moot.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hey Bill, I'm not disagreeing that it may be out of hand, but I'm not making the rules...the state is. Apparently the state of Fl, is fine with SOs living in a box. I never said that was ok.

I understand, but that's my point. If the SO list is 'out of hand', how long do you think it will take for the GC list to get out of hand? I would hazard a guess that there are people who are not fans of guns, who would use such a list to make certain that a) people get on it for any plausible reason whatsoever (just like the SO list has expanded) and b) that people who are on it are hounded to the ends of the earth. They'll be calling employers to make sure that they know who their GC list employees are, putting up signs, picketing, and so on. In my opinion, the same thing will end up happening - GC list members denied the right to live within X feet of a school or public building, forced to live under bridges, and so on. Sure, there will be some 'bad guys' on the list who don't deserve our pity. And the gun-grabbers will ensure that there are also a lot of people on it who commit any infraction at all that peripherally involves a gun.

So I remain against it. We have enough bloody lists. The police have all the authority and power that they need. Enough.