Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pros and cons

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pros and cons

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pros and cons

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pros an... - 7/28/2008 2:06:25 PM

Vendaval

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

Rather than hijack a thread I decided to look up some information provided by Archer for another debate. Project Exile began in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. The goal was to enforce the Gun Control Act of 1968.

So often on these firearm debates the dialogue disintegrates into two opposing viewpoints with little middle ground. How about some construtive dialogue instead. Anyone have direct experience with Project Exile or the results of similar programs?

And please make an effort to keep the discussion civil.

A mob of angry villagers is standing by with pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers!

(edited to correct date, thanks for catching that mistake, Camille)

< Message edited by Vendaval -- 7/28/2008 2:31:15 PM >

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

Post #: 1

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/28/2008 2:23:42 PM

camille65

Posts: 5746
Joined: 7/11/2007
From: Austin Texas
Status: offline

The Project Exile I found was started in 97 and in Virginia.. so I'm not sure.
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile38.html

"Project Exile is based on the principle that, if police catch a criminal in Richmond with a gun, the criminal has forfeited his or her right to remain in the community and, as such, will face immediate Federal prosecution and stiff mandatory Federal prison sentences."

If you go to the 'contents' page, it has what seems to be very extensive information. It is not something I am familiar with outside this forum but what bit I read, I like the ideas.

However I'm not sure if it is the same Project Exile.

_____________________________

~Love your life! (It is the only one you'll get).

(in reply to Vendaval)

Post #: 2

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/28/2008 2:34:51 PM

Vendaval

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

Doh! Thank you for catching that, dear. (I am on elder care duty this summer and swear that having eyes in the back of my head would be a good idea, not to mention a second pair of hands.)

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to camille65)

Post #: 3

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/28/2008 3:08:29 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

Chicago tried a similiar idea called Project Surefire back around 2000. It got a lot of talk for a while but it seems to have fizzled.

(in reply to Vendaval)

Post #: 4

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/28/2008 4:33:36 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

Richmond was vying for the title of Murder City USA in the early 90s...and today it is a city in renaissance...
I would not lay all of that at the feet of Project Exile, which certainly did little to keep crime rates down across the tracks (literally and metaphorically) in Petersburg.

Sometimes the 'successful' crime fighting strategies mostly suceed at moving the problem into someone else's jurisdiction or demographic.

There were also urban renewal programs in Richmind's inner cityscape, which sold 'blighted' properties at a pittance, and offered renovation loans at something like 1%...many of those neighborhoods have been transformed, gentrified, or what have you.

And Richmond always had huge amounts of history, culture and charm to spare... perhaps they are just easier to focus on now that there is less gory crime to splash across the media.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 5

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/28/2008 11:58:32 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Totally unconstitutional, but go have fun. The rest of us want our fucking rights. And we, by law have the right to firearms.

You go do what you want, but when they get to me they are going to wish they found someone else.

T

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Post #: 6

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 12:03:35 AM

ownedgirlie

Posts: 9184
Joined: 2/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Totally unconstitutional, but go have fun. The rest of us want our fucking rights. And we, by law have the right to firearms.

You go do what you want, but when they get to me they are going to wish they found someone else.

T

I believe Project Exile has to do with criminals owning firearms and, if I am not mistaken, criminals no longer have that right.

While the idea of kicking arms-bearing criminals out of the community sounds good up front, aren't you then just moving them to another area? Reminds me of the Catholic priest problem, moving the priest from church to church. You still have a problem person out there, but in someone else's back yard.

_____________________________

Good is the enemy of great.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 7

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 12:31:00 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

Removing them from society was really alot more about sending them to a federal prison which means no time off for good behaviour and no parole.
5 years federal time means 5 years. The second aspect was that it also ment that the odds were good that such a conviction would land them in a prison far enough away from family and frinds to really make it tough to visit.

Additionally they made it policy in some copycat programs to If they pulled a felon over for speeding and found a gun they prosecuted on the federal level.

The loss of the bargining power of plea bargins is a legitimate question mentioned in the other post. But the trade off between removing violent gun felons would mean something HUGE had to be in the mix for trade. Afterall we're talking about a convicted felon with a gun.

There was alot of hue and cry about was the policy racially biased, I really can't see that as a matter of the policy itself, as it was all about prosecuting ALL felons found violating gun laws at the federal level. But I can see the potential for abuse and racially scewed application of the policy. But I haven't seen anything saying thay have evidence of that.

(in reply to ownedgirlie)

Post #: 8

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 9:23:34 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Sorry about the people who are going to hate me after this.

Convicted felons have the right to bear arms. To prohibit it is what's called a bill of attainder, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Further, the gun on the seat does not push the accelerator in your car, and does not enable you to break the speed limit for example, unless you intend to shoot the cop who stops you.

What's more there are convicted felons who did heinous crimes like importing lobsters. They have so many laws and enforce them selectively it is to the point that they are simply disarming their enemies. They haven't got to me yet, but I know it's coming. Of all the shit I have done, but being good now, one of these days in a routine traffic stop or something I am going to hear the words "That's a felony".

The basic fact of the matter is that they want the guns out of the hands of the People for one reason, because it is they who deserve to be shot. The label "felon" is applied somewhat like the label "terrorist" and nothing could be farther from the truth. Those labels are just used to enable them to take under color of law. And they will not stop taking until we are dead.

Take a step back and try to see the bigger picture. What did the Branch Davidians DO ? What did Randy Weaver DO, in fact what did his Wife DO ? They shot her dead, with a child in her arms. THAT is why we need guns.

The second amendment was not intended to enable us to defend ourselves against our friends and neighbors, or an assailant. It is intended for us to be able to defend ourselves against a government that has become despotic, and that is specifically stated "alter or abolish it" and folks, it needs some serious altering at this point.

Boil it down, if you are worried about other people having guns, get a gun. Then you can shoot them before they shoot you.

I don't know what else to say.

T

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 9

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 9:33:32 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

Hiya Term,

They may have the right, but the law says differently.

quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/June/296ag.htm
Federal law makes it a felony for convicted felons and other dangerous persons even to possess a gun. Federal law also makes it a felony for convicted felons and other dangerous people to lie about their records in attempting to buy a gun. Violation of these laws carries penalties of up to ten years in prison. Violators can and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 10

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 9:53:58 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Hiya Term,

They may have the right, but the law says differently.

quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/June/296ag.htm
Federal law makes it a felony for convicted felons and other dangerous persons even to possess a gun. Federal law also makes it a felony for convicted felons and other dangerous people to lie about their records in attempting to buy a gun. Violation of these laws carries penalties of up to ten years in prison. Violators can and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Actually Termy is right. Under the recent SCOTUS decision the right to own firearms is a basic constitutional right like free speech. The rulings on this matter are quite clear, that sort of right may be curtailed while imprisoned but may not be impinged upon afterwards. Convicted felons will be able to own firearms as soon as a challenge to those laws reaches SCOTUS or the majoirty will show itself to be far more hypocritical than even I think they are.

(in reply to Thadius)

Post #: 11

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 10:04:40 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Hiya Term,

They may have the right, but the law says differently.

quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/June/296ag.htm
Federal law makes it a felony for convicted felons and other dangerous persons even to possess a gun. Federal law also makes it a felony for convicted felons and other dangerous people to lie about their records in attempting to buy a gun. Violation of these laws carries penalties of up to ten years in prison. Violators can and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Actually Termy is right. Under the recent SCOTUS decision the right to own firearms is a basic constitutional right like free speech. The rulings on this matter are quite clear, that sort of right may be curtailed while imprisoned but may not be impinged upon afterwards. Convicted felons will be able to own firearms as soon as a challenge to those laws reaches SCOTUS or the majoirty will show itself to be far more hypocritical than even I think they are.

Those laws haven't been overturned yet, and groups such as felonsforguns are planning to challenge those laws on the books. So as of right now there a convicted felon cannot possess a firearm.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 12

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 10:32:41 AM

MmeGigs

Posts: 706
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Sorry about the people who are going to hate me after this.

Convicted felons have the right to bear arms. To prohibit it is what's called a bill of attainder, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

You're wrong about this. A bill of attainder is when a legislature declares someone guilty of a crime and punishes them without a trial. The convicted felon had a trial - loss of the right to carry a gun is often part of the punishment. They often lose other rights as well, like the right to vote or to freely associate. There's nothing unconstitutional about any of that.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 13

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 10:48:12 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Sorry about the people who are going to hate me after this.

Convicted felons have the right to bear arms. To prohibit it is what's called a bill of attainder, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

You're wrong about this. A bill of attainder is when a legislature declares someone guilty of a crime and punishes them without a trial. The convicted felon had a trial - loss of the right to carry a gun is often part of the punishment. They often lose other rights as well, like the right to vote or to freely associate. There's nothing unconstitutional about any of that.

Actually there is. A former convict, not on parole but sentence served, cannot have any of rights restricted. That the whole 'ex cons can't associate with ex cons' laws have survived court challenges has always boggled my mind although clearly it is only being selectively enforced.

BTW there is no right to vote in the constitution. That's why so many states can get away with disenfranchising ex cons. Challenges against those laws have to be based on equal protection claims and that is a much harder road.

(in reply to MmeGigs)

Post #: 14

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 10:49:48 AM

Bethnai

Posts: 492
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline

"Firearms without at least a partial serial number cannot be traced, although ATF and many police laboratories have the capacity to restore obliterated serial numbers."

These are the guns I worry about. The ones that cannot be traced. All others I like, especially, those that are purchased legally.............kind of like tagging an animal.

One of the things that bothers me about nailing convicted felons is that in theory, one has already paid for the crime.
Secondly, what constitutes a felony now is not the same as it was 15 or 20 years ago. There has been a huge increase in what constitues a felony. I got this from Scott Turow's Ultimate Punishment. It had not even dawned on me until I had read it.

(in reply to Vendaval)

Post #: 15

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 10:57:53 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Sorry about the people who are going to hate me after this.

Convicted felons have the right to bear arms. To prohibit it is what's called a bill of attainder, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

You're wrong about this. A bill of attainder is when a legislature declares someone guilty of a crime and punishes them without a trial. The convicted felon had a trial - loss of the right to carry a gun is often part of the punishment. They often lose other rights as well, like the right to vote or to freely associate. There's nothing unconstitutional about any of that.

Actually there is. A former convict, not on parole but sentence served, cannot have any of rights restricted. That the whole 'ex cons can't associate with ex cons' laws have survived court challenges has always boggled my mind although clearly it is only being selectively enforced.

BTW there is no right to vote in the constitution. That's why so many states can get away with disenfranchising ex cons. Challenges against those laws have to be based on equal protection claims and that is a much harder road.

While there may be challenges, I suspect that the laws preventing felons from posessing firearms will be upheld, especially in light of this comment by the majority... http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

quote:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

and

quote:

Before this Court petitioners have stated that "if thehandgun ban is struck down and respondent registers ahandgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not otherwise disqualified," by which they apparently mean if he is not a felon and is not insane.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 16

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 12:06:29 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

The ruling is actually contradictory.

quote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Which brings it under the same sorts of precedent established for the other rights given in the US Constitution. Which clearly means the sentence of a court cannot deny a person to own a firearm once they are no longer in the custody of the state just as the sentence of a court cannot deny a person to freely practice their faith once they are not in the custody of the state.

Then later Scalia tried to pull back to keep the bans on felons and the insane from having the right but under the 14th ammendment that doesn't work. Banning ex cons from owning firearms is a black letter violation of equal protection under the law if the second ammendment is an individual right. Its one of the many reasons that ruling is sure to get reversed.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 7/29/2008 12:07:06 PM >

(in reply to Thadius)

Post #: 17

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 9:05:03 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Split hairs all you want. I TAKE my rights, where your's come from is your business.

If I am not allowed to protect myself, and the supreme court has ruled that the government has no obligation to protect me, what the fuck am I supposed to do ?

I yield the floor.

T

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 18

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/29/2008 10:34:07 PM

Vendaval

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

So if a person has not yet committed a felony but has been diagnosed as being mentally ill they could be prevented from purchasing a firearm. How did Cho Seung-Hui pass a background check then? Was it because the mental health records were not available to the gun shop or because the court records were from 2005 (2 years previous) ?

"Killer's manifesto: 'You forced me into a corner'"

POSTED: 10:43 p.m. EDT, April 18, 2007
" CNN also learned Wednesday that in 2005 Cho was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice, who declared he was "an imminent danger" to himself, a court document states.

A temporary detention order from General District Court in the commonwealth of Virginia said Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."
A box indicating that the subject "Presents an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness" was not checked.

In another part of the form, Cho was described as "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization, and presents an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self, and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment." "

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 19

RE: Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pro... - 7/30/2008 1:16:06 AM

Bethnai

Posts: 492
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline

ooh! I got a C. How about all documents not filed under said individual. Individual is an adult therefore, "helping" an individual is not a priority-its not even in the script. Secondly, in legal documents one may only respond in one of maybe three ways given the situation. When one looks at whether someone should be detained, the response is.......does this person represent a threat or danger to himself or others...........every detention order requires one of three responses. Your not going to see this unless you see several of them.

mentally ill and in need of hospitalization, and presents an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self, and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment."

You will see the same wording in DCFS cases just a little differently. Guardian is unwilling or unable to ...........

same/same. See?

A handwritten section of the form describes Cho. "Affect is flat and mood is depressed," said the order, which was signed December 14 by Special Justice Paul M. Barnett. "He denies suicidal ideation. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal."

1. While someone is in custody:Suicide ideation-does said person act as if he is going to kill him/herself? Do they have a game plan and can they verbalize it? How does money factor in? Is an institution willing and able to take someone in who needs it or will they operate predominantly on whose paying the cost?

2. Affect: one of three (tops) responses. I have only seen two. One may only respond in X amount of ways. Its a mental health thang. Decided by mental health professionals and the author more than likely could not differentiate between any but it sounded elite.

3. Some court orders are going to come down and there are other agencies involved that may or may not take over from there. Those agencies are prohibited or do not update said profile and should you be so lucky as to have time and access to do so if you had it. That said person may have all kinds of shit going on but no one can access a full account. For example, in Illionois, a search reveals a name. Name has warrant. Nothing but a cause number. No information given. The blow back is that for each individual there is no freaking information available because rehabilitation is not a factor. Because departments are all about controlling their own crap.........and anyone elses that they can.

4. Cho Seung-Hui gets special treatment because he unloaded on a university. Why didn't someone see? I agree, not in the manner it was presented, but yeah, there were indications.
You have those that have been through the system from day one, removed with cocaine in system. You can find the documents. Its an obvious unload. You still had every indication but you still didn't see.

The moral of the story, and my lame attempt to pretend like I did not highjack this thread, is people who sell guns sure as hell aren't going to have access to that information. We have to move beyond rights and look at some deep fallacies within the system that we have in place at this very moment. But your going to have get your hands dirty and go local and actually give a damn about the problems. Obviously, all you's are general.

(in reply to Vendaval)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Project Exile, enforcing current firearms laws, pros and cons

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094