Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FBI database for gun buyers missing millions of records

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Um, your quotes refer to “criminal” liability and mine refer to “negligence”.
    The fact that you don’t recognize the difference between the 2 concepts tells me that you have no clue of what I am talking about.
    Despite this, you continue to try and lecture me about immunity.

    If you break the law, criminal liability may result, if you fail to do your job properly, like maintain a database, that is likely a negligent act.
    There is no immunity for breaking the law, (or violating constitutional rights)but there is immunity for failing to do your job properly. (Negligent acts)Providing for insurance isn’t the same thing as waiving the explicit immunities I’ve identified. (See the “Rule of Statutory Construction”)

    You can’t sue the police for failing to stop someone from shooting you, but you can sue the police if they shoot you.
    In the first instance, the cops may have failed to do their job properly, in the second they have arguably broken the law.

    None of this has anything to do with a conservative effort to avoid personal liability as you have claimed. It is how the law works. Proving that federal employees can be held criminally liable doesn’t support anything you’ve claimed or refute anything I’ve said.


    Meanwhile, instead of always trying to present yourself as some kind of legal expert, try to educate yourself about the things you want to discuss.

    Here are three links about "criminal negligence" and criminal liability for prior criminal negligence

    http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi...enn_law_review

    Negligence is a problematic ground for criminal liability. Every major Western legal system punishes negligent as well as intentional violations of protected interests;' but theorists both here and abroad feel uneasy about the practice.'
    https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/c...context=lalrev

    Page 813

    CRIMINAL LAW- LIABILITY FOR PRIOR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
    As a general rule there are two requirements that must be met before a defendant can be convicted of the criminal negligence type of involuntary man- slaughter: the defendant must be grossly negligent and his negligent act must have been a substantial contribution to the homicide. The requirements of gross negligence are met when there is a disregard of the consequences which may ensue, and an indifference to the rights of others equivalent to a criminal intent.2 Thus gross negligence has been found when the actor has knowledge of the highly dangerous nature of his actions or knowledge of such facts as under the circumstances would dis- close to a reasonable man the highly dangerous character of his action.8
    and

    https://books.google.com/books?id=Ls...son%22&f=false

    Criminal negligence requires that "through a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise," the actor fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or a circumstance exists. An actor is criminally negligent when he should have been aware of the risk but was not, while recklessness requires that the defendant actually be aware of the risk but disregard it
    Meanwhile, I showed you that the lawmakers ha a lot of flexibility regarding how to structure a law and they can certainly hold employees criminally liable which includes liable for criminal negligence. On top of this, the government itself can go after employees. On top of all the above, I was talking about the law without even bothering to see if it was legislated by conservatives or liberals. But you are so fixated with trying to support conservatives, you do not even see what I say. My issue with the conservatives is that they try to argue that we cannot do anything regarding the law because (as you say) "it is how the law works." THIS is why I go after them. This mentality is the one which shows their attempt to discard everything they say about personal responsibility and accountable government when it is about gun control. We can certainly have laws which do not let employees off the hook for failing to update databases which is not exactly "rocket science." . When we have only 80% of inputing felony convictions to the national database ( which is the case that exists in some states ONLY), we are not talking about a casual omission or human mistake or simple "failure to do a job" or failure to adhere to some unreasonable standard.
    Last edited by pamak; 12 Nov 17, 10:15.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #32
      I’m with AJR, screw enforcement, kill them all and let God sort them out.
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by pamak View Post
        Meanwhile, instead of always trying to present yourself as some kind of legal expert, try to educate yourself about the things you want to discuss.

        Here are three links about "criminal negligence" and criminal liability for prior criminal negligence

        http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi...enn_law_review



        https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/c...context=lalrev

        Page 813





        and

        https://books.google.com/books?id=Ls...son%22&f=false



        Meanwhile, I showed you that the lawmakers ha a lot of flexibility regarding how to structure a law and they can certainly hold employees criminally liable which includes liable for criminal negligence. On top of this, the government itself can go after employees. On top of all the above, I was talking about the law without even bothering to see if it was legislated by conservatives or liberals. But you are so fixated with trying to support conservatives, you do not even see what I say. My issue with the conservatives is that they try to argue that we cannot do anything regarding the law because (as you say) "it is how the law works." THIS is why I go after them. This mentality is the one which shows their attempt to discard everything they say about personal responsibility and accountable government when it is about gun control. We can certainly have laws which do not let employees off the hook for failing to update databases which is not exactly "rocket science." . When we have only 80% of inputing felony convictions to the national database ( which is the case that exists in some states ONLY), we are not talking about a casual omission or human mistake or simple "failure to do a job" or failure to adhere to some unreasonable standard.


        I do love how you change your points. I will give up after this post and you can change the subject again and claim victory. And trust me, I know far more about the law than you do.

        You blamed conservatives for the immunity provision of the Act and claimed it was hypocritical because conservatives believe in personal responsibility.
        I have never defended conservatives, I have just pointed out repeatedly that the immunity provision for the failure to do one's job properly is standard for all federal employees (and state) and has nothing to do with conservatives.

        You keep trying to change the subject to criminal violations, but I never said anything about criminal acts, just negligent ones. Your failure to grasp the difference has led you to keep posting on criminal acts. I understand the elements of a criminal act a little better than you do and have addressed it previously in this thread.

        Yes, legislators can be flexible in drafting the law, but once it is drafted, if clear, that flexibility disappears for the most part.

        I don't say "this is how the law works" because I happen to be conservative but because I actually know how the law works.

        I suspect that what you are suggesting is that we hold federal employees liable when their failure to properly do their job and update a database results in a criminal obtaining a gun and using it in a crime.
        Sorry, that would fail on multiple levels under existing law regardless of immunity provisions.
        If you are going to claim that the law does one thing or the other, I strongly recommend that you learn a little about how it works first.
        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
          I do love how you change your points. I will give up after this post and you can change the subject again and claim victory. And trust me, I know far more about the law than you do.

          You blamed conservatives for the immunity provision of the Act and claimed it was hypocritical because conservatives believe in personal responsibility.
          I have never defended conservatives, I have just pointed out repeatedly that the immunity provision for the failure to do one's job properly is standard for all federal employees (and state) and has nothing to do with conservatives.

          You keep trying to change the subject to criminal violations, but I never said anything about criminal acts, just negligent ones. Your failure to grasp the difference has led you to keep posting on criminal acts. I understand the elements of a criminal act a little better than you do and have addressed it previously in this thread.

          Yes, legislators can be flexible in drafting the law, but once it is drafted, if clear, that flexibility disappears for the most part.

          I don't say "this is how the law works" because I happen to be conservative but because I actually know how the law works.

          I suspect that what you are suggesting is that we hold federal employees liable when their failure to properly do their job and update a database results in a criminal obtaining a gun and using it in a crime.
          Sorry, that would fail on multiple levels under existing law regardless of immunity provisions.
          If you are going to claim that the law does one thing or the other, I strongly recommend that you learn a little about how it works first.
          The reason you actually decide to leave is because once more you started a conversation without knowing the basic about what you are talking. So, now that we start talking about the details, you see that your original claim was just coming from a position of ignorance.

          You also try to misrepresent what I said. I did not blame conservatives for the existing law (although they certainly have responsibility). I blamed the conservative attitude that somehow we cannot or that we should not change the laws.

          This is what YOU said when you first replied to my posts about the need to change the current situation and have laws that actually hold employees responsible

          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
          You are confusing "personal responsibility" with "governmental immunity ".
          What you see as a conservative conspiracy to avoid "personal responsibility" for a governmental employee's failure to do their job properly is not a unique feature of background checks but applies to nearly all governmental activities.
          All governmental employees are held to a different standard than the private sector with respect to the performance of their jobs.

          One of the reasons for this is to prevent the government from going bankrupt defending itself against frivolous lawsuits.
          So, I provided proof that the government DOES hold its employees criminally liable in certain cases.

          And the idea that you " never said anything about criminal acts, just negligent ones." shows once more that despite the links I gave you you STILL do not understand that negligence CAN be linked to criminal acts.
          There is a reason we have the expression "CRIMINAL negligence" It is negligence linked to crimes, such as involuntary manslaughter

          https://www.justia.com/criminal/offe...-manslaughter/

          Involuntary Manslaughter

          Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing that results either from criminal negligence or the commission of a low-level criminal act such as a misdemeanor. Involuntary manslaughter is distinguished from other forms of homicide because it does not require deliberation or premeditation, or intent. Because neither of these mental states is required, involuntary manslaughter is the lowest level category of homicide.

          Criminal Negligence
          The first type of involuntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant negligently commits an act that results in the death of another.
          The level of negligence required for involuntary manslaughter is higher than normal civil negligence and requires that the defendant have acted in a very unreasonable manner. The exact language used to describe this negligence standard varies by state, but many refer to it as “criminal negligence” or “gross negligence.” State laws also vary as to whether the defendant must have been aware that his conduct was grossly negligent. In some states, the defendant must have known that his conduct was a threat to others, while other states consider whether the actions were objectively negligent, without regard for the defendant’s own perceptions.

          It is important to understand that criminal negligence does not require that the defendant have committed an unlawful act. Rather, it criminalizes both lawful and unlawful acts that are committed negligently. For instance, although driving a vehicle is legal, driving that vehicle in a reckless manner may constitute criminal negligence and, if death results, lead to a charge of involuntary manslaughter.

          Criminal negligence can also result from a failure to perform an act that the defendant has a duty to perform. Where a parent has a duty to take care of and protect a child, but the child dies when she is left in the car on a hot day, the parent may be culpable for involuntary manslaughter. Another example would be a tour operator who fails to advise his passengers of the proper safety protocols, resulting in the death of a passenger. This tour operator has failed to perform his duty, resulting in criminal negligence.
          Last edited by pamak; 12 Nov 17, 12:57.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #35
            And here are more examples in which criminal liability DOES apply to federal employees

            http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a451138.pdf


            I. INTRODUCTION
            Environmental prosecutions are a threat to federal employees. In addition to adverse administrative
            personnel actions that may result from their violation of environmental laws, federal employees face the
            * possibility of felony conviction and jail.
            On June 15, 1988, a federal grand jury in the Northern District of New York returned a forty-two
            count indictment against a Department of Army civilian employee at Fort Drum, New York for illegally disposingof old cans of waste paint. On October 14, 1988, a jury found him guilty of failing to report the
            disposal, as federal law.;-requires.
            In other words, if the law requires the report of a crime or its input in a database, then falling to do so DOES break the law.


            A recently enacted federal statute, the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988, allows states to prosecute federal employees. Congress may soon amend other federal environmental laws to allow states to prosecute federal employees for violating state air, water, and hazardous waste laws.
            2. Strict Criminal Liability
            ...
            Although they do so at a high cost to individual defendants, strict liability public welfare statutes serve an important purpose. They regulate activities that threaten the public welfare--activities involving food, narcotics, industrial safety, traffic, and the environment. They are Congress' response to the dangers that exist in modern, industrialized society.
            ...

            B. Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine
            The duty to learn of, and comply with, the requirements of public welfare statutes extends to federal employees at all levels. Public welfare statutes impose criminal liability on federal employees and supervisors who fail to do so.

            ...

            They also extend criminal liability to corporate officers and supervisors who have not taken, and may not even be aware of, the prohibited activities.110
            They eliminate actus reas as a basis of liability. Convicting a supervisor for improperly storing hazardous waste that belongs to his directorate but
            over which he exercises no direct control is an example of the additional liability that public welfare
            statutes impose. The supervisor is liable for failing to learn of hazardous waste storage requirements and to ensure that his directorate complies with those requirements.
            So, despite your attempts to find legal excuses, there is the legal theory and precedent to support a change of laws in which clowns who are government employees and who do not comply with statutes and report only 80% of felony convictions to the database suffer legal consequences!
            Last edited by pamak; 12 Nov 17, 13:51.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
              I’m with AJR, screw enforcement, kill them all and let God sort them out.
              Not what I said.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                Not what I said.
                What other options do we have?
                You have told us its unconstitutional to lock up killers if they are insane. Its unconstitutional to lock them up forever.
                It’s unconstitutional to prevent people who exhibit violent tendencies out on parole from acquiring weapons.
                Last edited by Urban hermit; 12 Nov 17, 22:35.
                Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                Comment


                • #38
                  It is inhumane to lock a criminal up forever. I prefer to give them a hundred years or so and let them do as many as they can!

                  Pruitt
                  Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                  Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                  by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                    It is inhumane to lock a criminal up forever. I prefer to give them a hundred years or so and let them do as many as they can!

                    Pruitt
                    It’s inhumane to kill innocent people.
                    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Yet that does not stop them from getting killed. It is a Catch 22.

                      Pruitt
                      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                        What other options do we have?
                        You have told us its unconstitutional to lock up killers if they are insane. Its unconstitutional to lock them up forever.
                        It’s unconstitutional to prevent people who exhibit violent tendencies out on parole from acquiring weapons.
                        I did not say that. You are missing the point by a wide margin.

                        You want things to be simple: the government is going to protect you by locking up anyone who is bad or different.

                        Life does not work that way.

                        The background check program is a joke, and has been for decades.

                        Being mentally ill is not a crime.

                        Being on parole does not mean that your actions are tracked every minute; a parole officer is doing well if he or she knows where his/her client list lives and works.

                        People have rights, UH. And the system have a very finite reach. Every time there is a mass shooting you start complaining because the system failed, and every time you are wrong.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                          Yet that does not stop them from getting killed. It is a Catch 22.

                          Pruitt
                          That is it in a nutshell.

                          Most firearms legally sold in the USA do not go through licensed dealers so the background check program doesn't affect them. At any one time a sizable percentage of the dealer transfers in the USA don't actually get background checks made, so that doesn't deter anyone.

                          And for people who are serious about killing others, you can always buy guns illegally.

                          When a man sets out to do a killing, lesser laws will not stand in his way.

                          Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore have very tough local laws with full enforcement, and no felon there has any difficulty in getting whatever weapon they want.

                          There is no solution. And in a few years the issue will be completely moot, because 3D printers will reach the price where those catering to illegal gun sales will simple manufacture their product line.
                          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            That is it in a nutshell.

                            Most firearms legally sold in the USA do not go through licensed dealers so the background check program doesn't affect them. At any one time a sizable percentage of the dealer transfers in the USA don't actually get background checks made, so that doesn't deter anyone.

                            And for people who are serious about killing others, you can always buy guns illegally.

                            When a man sets out to do a killing, lesser laws will not stand in his way.

                            Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore have very tough local laws with full enforcement, and no felon there has any difficulty in getting whatever weapon they want.

                            There is no solution. And in a few years the issue will be completely moot, because 3D printers will reach the price where those catering to illegal gun sales will simple manufacture their product line.
                            BS!

                            There is no solution for illegal immigration and terrorism too. do not hear conservatives there to insist that the system should remain as it is. Obviously the system can improve, and if this means the saving of just a couple of innocent lives without violating constitutional rights, that should not be a problem. There is ZERO reason to have the background check being a joke just because some people want to undermine it.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore have very tough local laws with full enforcement, and no felon there has any difficulty in getting whatever weapon they want.
                              Detroit is kind of an exemption given that their chief of police told the law abiding years ago to arm themselves, we cannot protect you.

                              Chicago, Baltimore, DC, St. Louis, those liberal paradises where the law abiding have been disarmed and the police rendered nothing more then investigators, have become places of violence setting record levels of murders by firearms. In spite of those pockets of extreme violence, overall gun violence in the country remains at an all time low.

                              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              There is no solution.
                              Yes there is, end the pleas and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

                              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              And in a few years the issue will be completely moot, because 3D printers will reach the price where those catering to illegal gun sales will simple manufacture their product line.
                              3-D printing, the modern version of manufacturing a "Zip Gun," a homemade weapon of the street gangs of long ago. It only has to work once for the criminal or gang member to get rid of a rival.

                              Myth Busters even made a cannon from nothing more then a cardboard tube reinforced with duct tape. It fired multiple times without any signs of failing.
                              “Breaking News,”

                              “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                                I did not say that. You are missing the point by a wide margin.

                                You want things to be simple: the government is going to protect you by locking up anyone who is bad or different.

                                Life does not work that way.

                                The background check program is a joke, and has been for decades.

                                Being mentally ill is not a crime.

                                Being on parole does not mean that your actions are tracked every minute; a parole officer is doing well if he or she knows where his/her client list lives and works.

                                People have rights, UH. And the system have a very finite reach. Every time there is a mass shooting you start complaining because the system failed, and every time you are wrong.
                                Where you and I agree,
                                1. Nobody can protect every citizen from predators.
                                2. Being mentally ill is not a crime.
                                3. Parole officers are over worked. As are most evidence labs, and prosecutors.

                                Where we disagree.
                                1. Law enforcement has no responsibility to try to protect every citizen.
                                ( its a lofty goal but an honorable one)
                                2. Treatment for mentally illness is not punishment.
                                ( It is a benefit to them, and the rest of society)
                                3. Those who commit violent crimes and have been sentenced to time and the restrictions of parole have made those choices themselves.
                                Given time they should be rewarded with the same rights as everyone else.
                                But if they fail the consequences should be on them, not on the innocent.
                                IMO you lean towards the libertarian thought, that is your right.
                                You believe that your experience validates your opinion and disqualifies everyone else’s.
                                I understand that. But sometimes it comes off as callousness.
                                We are all victimized when we live our lives in fear. That is where most of us are coming from. Understanding that we expect some attempts be made to make communities safer.
                                Last edited by Urban hermit; 13 Nov 17, 11:58.
                                Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X