retired

Will It Make Any Difference?

51 posts in this topic

Mayor Pugh wants the City Council to enact a bill to make a one-year jail sentence mandatory for carrying an illegal firearm near churches, schools, etc., i.e. almost anywhere in Baltimore. The law would prohibit a judge from suspending any part of the sentence and would not allow for parole, except under the standard parole rules.

Police Commissioner Kevin Davis supports the bill which is actually the city's attempt to counteract the General Assembly's refusal to make illegal possession of a firearm a felony.

City Councilman Brandon  Scott, who seemingly wants to be Mayor, is expressing reluctance because it adversely impacts that fabled group -- poor  young African- American males.  Coincidentally, most of those carrying illegal firearms are members of that same fabled group so Scott's logic hard to follow.

The bill appears to be Mayor Pugh's "plan" to reduce city violence  but the question is: Even if the City Council enacts the bill as she proposes it, will it really make any difference at all? Or will it simply remove one generation of gunmen to make way for the next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't go far enough but it's a start .....

They said they had to include the distance part to conform to state law .....

Whatever happened to project exile? .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make is 20 years and we are talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, retired said:

City Councilman Brandon  Scott, who seemingly wants to be Mayor, is expressing reluctance because it adversely impacts that fabled group -- poor  young African- American males.  Coincidentally, most of those carrying illegal firearms are members of that same fabled group so Scott's logic hard to follow.

 

No, it won't make a difference.  Brandon Scott is just one of many who feels that way.  The general feeling is that there are too many black males in jail already and of course that is the group that would primarily be affected by such a change.

Just keep holding more prayer walks and pop up events and all the city's problems will be solved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, retired said:

The bill appears to be Mayor Pugh's "plan" to reduce city violence  but the question is: Even if the City Council enacts the bill as she proposes it, will it really make any difference at all? Or will it simply remove one generation of gunmen to make way for the next?

It would be good if we could remove one generation of gunmen, it would keep a whole lot more people alive, and give us time to try to figure out how to prevent the next generation of gunmen, its like stop the bleeding first. That's the way I feel about jails and mandatory sentencing, problem is, we haven't yet figured out how to prevent the next generation and its not for lack of money or trying, either. But at the very least we should remove from society those we presently KNOW will commit violent crimes (i/e. habituals)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eastside Terp said:

Doesn't go far enough but it's a start .....

They said they had to include the distance part to conform to state law .....

Whatever happened to project exile? .....

Need to do something to make an impact. We had two gun issues at work this week alone - one discharged -- no one was hurt.  (Yeah, shocker I know, but the individuals could not have cared less about our "no weapons permitted signage). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

City Councilman Brandon  Scott, who seemingly wants to be Mayor, is expressing reluctance because it adversely impacts that fabled group -- poor  young African- American males. y

Yes!  We don't want to do anything to disrupt that group because they contribute so much to the fabric of the city. and nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, FJBlacknight said:

City Councilman Brandon  Scott, who seemingly wants to be Mayor, is expressing reluctance because it adversely impacts that fabled group -- poor  young African- American males. y

Yes!  We don't want to do anything to disrupt that group because they contribute so much to the fabric of the city. and nation.

It was two young African American males who are responsible for bringing weapons into my place of employment. And it's African American males murdering in the streets of Baltimore.  What is Brandon doing about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Sprightly said:

It was two young African American males who are responsible for bringing weapons into my place of employment. And it's African American males murdering in the streets of Baltimore.  What is Brandon doing about that?

It is the same continuous 'ohh the poor black man, he doesn't have a chance, it is the white man's fault, you don't understand, etc. etc.'  playback loop. It may play great with the minority of the minority majority in BC. But it is really, really old for the rest of BC (I am sure) and  the majority of people that live in Maryland with more than two brain cells to rub together. 

He .....like Trump is grandstanding to his base of voters.

And about the 'what is he doing'...pretty much the same as the NAACP #blacklivesmatter, the Jessies and so on. NOTHING OF WORTH.

Ah yeah....the NAACP thingy....that was covered in another thread...and in summary after all what little that was presented as positive (and I am not dismissing that work....not by a long shot) compared to what is happening it is/was but a cup of water thrown into the ocean of despair. 

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Saticon3 said:

It would be good if we could remove one generation of gunmen, it would keep a whole lot more people alive, and give us time to try to figure out how to prevent the next generation of gunmen, its like stop the bleeding first. That's the way I feel about jails and mandatory sentencing, problem is, we haven't yet figured out how to prevent the next generation and its not for lack of money or trying, either. But at the very least we should remove from society those we presently KNOW will commit violent crimes (i/e. habituals)

What you are saying is absolutely true....however with the revolving doors and such ....that is a near impossibility. And even if it was possible to 'lock them all up' you can't.....there are always going to be some scumbags that slip through.....to infect the next generation.

The hard truth is ....the only way to not have a 'next generation' of thugs. Is to eliminate the production of the next generation in the first place. And that ain't gonna fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhhh an btw..... as I have pointed out NUMERIOUS TIMES:

Use a gun....according to MD law.....5 years MINIMUM.....PERIOD. However, IT IS THE JUDGES that have control on when and if  to apply it and the prosecutors to plea bargain and the judge allow.

 

CRIMINAL LAW TITLE 4. WEAPON CRIMES SUBTITLE 2. HANDGUNS Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 4-204 (2014) § 4-204. Use of handgun or antique firearm in commission of crime (a) "Firearm" defined. -- (1) In this section, "firearm" means: (i) a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or (ii) the frame or receiver of such a weapon. (2) "Firearm" includes an antique firearm, handgun, rifle, shotgun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, starter gun, or any other firearm, whether loaded or unloaded. (b) Prohibited. -- A person may not use a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, as defined in § 5-101 of the Public Safety Article, or any felony, whether the firearm is operable or inoperable at the time of the crime. (c) Penalty. -- (1) (i) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, in addition to any other penalty imposed for the crime of violence or felony, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 5 years and not exceeding 20 years. (ii) The court may not impose less than the minimum sentence of 5 years and, except as otherwise provided in § 4-305 of the Correctional Services Article, the person is not eligible for parole in less than 5 years. (2) For each subsequent violation, the sentence shall be consecutive to and not concurrent with any other sentence imposed for the crime of violence or felony. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 36B(d); 2002, ch. 26, § 2; 2003, ch. 17; 2011, chs. 164, 165.

 

All that the GA has to do is add MANDATORY TO THE LAW. And things would be good.

OH btw gang.....our wonderful GA had a chance to do that last session.....and blew it off. 

What the city is trying to do is a stop gap measure.....I understand they are going to push again next session. Start contacting your reps NOW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sprightly said:

It was two young African American males who are responsible for bringing weapons into my place of employment. And it's African American males murdering in the streets of Baltimore.  What is Brandon doing about that?

 

Clearly nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Guido2 said:

It is the same continuous 'ohh the poor black man, he doesn't have a chance, it is the white man's fault, you don't understand, etc. etc.'  playback loop. It may play great with the minority of the minority majority in BC. But it is really, really old for the rest of BC (I am sure) and  the majority of people that live in Maryland with more than two brain cells to rub together. 

He .....like Trump is grandstanding to his base of voters.

And about the 'what is he doing'...pretty much the same as the NAACP #blacklivesmatter, the Jessies and so on. NOTHING OF WORTH.

Ah yeah....the NAACP thingy....that was covered in another thread...and in summary after all what little that was presented as positive (and I am not dismissing that work....not by a long shot) compared to what is happening it is/was but a cup of water thrown into the ocean of despair. 

By Brandon Scott making such an inane statement, is that a subliminal admission that blacks are the majority group committing violent acts in Baltimore? If he is contemplating his candidacy for Mayor of Baltimore, he should be more concerned about stricter gun laws and about putting away violent criminals, not about who the laws are going to affect.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know folks don't favor giving up on young men but locking up the hard core is really the best option .....

There are 10s of thousands of undereducated, unemployable young men across america that are causing the majority of the problems and preying on those that still have hope and want a better life .....

Best thing to do is just remove them from society and focus on those that still have hope ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I have to do everything myself.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-gun-possession-20170714-story.html

Quote

 

Baltimore leaders on Friday proposed a mandatory one-year sentence for illegal gun possession within 100 yards of a school, park, church, public building or other public place of assembly within the city.  The bill would prevent any part of the one-year sentence from being suspended, and preclude those with such convictions from receiving parole.

Mayor Catherine Pugh said she’d like to do more to restrict guns, but “this is what we can do locally” without changing state law.

...

Police Commissioner Kevin Davis praised the bill as a much-needed change to help the city address its soaring violence. The city is on pace to surpass 300 homicides for the third year in a row. Before 2015, that mark hadn’t been reached in Baltimore since the 1990s.

 

 

Edited by Baltimatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 6:32 PM, Saticon3 said:

It would be good if we could remove one generation of gunmen, it would keep a whole lot more people alive, and give us time to try to figure out how to prevent the next generation of gunmen, its like stop the bleeding first. That's the way I feel about jails and mandatory sentencing, problem is, we haven't yet figured out how to prevent the next generation and its not for lack of money or trying, either. But at the very least we should remove from society those we presently KNOW will commit violent crimes (i/e. habituals)

We could start with eliminating a program that's been failing for over 40 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pickle20 said:

It should be 5 years. These kids will take a year like it's breakfast.

I agree. This is just a feel good proposal that literally does nothing.

Edited by bmore_ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The bill would prevent any part of the one-year sentence from being suspended

Anything that removes suspended sentences from gun crimes is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bmore_ken said:

We could start with eliminating a program that's been failing for over 40 years

ken not messing with you or trolling.

Which program are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ivanbalt said:

Anything that removes suspended sentences from gun crimes is a good idea.

I don't disagree, but what impact will a year truly make. Those guys could do a year standing on their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading between the lines, the city might be limited as to what penalties it can set for violations of ordinances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

Reading between the lines, the city might be limited as to what penalties it can set for violations of ordinances.

This argument should be strongly debated in Annapolis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

I don't disagree, but what impact will a year truly make. Those guys could do a year standing on their heads.

Much like the argument for the death penalty (which I am against by the way) the simplest answer is for that one year that one criminal won't pull a gun on one innocent civilian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now