“That, quite frankly, is a problem. There’s no deterrent, there’s no consequence. The naked (illegal)  possession of a firearm in Baltimore is a misdemeanor. The bad guys know it, and they take advantage of it.” – Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis in Baltimore’s yearlong war on ‘trigger pullers’ and illegal guns, by the numbers [at baltimoresun.com]

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

60 COMMENTS

  1. Why don’t the Feds step in and start prosecuting the offenders under Federal Law ?

    I guess the Feds are too busy protecting perverts to be bothered.

    • But don’t you worry. One more law will fix everything… and when that doesn’t fix everything, we’ll pass another law that will!

    • “Aren’t consequences racist?”

      Only if it’s a legal ruling printed with black ink on white paper…

      *groan*

    • Statistics are racist, now consequences are racist…you’d almost think reality is racist.

  4. Chicago has shown that it does not matter if it is a “misdemeanor” or “felony” it does not matter.

    CT proves everyday that it does not matter because the state simply does not prosecute the gun offense and it is simply used as a bargaining chip.

    The law is not a deterrent to gangs and lifelong criminals.

  5. Criminals by definition don’t obey laws. Criminals don’t fear legal consequences when politicians surrender and give them permission to riot and destroy private property. Criminals don’t respect a criminal justice system controlled by a DA who who is an incompetent political hack. And, criminals don’t fear police officers who are themselves afraid of being targeted for civil rights prosecution. It’s no wonder criminals free to run wild in the streets of Baltimore.

  6. Is it possible to rise to the position of police comissioner of a major city like Baltimore yet still be so obtuse? He actually thinks that stiffer penalties for possessing a gun will serve as an adequate deterrent, while in the same breath admit that there’s been little to no decrease in violent crime in spite of all the gun related arrests.

    If life in prison isn’t a deterrent from killing someone, how in the world is a couple of years in prison going to deter someone from even carrying a gun illegally?

    • “Is it possible to rise to the position of police commissioner of a major city like Baltimore yet still be so obtuse?”

      Not only is it possible, but police commissioner isn’t even the career apex of someone so obtuse. One could rise at least to the level of Vice Chancellor of a major country like Germany.

      In the wake of Friday’s shopping strip shooting spree in Munich, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel is already clamoring for even stricter controls on firearms. Even though the shooter used an illegal weapon (GLOCK 17 with serial number filed off), the Vice Chancellor told the media that “we need to do everything further possible to curb the access to deadly weapons and strictly control them.”

      Of course, that’s not even the most frightening pronouncement out of German leadership since Friday. An obtuse man who rose to the level of Interior Minister of a major state, Bavaria, wants to suspend the German constitution to allow for domestic deployment of the military. They locked Munich down with 2,300 police officers, including SWAT teams called in from throughout Germany and even neighboring Austria. Yet, Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann wants to puts boots and tank treads on the streets.

      • Right. And, all of that was because of a single fruitcake with one (1) handgun. The whole damn country came to a standstill. Imagine if sometime there really ARE 3 shooters ranging about the city with AKs, not shooting themselves but shooting others, shooting at cops, generally having a Mumbai good time. All of Europe might break down!

        • And if the 3 guys were running around killing people with illegal AK’s, all named Muhammad, and positively ID’d as ISIS followers, they’d still call for more gun control rather some semblance of Muslim control, or at least immigration reforms. The Germans are easily led. They don’t have a lot of political spine and history proves it. In 1940 you couldn’t find a dozen people who weren’t Nazi’s. By the summer of 45 you couldn’t find a Nazi to save your ass unless you actually caught them in an SS uniform and then they’d still deny it.

    • Well, putting them away for life may not deter others, but it absolutely solves the recitivism problem!

      But actually solving a problem would mean there would be no way to use the outrage to raise money to fill political coffers or to deliberately start a false-flag race war… so that will never happen.

      • Putting them away for life does *not* solve recidivism, in TX we had a fine young officer shot several times, then run over several times, by a group of escaped convicts with death sentences/life without parole. Solving recidivism requires killing them. Earlier, there was Kenneth Allen McDuff (sp?) who raped and killed most brutally right out of high school, was sentenced to die, SCOTUS intervened so it became life in prison and could not be changed back when the death penalty was resurrected, so was released after 25 years. That was TX “definition” of life in prison, who knew? In about a week he had committed the first of between 7 and 11 kidnap, rape for days on end, and then murders, which went on for months. We need to KILL them.

    • If you legislate serious consequences for firearm possession (which would be unconstitutional, no matter the government’s reasoning), and if you actually enforce those consequences the only thing you will accomplish is that instead of saying, “Oh shit!”, putting up their hands and taking the misdemeanor slap on the wrist you will have these punks deciding to shoot it out with the cops every single time.

      If the firearm wrap can’t be plea bargained away and the weight of the guaranteed conviction is significant the perps will not calmly accept the bust. They WILL fight back.

      Be careful, Baltimore Lieutenant General, you might get what you wish for and not want what you get.

      • By that reasoning there should be no serious consequences for anything – murder, rape etc. because they might resist a rightful arrest? Whose side are you on?
        I think it’s time to look again at Project Exile. Drop fliers into Chicago warning of the consequences and then enforce those federal laws. Let the mary-jane pushers out and swap them for the violent career criminals.

        • I am on the side of history. And of people having the right to defend themselves, not the government having the right to enact ever more draconian laws in an attempt to control the behavior of people who they already know cannot or will not control their behavior just because it is illegal.

          The historical record shows that when penalties become severe the response of criminals is NOT to stop committing the crimes but rather to resist arrest with much greater vigor. If the penalty is a slap on the wrist, metaphorically, such as our current revolving door justice system, the BGs just accept it as a cost of doing business. The more severe the penalty becomes for perpetrating a particular crime the more the criminal will resist being caught and punished. This is simple human nature. In some European states (monarchies) the ruler mandated the death penalty as punishment for many different crimes in the belief that fear of death would cause criminals to change their career path. In essentially every case the result instead was that the criminal preferred to simply kill the victim outright rather than leave a witness that could testify against him should he be caught.

          If pedophelia became a capital offense, how many abducted or abused children do you think would survive the experience?

          My contention is that if you legislate severe penalties for mala prohibidum crimes what you will accomplish is that criminals will simply try much harder not to be arrested or use greater violence to resist arrest when it is imminent. Aside from the fact that legislating against the possession of firearms, or any arms, is prima facie unconstitutional (“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”).

          Consider, if robbery is a crime punishable by 5-7 years in prison but armed robbery with a firearm adds a mandatory 10 years without parole, what is the incentive for the robber to not simply walk into the Quickie Mart already shooting, assuming his identity is sufficiently concealed that the security cameras are unable to identify him?

      • I think the possibility of death on the spot or life in prison would still deter people adequately.

        • Death on the spot, absolutely! Armed citizens defending themselves and others against criminal acts. Perfect solution, if the courts and the government will allow it.

          Death penalty or life in prison? Not so much. See my comment above. The record shows that severe punishment results only in a more severe attempt to avoid that punishment. More dead victims of crimes, more police shot trying to apprehend the criminals.

          Consider: If the penalty for a crime is life without parole, or the death penalty, and you have already committed that crime once, where is the deterrence against committing that crime again and again in the future? (Aside from increased risk of eventually being caught.) If you have murdered once there is no solid reason not to murder again – they can only execute you one time.

          Therefore, if you have already committed armed robbery and know the penalty for being caught is severe you have a strong incentive not to leave behind any victim that can testify against you should you get caught. And once you have shot someone to death in the commission of a robbery you have no reason not to shoot the next victim, or the next. People living a life of crime may be to some degree crazy, but they are NOT stupid.

  9. Serge wins the interwebz! Never happen-even under Mr. Law & Order®…yeah federal crime-it’s a thing.

  10. What? The Second Amendment is just a misdemeanor?!? When did this happen? What’s next, is freedom of religion not a felony? Freedom of speech?

    • Some of these dudes are running out of collar to put their brass…

      Fun Fact: After the fourth star, you automatically know Kung-Fu. After the fifth, you can levitate. True story.

  12. Yep. The felon that is still going to be a predator, ignores the law, against being a human predator, as well as the law against owning any firearms; while the felon that has turned a new leaf and actually wants to give up the predator life; is hated and despised by the predator and the law abiding alike. So by the definition of what is a free man for all of recorded history, he is sentenced to a life time of being a peasant, peon and virtual slave; unable to vote, and unable to legally effectively defend his or his families life from tyrants.

    If I was felon in such a degenerate, perverted and truly unjust time; sentenced by the “law abiding” to a life time sentence of being a dis-armed sub-human sub-class with no chance of redemption; I know the choice I would make.

  14. A “misdemeanor” that carries up to 3 years of imprisonment. (MD 4-203) So a conviction makes a person prohibited federally even if they don’t serve any time. It is near impossible for a normal person to get a CCW and the idea that getting caught would like result in becoming a prohibited person keeps otherwise good citizens from carrying and protecting themselves and others.

    (c) (1) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to the penalties provided in this subsection.
    (2) If the person has not previously been convicted under this section, § 4–204 of this subtitle, or § 4–101 or § 4–102 of this title:
    (i) except as provided in item (ii) of this paragraph, the person is subject to imprisonment for not less than 30 days and not exceeding 3 years or a fine of not less than $250 and not exceeding $2,500 or both; or

    • And which portion of this law is NOT a violation of the Second Amendment “…shall not be infringed.” clause?

      • To quote our (MD) licensing division LEO during a handgun permit review board meeting, “it’s not a right, it’s a privilege”

        • Delaware calls CCW a privilege as well. We have open carry allowed ONLY because it’s not specifically prohibited.
          Just give them time and it will be.

  15. Entertaining reading numbers, calculating percentages, targeting baddies, measuring success or failure…all for nothing…reason – everyone has the right to lawfully protect themselves, even a criminal needs a gun, a tool of the trade and required to survive.

    Imagine your a criminal, robbing, selling drugs, killing your competion. Police catch a break, find a gun, criminal bails out, grabs another gun getting back to work. Court date pops and if sent to jail, it’s a year long vacation, three refuels a day, a rack and no one looking to shoot them.

    Meanwhile law enforcement buys a new database ID’ing criminals they already know while documenting how they’re losing. Case in point, no amount of data can correct Los Angeles inability to solve 50% of its murders.

    Thanks to the Consititution, law enforcement is on a treadmill, as fast as they put criminals in, the revolving door of judicial cash flow, bolstered by no vacancy corrections motels, churns them out. The perfect criminal support system.

    Just as the Constitution provides cover for citizen and criminals alike, it also provides crime reduction in the twenty-seven words of the second amendment. Half the criminals relay fear of an armed citizen whether law abiding or another criminal. It’s time we remove barriers to lawful self protection in public, arm citizens and participate in crimes decline.

  16. Nothing wrong with “nakedly” carrying a gun. The Baltimore cops are “nakedly” carrying guns. When there is a victim involved then prosecute the perpetrator of that crime.

    • That reminds me, it struck me the other day that the “posse” of the 1800s was a perfect example of a militia which provided its own, personally held arms.

  19. When you refuse to flush the toilet, you shouldn’t be surprised when you find, at some point, that it’s overflowing with shit.

  20. I think that gangs in Baltimore should be well armed, if only to enable them to kill each other. Bullets are cheaper than prison, and more effective to boot.

    When they kill each other, we should be cheering.

    • Perhaps instead of passing more unconstitutional gun restriction laws we should mandate that a gang member arrested in possession of a gun must take a marksmanship class before being released. Might help protect innocent bystanders if the jerks could actually hit the intended target. (/semi-sarc)

  21. I would point out that there is a simple two fold solution.

    1) No more PC and no more Disparate Impact Theory. Do the crime, get hard time. Armed robbery? 30 years upon conviction, no early release.

    2) Allow easy access to CCW for the law abiding. Grabbers hate it but it works. Miami-Dade had a rape rate much higher than the national average. When CCW became a thing the Sheriff’s Office took out ads on bill boards and radio in the area advertising free pistol training for women that got a permit. Within months of the ad campaign starting rape dropped to national levels and over the next year or so dropped below the national average. Making it clear that citizens have the right and ability to defend themselves greatly raises the stakes for criminals.

    • 1) No more PC and no more Disparate Impact Theory. Do the crime, get hard time. Armed robbery? 30 years upon conviction, no early release.

      So, conviction for murder, in many places, gets you 25 to life, with possibility of parole after 25. Armed robbery gets you 30 years hard time with no parole? Why would the robber not just shoot the victim up front. As noted in a comment above the Chicago clearance rate for murder (considering no witness left behind) is around 50%. So the BG gets a 50/50 chance he will not serve any time at.

Comments are closed.