CSNbbs

Quote:Top Points:

Victims of shooting on Friday at Henry Pratt Co. plant in Illinois are identified

HR Intern Trevor Wehner, 22, was on his first day at work at the factory

Also slain were Clayton Parks, Russell Beyer, Vincente Juarez, and Josh Pinkard

Shooter Gary Martin, 45, was killed in a police shootout with responding officers

Martin brought gun to meeting and began shooting moment he was fired

He had a felony conviction and should not have been able to purchase the gun

But somehow passed background check for Illinois firearms card in 2014

Firearms card was revoked during CCW check but Martin kept gun he'd bought



The chief also released new details about Martin's criminal background and the weapon in the shooting.

Martin should have been legally barred from purchasing a gun due to his felony record. He had a 1995 conviction for aggravated assault for stabbing a woman in Marshall County, Mississippi.

However, in January 2014, Martin applied for and was issued an Illinois Firearm Owners Identification (FOI) card, which is required to own or purchase a gun in Illinois.

On March 6 2014, Martin applied to purchase a handgun at a licensed dealer in Aurora. Five days later, he took possession of a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber revolver, the same type of gun described as the weapon in Sunday's shooting.

On March 16 2014, Martin applied for a Concealed Carry permit in an unknown location. He was fingerprinted during the background check, and his prior felony conviction came to light during the background check.

At the discovery, Martin's CCW application was rejected, and his FOI card was revoked. He apparently retained possession of the handgun, however.

Ziman was unable to explain why the felony conviction did not prevent Martin from obtaining a FOI card in the first place, merely saying it was possible that it would not have been discovered until the more rigorous CCW check.

Martin's latest arrest was in 2017 in Oswego, Illinois, on charges of disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property.

He had a history of six arrests in Aurora, where he lived, police said.

The charges in Aurora included traffic and domestic battery-related incidents. His most recent arrest in Aurora was in 2008 for violating an order of protection.

So much for having strict gun laws Illinois.

Link

THIS is why the right calls for stricter enforcement

They knew he'd purchased a gun and revoked his CCW, but didn't try and retrieve his gun?

THIS is an area the right should agree... If someone fraudulently or by mistake gets a license and then buys a gun... they should lose the gun and license. They should be refunded for the gun as essentially a penalty to the state for poor maintenance of the database

in a related story, the alumni chairman for fundraising at Illinois State University was found dead in his office today from what police are calling a self inflicted gunshot wound.

(02-17-2019 09:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]THIS is why the right calls for stricter enforcement

They knew he'd purchased a gun and revoked his CCW, but didn't try and retrieve his gun?

THIS is an area the right should agree... If someone fraudulently or by mistake gets a license and then buys a gun... they should lose the gun and license. They should be refunded for the gun as essentially a penalty to the state for poor maintenance of the database

He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I thought white males were all the mass shooters...terrorist even. That’s what libs say at least.

Can't believe this happen in the land of Wayne and Garth

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

Prayers for the victims and families.

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 09:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]THIS is why the right calls for stricter enforcement

They knew he'd purchased a gun and revoked his CCW, but didn't try and retrieve his gun?

THIS is an area the right should agree... If someone fraudulently or by mistake gets a license and then buys a gun... they should lose the gun and license. They should be refunded for the gun as essentially a penalty to the state for poor maintenance of the database

He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

Sorry... misread that, but the point still stands. If 'whatever' is used to determine that you should be allowed to get a gun is found to be in clerical error, you should lose the gun but be fully compensated for it

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 09:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]THIS is why the right calls for stricter enforcement

They knew he'd purchased a gun and revoked his CCW, but didn't try and retrieve his gun?

THIS is an area the right should agree... If someone fraudulently or by mistake gets a license and then buys a gun... they should lose the gun and license. They should be refunded for the gun as essentially a penalty to the state for poor maintenance of the database

He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 09:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]THIS is why the right calls for stricter enforcement

They knew he'd purchased a gun and revoked his CCW, but didn't try and retrieve his gun?

THIS is an area the right should agree... If someone fraudulently or by mistake gets a license and then buys a gun... they should lose the gun and license. They should be refunded for the gun as essentially a penalty to the state for poor maintenance of the database

He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

So once again we have a failure of the system to enforce the laws we have on the books. Shocking.

Of course the left's solution for this will be adding more laws that we will also not enforce.


We don't need laws, we need enforcement.

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 09:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]THIS is why the right calls for stricter enforcement

They knew he'd purchased a gun and revoked his CCW, but didn't try and retrieve his gun?

THIS is an area the right should agree... If someone fraudulently or by mistake gets a license and then buys a gun... they should lose the gun and license. They should be refunded for the gun as essentially a penalty to the state for poor maintenance of the database

He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

There is no "grandfathered in". When you lose the right to possess a firearm it's for possessing firearms period.

IMO as part of your sentencing you should be given two choices:

A. Legally transfer any firearms you possess via a FFL holder. You can sell to family but they have to go through the FFL process.

or

B. Your firearms are seized by law enforcement.

Hopefully this stops being a problem but in cases like this where people fall through the cracks only to be discovered later then your guns are seized by law enforcement.

Ironically, the state with a program like this is California. They have a dedicated team that works to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

(02-18-2019 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]So once again we have a failure of the system to enforce the laws we have on the books. Shocking.

Of course the left's solution for this will be adding more laws that we will also not enforce.


We don't need laws, we need enforcement.

Hopefully they will investigate and find out what the hell happened.

(02-18-2019 12:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]So once again we have a failure of the system to enforce the laws we have on the books. Shocking.

Of course the left's solution for this will be adding more laws that we will also not enforce.


We don't need laws, we need enforcement.

Hopefully they will investigate and find out what the hell happened.

Yeah, OK.

One of two things happened:

1. Somewhere along the lines some nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat failed to do their job. Either this mutt's records weren't put into the system correctly at the state level, they weren't transferred correctly at the federal level, or it was ran incorrectly at the Illinois level.

or

2. The mutt used false information for both his Form 4473 and Illinois FOID card then used correct information for his CCL.

Since they knew about both the FOID and gun purchase it's looking a lot like A is the answer.

And it wouldn't be the first time. Both the Charleston and Sutherland Springs shooters were able to legally purchase firearms because some nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat failed to do their job.

(02-18-2019 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]So once again we have a failure of the system to enforce the laws we have on the books. Shocking.

Of course the left's solution for this will be adding more laws that we will also not enforce.


We don't need laws, we need enforcement.

Yep. Shocking I tell ya'!!

More laws!

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 09:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]THIS is why the right calls for stricter enforcement

They knew he'd purchased a gun and revoked his CCW, but didn't try and retrieve his gun?

THIS is an area the right should agree... If someone fraudulently or by mistake gets a license and then buys a gun... they should lose the gun and license. They should be refunded for the gun as essentially a penalty to the state for poor maintenance of the database

He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 09:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]THIS is why the right calls for stricter enforcement

They knew he'd purchased a gun and revoked his CCW, but didn't try and retrieve his gun?

THIS is an area the right should agree... If someone fraudulently or by mistake gets a license and then buys a gun... they should lose the gun and license. They should be refunded for the gun as essentially a penalty to the state for poor maintenance of the database

He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

So, let me get this straight. You want people punished if someone robs them?? If a robber then commits a crime with what they stole, the original victim should be punished?? That about right?

I take it that if some thief steals a car, gets chased by cops - then has an accident where they T-Bone some other innocent - you want the original car owner punished? What's different from this scenario than the gun one??

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 09:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]THIS is why the right calls for stricter enforcement

They knew he'd purchased a gun and revoked his CCW, but didn't try and retrieve his gun?

THIS is an area the right should agree... If someone fraudulently or by mistake gets a license and then buys a gun... they should lose the gun and license. They should be refunded for the gun as essentially a penalty to the state for poor maintenance of the database

He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

Who draws that line? Does someone get in trouble if someone steals a gun from their home? So a criminal commits two crimes against two separate people and you want to punish the first victim? If your gun is on your property, whether it be your vehicle or your home, someone still has to commit a CRIME to take it.

(02-18-2019 01:05 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

Who draws that line? Does someone get in trouble if someone steals a gun from their home? So a criminal commits two crimes against two separate people and you want to punish the first victim? If your gun is on your property, whether it be your vehicle or your home, someone still has to commit a CRIME to take it.

I don't think this should extend to the home. I think out in public is where the line gets drawn.

This article specifically refers to vehicle thefts. If someone is going to choose to be careless enough to leave their gun in an unlocked (and in some cases according to the article, running??) car, then yes - I think they should have some consequences, whether it be a fine, suspending their gun permit for a period of time, etc.

(02-18-2019 01:50 PM)tigergreen Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 01:05 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

Who draws that line? Does someone get in trouble if someone steals a gun from their home? So a criminal commits two crimes against two separate people and you want to punish the first victim? If your gun is on your property, whether it be your vehicle or your home, someone still has to commit a CRIME to take it.

I don't think this should extend to the home. I think out in public is where the line gets drawn.

This article specifically refers to vehicle thefts. If someone is going to choose to be careless enough to leave their gun in an unlocked (and in some cases according to the article, running??) car, then yes - I think they should have some consequences, whether it be a fine, suspending their gun permit for a period of time, etc.

What percentage of gun crime is committed with firearms stolen from vehicles?