Bowsite.com

the latest from Cali

Just when you think it can't get any worse, it keeps happening. A drive-by-shooter gets sentenced and the libs are falling over themselves to dumb down the law. You can't make this up.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-senate-supports-lifting-1495128128-htmlstory.html

If the law was followed there would be a lot less gun crime. Way back a law was passed that if you used a gun in a crime you got 5 years in prison, mandatory. Then the judges/lawyers/prosecutors told the criminals they would drop the gun penalty if they admitted guilt. We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of politics.

Liberals do the most idiotic things. Guns are evil, gun owners are evil. But if you use a gun in a crime we want to be kind to you so you won't do this again.

Did you hear about the three teens that shot a six year old in a car. Not a random bullet. This child was in the back seat and one of them shot him. Animals.

For the most part, I don't really have a problem with mandatory minimums, but occasionally some people get some outlandish sentences because of them, so I don't really see the problem with giving judges flexibility on sentencing based on the details of the crime committed instead of just "lines in the sand". Attached is an interesting article about a guy who got 55 years for selling $1k worth of marijuana but had a gun on him when he was arrested. It wasn't used or even brandished, but the judge's hands were tied because of the minimums. Crazy to think he would have got less time for rape, hijacking a commercial airline, or being a terrorist.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for really stiff penalties, especially for violent crimes, but sometimes mandatory minimums don't really serve their intended purpose.

Register here to reply to this topic