Sounds like the Feds - at least the Justice Department - has done this correctly

Why the big-crime cities themselves do not treat gun crimes this way is beyond understanding. I suspect it has to do with politics and money, what else?

Louis of PA

Two Philadelphia Men Charged in Attempted Armed Robbery (Federal Case?)

Department of Justice ^| May 19, 2009 | United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Posted on Saturday, May 23, 2009 1:01:37 PM


United States Attorney Laurie Magid today announced the filing of an indictment against Kendall Jamal McGill and Richard Rivera Jr., charging then with conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery, attempted interference with interstate commerce by robbery, and with using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

These offenses arise from the defendants’ participation in the October 9, 2008 attempted armed robbery of the Denim Blue Store, located at 6910 Torresdale Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, during which a store employee was shot in the leg.

If convicted of all charges, each defendant faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, including a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment, five years supervised release, a $750,000 fine, and a $300 special assessment.

This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods, a federal initiative designed to identify and prosecute firearms offenders in federal court, where the defendants are likely to receive a substantial sentence upon conviction. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and the Philadelphia Police Department and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Joan E. Burnes.

"Why the big-crime cities themselves do not treat gun crimes this way is beyond understanding. I suspect it has to do with politics and money, what else ?"
I suspect it has more to do with not hurting any of the Bros feelings when they get caught. Much easier to make excuses for their bad behavior (At least in Filthydelphia).:dunno:

As much as it pleases me to hear the bad guys might be getting what they deserve, it still strikes a nerve. A local armed robbery being tried in a Federal court.... Seems as though there's a States rights issue in there somewhere. In the very least it's an example of a Federal agency extending its powers into local issues. They robbed a store. Not a financial institution, not a train, nor did they hijack an interstate hauler.

This could set a precedence which may haunt us in the foreseeable future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JB White

As much as it pleases me to hear the bad guys might be getting what they deserve, it still strikes a nerve. A local armed robbery being tried in a Federal court.... Seems as though there's a States rights issue in there somewhere. In the very least it's an example of a Federal agency extending its powers into local issues. They robbed a store. Not a financial institution, not a train, nor did they hijack an interstate hauler.

This could set a precedence which may haunt us in the foreseeable future.

---

JB,

Your thoughts are mis-guided. If there is any way a crime that can be associated to breaking a federal law, they will pass it off to federal court. Actually the states are looking for an association to a federal crime to pass it off.

Here's why: There is no parole in federal prison. You serve the whole term in an out of state federal prison whereas state courts have a myriad of minimum to maximum term lengths for various crimes along with parole hearings where criminals very often are released on "good behavior" after serving the minimum sentence. Trying a crime in federal court with a conviction is really doing the good citizens in the state where the crime was committed a favor.

So what happens if at a random State Line road check you get caught with a broken latch on a gun case? Illegal trafficking of firearms across state lines?
What if the local constabulary discovers a problematic technicality involving the purchase of a firearm? Do they immediately turn the case over to the Feds so you along with the dealer can be tried at a Federal level as opposed to the County Circuit Court?

All I'm saying is that in an anti-gun jurisdiction, they can follow past precedence and try pushing off ALL firearms violations to someone else. If they succeed in this particular case, what's to stop them from straw grasping at interstate commerce clauses involving other non-firearm related State or municipal violations?

I don't consider myself misguided when it comes to States Rights and the centralization of Federal powers. Issues such as this need to be looked at from several different perspectives and not just the one that suits our emotions at the time.

JB is right.

Baltimore City has been working with the federal AG on a "project exile" to prosecute repeat violent offenders who use guns, specifically those involved in the unlicensed pharmaceutical sales field. Due to lack of resources only the most egregious violators are prosecuted by the Feds; most are dumped back into the local system so that can return to the streets.

After 1 or 2 show cases, the Feds will back out, but only after the top guys hold a few press conferences designed to enhance their political futures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JB White

So what happens if at a random State Line road check you get caught with a broken latch on a gun case? Illegal trafficking of firearms across state lines?
What if the local constabulary discovers a problematic technicality involving the purchase of a firearm? Do they immediately turn the case over to the Feds so you along with the dealer can be tried at a Federal level as opposed to the County Circuit Court?

All I'm saying is that in an anti-gun jurisdiction, they can follow past precedence and try pushing off ALL firearms violations to someone else. If they succeed in this particular case, what's to stop them from straw grasping at interstate commerce clauses involving other non-firearm related State or municipal violations?

I don't consider myself misguided when it comes to States Rights and the centralization of Federal powers. Issues such as this need to be looked at from several different perspectives and not just the one that suits our emotions at the time.

---

JB,

I stated the facts to you, it was not meant to start an argument on hypothetical issues. Talk to your attorney if you have constitutional questions.

If we had to talk to our attorney about every 'food-for-thought/point-counterpoint' debate, there would be no need for this board or any others like it...would there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JB White

If we had to talk to our attorney about every 'food-for-thought/point-counterpoint' debate, there would be no need for this board or any others like it...would there?

---

Im not here to throw gas on the fire or start a P-ssing contest, but its a federal case because the state asked for fed intervention, is the way it reads to me. I feel the same as Ramboueille, let the perps rot in jail. Hard to argue that "states rights" are being trampled when the state acted in concert with Uncle Sam.

Or did it start in the 1930s under Roosevelt?

In the fifties and sixties, some states were doing next to nothing to protect civil rights of blacks, or deliberately withholding legal protections for blacks. The abuse of blacks was open and rampant.

The Feds under Jack Kennedy sent in federal lawyers, and the national guard.

Today, I know of no state that is guilty of trampling on minority rights. Yet here we see the Fed taking an active role in these purely criminal cases.

Are state or city governments so inept and corrupt that they cannot properly enforce laws, and punish the guilty?

Or is it simply money? The states shift the cost of prosecution and imprisonment off the taxpayers of the entire country? That sounds like small-minded behavior on the part of a state, but I find it's almost impossible to under rate some of those folks.

I support state's rights - to a reasonable degree - and I think it's a disgrace that they don't take care of the mess within their borders. It's called "being responsible", a concept that seems lost on much of our society.

Regards,
Louis of PA

This occurs in Philadelphia because 90% or more of the firearms arrests are thrown out of Pa. common pleas courts because of liberal judges.

Bingo! An inept local system that begs for Federal intervention.
I'm glad to see some are at least looking ahead when it comes to such matters.

I view the Federal Government as the proverbial "nose of the camel" in such matters. It was civil rights violations. Now it's intra-state firearms and robbery offenses. Things we are all happy to finally see being prosecuted. However where does it end?
How many court cases will it take to "prove the need" for a National Firearms Owners ID similar to the Illinois FOID?

Hypothetically speaking if a State were on financial hard times and forced to cut back on State Troopers, could they also ask for Federal enforcement concerning routine Interstate Highway traffic violations?
How long before we will be forced to have a National DL or ID card once the "need" is proven?

I still contend we need to keep a watchful eye on how far such things are allowed to continue. There is a grey area that needs to be carefully monitored and this Philly case is in that grey area AFAIC. That's why I won't sing praises.

Gentleman using a firearm in commission of a felony is a federal charge with a mandatory sentence of 10 years if convicted. The Robbery in it's self was a local charge unless it was a bank or post office ect.
Even though what JB says may seem a bit radical to some to tohers maybe it's just a word to the wise. Waco was based on a child molestation charge which is NOT a federal charge. But because someone rumored that they had .50 cal. weapons the Clinton/Reno gestapo sent in federal agencies without proof. Over 130 people died. Were they innocents? Who knows. what is a fact is they did not receive due process of the law. The law founded on the principal of the people for the people by the people. NOT for the people by the government. Do we need to watch our elected officials {let's change officials to representatives}? Yes we do! Closely! And get rid of those that have their own agendas. Not to mention any names but the initials Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy, Shumar,Clinton, come to mind {aren't you glad I didn't mention names};). Remember that evil flourishes when good men do nothing.

When injustice becomes law
Rebellion becomes duty
Thomas Paine