by Dick Hall-Sizemore

In an interesting development, one of the so-called “progressive” Virginia prosecutors has identified a direct link between someone committing misdemeanor offenses and later committing violent felony offenses.

The misdemeanor offenses that are predictors are gun offenses. After tracking  violent case histories, Ramin Fatehi, the commonwealth’s attorney for Norfolk, as reported by WAVY TV, “found it was often a pretty straight shot between low-level gun misdemeanors and violent gun felonies.” This applied both to folks pulling the trigger and those being shot.

Fatehi mentioned a number of gun misdemeanors, but said that a leading predictor was carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. In the several examples of violent crimes involving guns that he cited, all the perpetrators or victims had prior gun misdemeanor charges. Some of these charges had been dismissed or set aside.

One solution would be stronger prosecution of gun misdemeanor cases.  However, Fatehi laments that he does not have the funding to hire enough assistant prosecutors to handle misdemeanor cases (the state does not include misdemeanors in its calculation of how much funding to provide a commonwealth’s attorney’s office). Besides, the maximum sentence for a Class 1 misdemeanor is 12 months in jail. If a gun misdemeanor is a predictor of future violence, incarcerating someone for 12 months is likely to only delay the more serious gun violence.

Another solution would be to increase the penalty for a violation of any gun law to a felony. That would help some, primarily by making the future possession of a firearm a felony and by making it harder to acquire additional firearms in the future. However, at least one of the examples provided by Fatehi, brandishing a firearm, is already a Class 6 felony. Also, the second conviction of carrying a concealed firearm without a permit is a felony. Furthermore, the third conviction of a firearm-related offense constitutes a Class 6 felony.

Under current law, the most effective solution would be aggressive prosecution of misdemeanor gun offenses in district courts, with prosecutors urging judges not to suspend sentences for those convicted. To this end, it is recommended that the General Assembly provide sufficient funding to enable the Commonwealth’s attorney in each jurisdiction with a population exceeding XXXX to have at least one assistant prosecutor assigned to prosecute gun misdemeanor cases in district courts.

After those offenders are released from serving their misdemeanor sentences, further action may need to be taken to limit their future utilization of guns in committing crimes. The state should conduct a comprehensive study to determine whether Faheti’s limited study is valid statewide. If the study determined that a violation of a misdemeanor gun offense is a significant predictor of future gun violence, the state’s existing “red flag” law should be expanded to include convictions for violations of gun offenses. Under those provisions, anyone convicted of a gun offense would have his firearms confiscated and be prohibited from possessing any firearms. In addition, anyone subject to a firearms-related “red flag” would be subject to a search for possession of a concealed weapon.

These steps would not hinder law-abiding citizens from owning firearms while helping to keep guns out of the hands of those who are likely to commit violent gun-related crimes.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

59 responses to “A Proposal to Mitigate Gun Violence”

  1. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    Seems like a good place to start: Aggressive enforcement of the gun laws we already have while focusing on the small subset of offenders who account for a large percentage of gun violence. Thanks for posting.

  2. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    Guess that means we should be looking at Hunter Biden as a potential future gun felon. He certainly has paid no price for his lying on his background check, itself a felony.

    The idea that we start by enforcing the laws we already have seems a good idea.

    1. killerhertz Avatar
      killerhertz

      Rules for thee but not for me

      Still waiting on the Epstein client predator list to be released lol

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        and we’ll continue to wait, and wait and wait. We do know that Clinton took 20 some flights on the Lolita Express. Maybe Mossad will contract with Hunter to make porn videos from Epstein’s tapes.

  3. Cathy Robb Avatar
    Cathy Robb

    I totally disagree that carrying a concealed firearm without a permit is an indicator of potential future gun violence. There was a time in this country when one didn’t need a permit to carry a concealed firearm; several states currently allow Constitutional (unrestricted, permitless) carry, including West Virginia. The fact that it’s a misdemeanor in some states doesn’t mark the offender as a potential threat; it’s an indicator of a state’s attitude towards the Second Amendment. There are many reasons an individual may not have a CCP, including a lapse in renewal; instructional classes being closed during COVID lockdowns; etc. Felonies are one thing, but using misdemeanors as a means to deny citizens their Second Amendment rights is egregious.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      You may be right; carrying a concealed firearm without a permit may not be an indicator of potential future gun violence. But, one Commonwealth’s attorney has detected a pattern. Would you be in favor of the state conducting a comprehensive, well-designed study to determine if carrying without a permit is a statistically significant indicator of future gun violence?

      1. Correlation is not causation? On the other hand I am sure that some small time criminals become big time. So what? No policy action follows from this obvious observation.

        Gun control is a ridiculous policy, but there are many such. It reminds me of preventative medicine, another policy oxymoron.Ifonlywedidtherightthingnoonewouodgetsick,orhurt.Ridiculous,but”we’vegottodosomething”isthedogmaoftheday.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Open carry is legal in Virginia. Is there any correlation between that and future gun violence?

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Individuals shouldn’t have to get a permit to CCW, however it is State Law and until that Law is revisited it stands. It also indicates that someone is unwilling to adhere to current Law regarding firearms, perhaps they shouldn’t have a firearm at all.

      Up until 2021 you could complete your CCW class online, COVID didn’t have an impact and those classes are also not required for individuals who were members of the Military and left in good standing. If you’re unwilling to make the effort to be in compliance with VA law you shouldn’t be in possession of a firearm.

      I moved to VA from PA, I had reciprocity for my CCW until it expired and VA ultimately dissolved that reciprocity under the previous administration. I refrained from CCW until I was complaint with VA Law.

    3. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      There was a time in this country one did not need to possess a firearm at all. Reread the Heller decision.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        “James McCarthy Cathy Robb • 13 minutes ago
        There was a time in this country one did not need to possess a firearm at all. Reread the Heller decision.”

        Oh really was that the justification that Gen. Gage used to strip all of their weapons to suppress the rebellion?

        The genesis for a good number of those Bill of Rights were products of what treatment the British dolled out on the colonies.

        So I think we can presume you’d have been a Tory, which I’m rather certain your “Irish” ancestors would’ve cast you out for.

      2. WayneS Avatar

        Really? When was that?

      3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        As you well know, American law is based on English common law and statutes. This includes the Assize of Arms from c. 1181. The law required every English freeman, except for Jews who were not permitted to have any arms, to have arms befitting of their station in life. The purpose was, indeed, to enable the freeman to form and serve in the Militia, which was to the nation’s and king’s benefit. But, since there were no armories as such, each freeman, except for Jews, were able to keep and use their arms at home. There was a personal right to bear and use arms.

        By the time the American Bill of Rights was adopted, we had 600 years of English common law recognizing a personal right to bear and use arms. Ergo, the only reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it recognizes and protects a personal right to bear and use arms.

        Of course, just like rights found in emanations and penumbras, the right to bear arms is not absolute. See Justice Blackmun in Roe.
        Reasonable people, including judges, can disagree as to what level of regulation is constitutional. But the correct path to constitutional regulation starts with the acknowledgment that Heller is right.

      4. ….and then the ‘Summer of Love’ happened.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I was curious also about people who make threats – in person verbally but also online via social media.

    It seems like most serial/mass killers have a strong urge to tell others of their plans and/or write a manifesto detailing their grievances and intent to attack others.

    I cannot imagine someone passing a background check is that check looked at comments made on social media about their intent.

  5. I wonder what happens if it turns out that people who commit gun-related misdemeanors turn out to be disproportionately people of color? Would rigorous enforcement of those gun laws be deemed racist?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      sorta like if more of them might also be stopped and searched for drugs than whites?

      Might go back to how many are
      stopped to start with? Since you don’t know before the stop what might be the case, then if you stop more of them at the onset, would that affect the stats?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I am not talking about random stops. I am talking about people who the police know have a red flag order due to violation of gun laws.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          oops… I was thinking this was about:

          ” In an interesting development, one of the so-called “progressive” Virginia prosecutors has identified a direct link between someone committing misdemeanor offenses and later committing violent felony offenses.”

          did not see the red flag question…

          but wondering how it would be determined that someone/anyone had committed that offense in the first place.

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            It will be part of their criminal record, the same as protective orders are.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            maybe I do not understand what Red Flag is. I thought it did not have much to do with prior gun violations or protective orders ….. more about mental fitness and/or denial of gun permit based on mental evaluations.

            Prior gun (or other) criminal offenses separate from mental health issues?

            I have doubts that red flag per se over some mental evaluation is going to fly …

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      As long as whites, who violated misdemeanor gun laws were given the same sentences as those of color, it would not be considered racist.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        but, but, but Equity!! dontcha know

    3. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      They are Jim – male, young, and minority.

  6. killerhertz Avatar
    killerhertz

    How exactly would this have stopped any of the recent national shootings? They wouldn’t have.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      no but a search of social media would have, right?

      1. killerhertz Avatar
        killerhertz

        It’s curious how they know what products you want or would be willing to purchase but can’t predict violence.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Oh they can but it’s not their job. it’s the job of the folks who do the background checks IMHO. You check their social media history like you would check other aspects of their history. Even employers do this now on their background checks. Its a no-brainer. It would have caught a lot of these guys who bought guns right before they killed.

          1. killerhertz Avatar
            killerhertz

            I have 0 faith in the police. They can’t stop school shootings. They can’t stop terror plots. To make things worse they’ve had access to all of our data since 9/11 under the guise of patriotism under multiple administrations and both political parties. But of course they CAN help start them (See Whitmer conspiracy circus) and have no qualms about committing them, least we forget they perpetrated one of the largest mass murders in Waco, Texas.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            they’ve stopped plane hijackings, no?

            they’ve stopped most crazies from buying fully automatic weapons or grenade launchers or stinger missiles, no?

          3. killerhertz Avatar
            killerhertz

            The government has a monopoly on grenade launchers and stinger missiles so that’s a silly claim. It’s not difficult to create fully automatic weapons with 3d printing and/or jig and a hand drill. As technology progresses it will get only easier. That said, crazy people don’t need them when they have access to black market firearms, knives, and vehicles. Recall that one guy with a truck killed nearly 100 in France a number of years ago. And then there’s 9/11.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            “monopoly”? that’s funny. the point is that ‘arms’ is way more than semi-automatic weapons. They are made by private companies and available around the world in many 3rd world countries but not in the US.

            we don’t allow wackadoodles to buy full auto weapons even though they are “arms’ the 2nd amendment guarantees, right?

            How can that be if the 2a guarantees the “right to bear arms”?

            the irony of 911 is that we learned from it and we made changes that made it extremely difficult for others to do again.

            In other words, we actually made changes that stopped the crazies.

          5. killerhertz Avatar
            killerhertz

            Yes the 2A should allow automatic weapons. Citizens were allowed to have cannons as the US government condoned piracy early in the republic and we all know you can’t engage in piracy w/o one. Puckle guns existed at the time of the founding and if they were advanced enough more citizens would have had them.

            We spent trillions of dollars preventing another attack by bringing the war to them for 2 decades. There’s no evidence that the FBI or air marshals stopped credible threats. TSA is a joke. When you can cross the border w/ impunity you don’t need to worry about the 3 letter agencies.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: ” Yes the 2A should allow automatic weapons. ”

            thanks for the honest answer.

            Same answer for other weapons – you said cannons… so bazookas, stinger missiles, molars? Any weapon that can meet the 2A definition of “arms”?

            Is there a different between an absolute “ban’ verses strict regulation that essentially has the same effect, i.e. almost no one can obtain them much less by going to a gun store and buying same day to use?

  7. killerhertz Avatar
    killerhertz

    The best we could do to reduce school shootings is stop funding the government school cartel.

  8. Fred Costello Avatar
    Fred Costello

    Remember the 60’s? The rebels cried, “You can’t legislate morality.” They were right. If potential shooters thought they would go to hell, they might not become shooters. Our education system must convince people that justice will be served, if only after death.

  9. WayneS Avatar

    I’ve been banging the drum for enforcement of our existing gun laws for longer than I can remember. And I could go along with this proposal, as long as the “red-flag” for a misdemeanor gun conviction has a sunset. Perhaps something like: After 3 years without another gun related conviction the “red-flag” is removed and the person’s 2nd Amendment rights are restored. I’d be willing to negotiate the “sunset” timing, but no one should permanently lose their 2nd Amendment rights for a single misdemeanor conviction.

    By the way, I am also in favor of restoring 2nd Amendment rights to non-violent felons after some specified period of time without another conviction. I do not think violent felons should ever have their 2nd Amendment rights, or their right to vote, restored.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Hear, Hear. If we aren’t going to enforce current firearms laws, what is the point of enacting new ones.

      The “red-flag” is sticky, I agree with your sentiment as well as given the individuals methods of redress if they happen to become ensnared. I don’t wish for those laws to take shape of the “no-fly list” which is a farce in and of itself.

      I also, agree non-violent felonies should have their rights restored. I’m rather certain that criminals at the time of the founding didn’t lose their right to carry, someone had to feed their families.

      1. WayneS Avatar

        I agree that the “red flag” thing could be an issue, but I think our law makers could come up with a reasonable (and equitable) way to administer the legalities of a “red-flag” list.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          I agree, I’m also of the opinion if a juvenile has a violent history that shouldn’t be expunged. Those history’s will not show on our current background check system, which functions as intended.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Sure, there should be some way for a person to have the red flag order lifted–either through a time limit or by convincing a judge. That could be negotiated during the legislative process.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        “Dick Hall-Sizemore WayneS • 37 minutes ago
        Sure, there should be some way for a person to have the red flag order lifted–either through a time limit or by convincing a judge. That could be negotiated during the legislative process.”

        There is literally nothing to negotiate. If you deny someone due process it’s a violation of the Constitution and that law cannot stand.

      2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        My trade association, the American Bar Association, often worries about illegal immigrants not having access to counsel. As part of any red flag law, the target should have access to counsel at taxpayer expense before we spend any tax dollars on illegal immigrants.

  10. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Appreciate the post Mr. Dick. The key factor to moderate is the illegal possession of firearms. Given the current state of politics, culture, and society I don’t see how law enforcement can know who illegally possesses firearms. Maybe the right question is how do we reduce the need for young men to possess illegal firearms? I found this from Duke University law school. It was useful in helping understand how hard this will be to solve.
    https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/01/illegal-firearm-possession-a-reflection-on-policies-and-practices-that-may-miss-the-mark-and-exacerbate-racial-disparity-in-the-justice-system/

    1. WayneS Avatar

      Thank you for posting that. I’ve added it to my “Library of Gun Law Related Articles and Treatises”.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        I would love to see this sort of analysis for Virginia. The article seemed to mine most of the data from Chicago.

  11. Matt Hurt Avatar
    Matt Hurt

    I’m not so sure that red flag laws are sufficient, unless it’s ok to be slaughtered by a crazy person with anything other than a firearm. If we have sufficient cause to eliminate one Constitutional right, let’s go ahead and dispense with the rest of them and lock that person up.

    Please remember that 2,996 lost their lives on 9/11, and not a single firearm was used to perpetrate that tragedy. In fact, box cutters were the facilitating weapon.

    Anyone remember the Berlin Christmas Market attack of 2016? 12 died and 56 injured with a truck. This past fall in Waukesha where the driver of a sport utility vehicle killed six people and injured sixty-two others.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      The changes that actually WERE MADE as a result of 911 are substantial and actually were based on the potential of individuals to be able to kill a lot of people. The changes made have been effective in preventing that from happening again – so far.

      We are truly fortunate that for all the disagreements about guns that we all take for granted that fully automatic weapons are NOT easily available and the killers could not get them, nor could they get other similar deadly weapons like grenades or bazookas to shoot into schools.

      And to to this point, we don’t really address what “arms” really are or are not. They are a whole panoply of “arms” that should not be allowed for citizens to easily purchase and use.

      1. Matt Hurt Avatar
        Matt Hurt

        Not according to the Constitution.

  12. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    Excellent post.

  13. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    This is the most adult discussion of guns I have ever seen in this space. Congratulations.

  14. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Another major inconsistency I see is with the argument from many on the left that we need to reduce access to arms to lower the rate of suicide while many of the same people (not pointing to anyone here) support assisted suicide laws. It strikes me that the reduce suicide argument is simply a make-weight argument.

    The secured storage argument effectively disarms the gunowner in case of home invasion. How can that be sensible or constitutional?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      for myself, I do not advocate for any gun laws with regard to suicide.

      I’m much more concerned with people who can quickly get their hands on deadly weapons capable of killing many people in a short amount of time.

      I do not fear folks who want to commit suicide and I actually would support laws making it easier for them to do if they are facing a terrible terminal disease.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        I think that, on this point, your argument is not at all inconsistent. But I bet there’s a good 100 people in Congress arguing out of both sides of their mouths.

  15. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Another major inconsistency I see is with the argument from many on the left that we need to reduce access to arms to lower the rate of suicide while many of the same people (not pointing to anyone here) support assisted suicide laws. It strikes me that the reduce suicide argument is simply a make-weight argument.

    The secured storage argument effectively disarms the gunowner in case of home invasion. How can that be sensible or constitutional?

  16. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    Its interesting that Dick proposes as one solution, making crimes a felony. The ones who are caught the most with concealed guns without licenses are African American and Hispanic young males.

  17. It’s good to see Giuliani’s Broken Windows policy finally vindicated by the left. Why wait until they have reached the level of gun crimes – why not enforce the whole policy?

    Unfortunately, I smell a rat here. The 99% of gun owners who never commit a felony and who are not barred from owning a gun are being grouped with the few who are barred from owning or possessing a gun. To say it another way, those without criminal intent are being merged into those with criminal intent. The left is always looking for a way to Jim Crow any behavior it disagrees with, and this opens the door. Harsh penalties for accidental, otherwise minor offenses is designed to discourage the law-abiding more than it is to punish real criminals who are already in violation of even more severe statutes.

    Currently, 50% of the states do not require a permit to carry concealed. 100% of felons carrying concealed are breaking current laws. Harsh penalties for prohibited persons who carry are justified – and we don’t need a new law to do that, just prosecutors who don’t subscribe to catch and release.

    DC has harsh penalties for even minor gun violations. Carrying an empty cartridge case is a crime and is punished. Ownership of guns is severely restricted; yet criminals have seemingly unlimited access to guns, while the law-abiding are disarmed; and yet, the homicide rate is several times that of VA. Gun control doesn’t work; making criminals out of law-abiding citizens doesn’t work; criminal control works.

  18. Wait a minute….. are you saying someone discovered that criminals commit crimes after being charged with committing a first crime. WOW!!!! who would have thought….

Leave a Reply