Opinions on informing police of gun in car?

[streaker69]

Concerning silence:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-246_1p24.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-17-10-28-55

Prosecutors argued that since Salinas was answering some questions - therefore not invoking his right to silence - and since he wasn't under arrest and wasn't compelled to speak, his silence on the incriminating question doesn't get constitutional protection.
Salinas' "Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," Justice Samuel Alito said. "It has long been settled that the privilege `generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection `must claim it.'"

The problem with this particular case is the guy was answering questions without an attorney present, when he was asked a question that could possibly incriminate him, he hushed up. He shouldn't have answered any questions at all. If you're going to invoke your 5th Amendment rights, you need to do it immediately, and not answer anything. That's what that decision is saying.

Carl Romminger is discussing this on WHP580 right now.

[Kabloosh]

I'm not arguing that people don't put laws in place to control behavior. People do. I'm arguing that they're silly to think that laws will have that effect. There are people who think laws control behavior, but if that were the case then our prisons would be empty. Criminals don't care about the law. They break them without concern that what they're doing is wrong. The only concern they have about their behavior is that they might get punished if caught. Even we(law abiding citizens) don't really care about the law if the punishment is light enough. Take speeding as an example. I would assume most all of us here speed. We don't think too much, if at all, about it being wrong, we just don't want to get fined. So we buy gizmos like radar detectors to help us intentionally break the law but hopefully reduce the chances of being punished. No law will stop the commission of a crime. It just gives society the means to punish the law-breaker. That may deter a person who is generally law-abiding by their character, but it's not going to stop a person who is a criminal by their character, and the former group of people aren't society's problem.

Just because laws can't deter everyone does not mean it is useless. This is why we are looking into different methods of dealing with people not just punishment and prevention. There is also the newer concept of rehabilitation(prevention is a pretty new concept too). It is a combination of the 3 that can help lead to a better society.
I think some areas we need to really look at is the stigma we put on convicted felons. Once you are convicted you carry that for life and I'm not just saying the loss of rights but as well as the view people take on you as an individual. Makes sense when Walmart won't even hire you that you may just go back to doing that was rewarding enough and even better than some crap minimum wage job.
How I'd envision background checks would be a much more simple system where less people would be barred from owning firearms simply because your rights would be restored after a certain amount of time, and such removal of rights would be mainly for those already on something like probation, parole, or committed some sort of crime that fits the punishment such as an armed robbery. Even then if I think you robbed some dude at gun point when you were 19 maybe somewhere down the line once you have done your time, and stayed out of trouble you would get your right back.
So I'm not just fine with background checks and be done with it. No, I'd like to see all sorts of changes at all sorts of levels to address this issue.

[markshere2]

Except that criminals don't participate in background checks.

It is just another unnecessary hoop for us to jump through.

And a tool for Antis to use against us.

"shall not be infringed" has been pushed WAAAAAAAY to far already.
We need to keep gaining ground back, not conceding more.

[JenniferG]

I'll tell an officer that I have a firearm if I have to step out of the truck.

Screw background checks, they do nothing but burden the average law abiding citizen. Why is that guy always pushing background checks?

[Deanimator]

You meant to say "non-prohibited Ohio resident", right?

If law prevents you as a non-resident from purchasing in the state, you're effectively a "prohibited person".