We thought we'd spend some time talking about the crime bill. It has been described and wildly different terms depending on your perspective supporters say it's the most significant federal crime fighting Bill and years opponents cell phone charge that it's an ill-advised gun control Bill packed with pork. So we thought we try to sort through some of the issues Jackson Heim is Minnesota's Chief Deputy attorney general has been good enough to come by to serve as our guide. And by the way, we should note that to Jackson time is up on lots of other.Related issues including the controversy over Minnesota Psychopathic personality commitment law. So if you got questions in that area, feel free to call us as well. You've know pretty much everything go to mister and I'm I'm not sure about that car repair gardening whatever the case maybe today will thanks for coming by. I'm glad to be here Gary pretty much as written right now. Would the average Minnesotan actually notice any difference is a month from now with with the streets be materially safer with any more cops running around.Well, if the results of the bill or not going to happen that fast to Gary I think that it's going to take some time to see the impact of the new spending in the bill, although eventually probably within a year or two. There will be significantly more numbers of cops on the street. There's a huge commitment to increasing the nation's police force to combat crime and I think we're going to see if eventually the impact of the much stiffer penalties for criminal activity that are in the Bill. Do you know how many police officers Minnesota would get if they stick to the hundred thousand figure that they've talked about how many Lowe's would end up in Minnesota that's difficult to tell yet because the formulas are not sad and it's a fairly complex procedure based on the levels of a street violence that are going on in various communities. That's what it's designed to combat. But I think we should see probably at least a thousand 1500 possibly coming to Minnesota. Although it's a little bit hard to tell Ray.Just in the big cities Minneapolis Saint Paul to lutherwood. Would they end up in rural areas as well? There's a rural law enforcement initiative in the bill as well, which provides grants for Rural law enforcement programs. I think some of Minnesota should see that I think you're looking though that at the primary beneficiaries being the big cities where crime is the highest am I understanding is it a lot of the focus in terms of extra police policing is focused on this community policing concept. That's right actually works. Well, the evidence is usual is is mixed on that issue opponents will it will attack it but I think generally speaking I think you could come to some level of agreement that additional cops walking the streets visible in the in the communities not hidden away in cars and headquarters, but actually walking the streets in uniform visible talking to kids talking to businesses. I think it does have a positive impact on reduce.Crime check yesterday and he is Minnesota's Chief Deputy attorney general stop by today been kind enough to come by to talk about the federal crime bill, which is actually it's not before the house at all. Right now, it was defeated on a procedural vote last week, but the present has been trying to resurrect it and it's expected that some kind of a bullet will be taken on a modified version of the the bill perhaps in the next couple of days. We thought it would be interesting today to get an idea of just exactly what's in the bill. John is on the line that will from White Bear Lake with a question for you on the so-called assault weapons ban.I prefer to call him semi-automatic along guns, but I've heard of this morning's paper that there have been some modifications to that portion of the bill. Can you maybe give us some information on what you know about the modifications and I'm also interested in your comment on the on that section of the bill as it relates to Federal testimony the fact that less than half 1% of all crimes have been committed with a quarter quarter salt weapon and how that would relate it would seem to me that the whole area that they'll probably could be negotiated away is the as a way to appease the sum of their constituents that don't feel it's appropriate and it's not an effective actual crime prevention is more of a gun control bill first about you are you up on the changes that they're talking about now? Yeah, I think what's going to happen is there's going to be some modification of the ban on 19 military assault weapons. That was a key promise.The president said he's sticking closely to that provision of the bill. I think what's going to happen though? Is there going to agree on a on a procedure by which these weapons are identified specifically in some detail in a rule making procedure and then that will go back to Congress for their review prior to final enactment so that it would not be the final version of the types of weapons that will eventually be banned under this provision. So it's ineffective gives Congress one more crack to vote on this particular issue that looks like the compromise that they're going to craft their 448 conservative Democrats who have indicated that this is the primary reason why they're voting against the bill. So I think some modification there which will allow the president to say that he got the ban of military assault weapons. The Congress will have the final say precisely on which weapons will be banned looks like the compromise. It's going to be reached on that issue shortly.And a passing a bill that contains an assault on these weapons, but ultimately no weapons would be banned. Ultimately Congress would have the final say and after the nature of the particular weapons and the copycat weapons that are included along with it are very precisely defined. I'll probably be by the justice department. Then Congress will have the final say is this what we intended when we passed the crime bill in 1994 or not. What is want to get to this question about just how frequently these things are used in crimes, but would you could you define for us a little better? What is an assault weapon what they're talking about here? Well, these are semi-automatic weapons that are military style weapons that are used by the military are used by the military in other countries their weapons that are showing up in the streets. If you go down to police headquarters in St. Paul, they'll show you the kinds of military assault weapons that have beenSkated another bill bearley precisely defined as the models to get away from any concern that hunting rifles would be caught up in this van in any way shape or form. The really are weapons that are largely used for work modern-day Warfare and that's why the concern I think the the caller is corrected a very small percentage of crimes are actually committed using these weapons, but they are such dangerous weapons it when they are used as a wreck horrible Carnage on on the victims and I think there is a great public fear that these kinds of weapons are trafficking in are urban areas and and should be banned Police use these now I please have have types of these these kinds of weapons to to use but not not all of them at some of these are foreign weapons that have made their way into our country and our very serious serious weapons. How do we have in our state law in a provision?Covering these kinds of weapons and we have a ban in state law on certain types of military assault weapons and we've had a ban on the traditional machine gun except for collector usage for many many years and we recently enacted more of a ban on assault weapons. So we're accustomed to this kind of thing here in Minnesota, but the problem is is no single state can get rid of weapons like this. It really requires a national action. If there is any hope of reducing the number of military assault weapons that are used to commit crimes going to call her now from Hopkins on the line with a question about the crime bill. Go ahead sir.I'm kind of concerned about the mistake the people that cuts her making on their arguments that gun control is bad because of hunting. people in this country are supposed to have weapons to protect themselves against their own government, and it's supposed to be military style weapons as far as Protecting ourselves and we need to start bringing suit against the federal government to stop them from being involved with things that they are supposed to be involved federal government is there to protect the countries as a whole from other countries and Interstate Commerce. It's not for welfare and all this other things that they're into. Okay, I guess obviously he's not in favor of the band or whatever would turn out to be a man certainly not in favor of the band but I think that there is strong evidence it that weapons like this are being used in crimes. Certainly they use of handguns. And in crimes has is very significant and if we're ever going to get at the problem of crime increasing problem in this country, we're going to have to do something about the and the number of weapons that traffic in the streets of our cities and in our rural areas. I know this is something of a controversial issue but I am wondering what have the courts said in terms of that second amendment is the purpose of that amendment to allow. Citizens to bear arms so that if necessary, they can go to war with their government or is it what it what is the what's the current reading on on the point of the Second Amendment? Well, the second amendment has been used and misused in many different ways and in recent decades ins with relationship to the gun control debate the current thinking from the courts is it this is a collective right of the American people. It doesn't provide any individual right? For example, the right probably extends to the point where if government cannot absence them showing an extreme emergency ban all weapons in this country, but it did the same point. There are particular weapons that are Troublesome that are Public Safety threats. The second amendment has been held not to provide any kind of protection to the individual in those instances. The federal crime bill that is being talked about in Washington probably will be coming up for another vote here in the next day or so a modified version of a federal crime bill it back to the phones where Rick from Minneapolis is just kind of goes along with him was just saying about the the the rights one of the things that I notice is often forgotten when people are quoting the Second Amendment is the first part of the sentence it's all one sentence. And then the first part of the sentence is says a well regulated militia. And so regulations are part of the are the Constitutional statement. And if and if we can't regulate them may we already regulate them people already admitted we regulate, you know, different types of weapons and I don't see why this is any different than regular dinos on the other hand. I don't know how much this is going to do to Stop some wacko person from going out and shooting something shooting people. I doubt that. It's going to have that effect. And I think that's mostly symbolic. But I also don't see any great need to have semi-automatic and automatic weapons out in amongst our society doesn't show up a great civilized society to me. Anyway. Well very good comments by Rick if that's really what would Congress is reacting to at least weapons are very dangerous. And a lot of the American public is clamoring for some type of action. There is I might have a particular provision in the bill that does protect weapons that are used for hunting and their so-called Hunters Bill of Rights in the bill that that clarifies that no weapon that's used for hunting is going to be impacted by this ban on assault weapons. Winston is on the line with a question from Cottage Grove. Hello to put a hundred thousand policemen out on the street since that is not taking place. There should not be a crime. This was the original intent. So what we're talking about has no meaning whatsoever. Isn't he isn't a provision still in there though for the hundred thousand new police officer. There is Gary it calls for spending of 8.8 billion dollars to fund through state and local governments a hundred thousand do police officers. Well trained police officers on the streets. So within a relatively short. Of time are there has been some debate as to whether the 8.8 billion dollars will really fun 200,000 new cops. I've looked at the figures and I think that they will I think that that money will take care of it close to a hundred thousand new cops in the communities of our country and I was a central campaign promise. The President Clinton's in and he feels very strongly about that. I think will hold to that and any final bill total cost of the Bill of course is nowhere near 8 billion. It's up around thirty-three all of their kind of scaling it back a little bit much of the extra money has or some of it. Anyway, it goes for so-called social programs crime prevention programs. Is there any evidence that things like midnight basketball leagues actually reduce crime or is is this so one of those holdovers from the from the sixties one of these social spending programs that somebody thought thinks might be a good idea but no evidence to back it up. I don't think anyone can point precisely due to evidence because very difficult if a crime isn't committed was it not committed because of a Midnight basketball program or some drug prevention program that was put in place. I do think however that Congress is correct in reflecting the concern that if you're going to get at the root cause of crime in this country, you have to spend time on drug prevention programs you How to find a spend time and money on employment programs on youth alternative programs to allow kids in the inner-city some alternative to gang activity in the kind of warfare that's going on in the urban areas in this country and whether Midnight basketball is the kind of program that works well or not. I don't know President Bush show was was very supportive of that program in his set points of light program. And I think you'll find it's communities the 70 or so communities that have that program around the country swear by it because it gets kids off the street between the hours of 10 p.m. And 1 a.m. Which is the highest incidence of crime during any part of the day. So I think these programs are worthwhile recreational programs employment programs anti-gang i programs. It's a comprehensive approach to the problem of crime and I think that's why Congress has put a significant amount of money, although not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things but a significant amount of money. These programs going to call her from Avon on the line with a question about the federal crime bill. Go ahead. I'm really enjoying a shortcoming in a question military weapons that are used by the Infantry are terrible weapon. They don't even compare to the type of weapons that we call assault weapons. And I really thought it was pertinent the previous caller that mentioned the balance of power and not disarming totally disarming the civilians and I wanted to ask how you can use one branch of government to interpret. Second Amendment just the judicial interpreting the Second Amendment. Where is Congress and the presidency also has the boys in that interpretation. Thank you. How is that set up constitutionally? Well, that's the rule that are courts have taken on it isn't specified in the Constitution, but it's been the role of the Courts of this country the federal courts and and lower courts since shortly after our country began that the court really is the final determinate ER of what the Constitution means and how it's going to be interpreted a how Congress interpret the Constitution and passage of laws how the executive branch interprets it in administering those laws and executing the laws is certainly very relevant. But we've had a system in our country that allows the courts the final say on what the Constitution means to the courts can't propose anything. The courts can't can't really change the law affirmatively they can only interpret the law and and that has been the role that they have played throughout our history back to the phone. So if red is on the line from Owatonna hello. Bow-Tie the hundred thousand police officers first is how long will the funding last for those hundred thousand. Seuss of federal funding to and that funding its up. Where will the funding come from to give them remain on the forces and possibly a third question only be subject to some kind of federal law coercion if we're getting federal funds for a local police similar to what hymns were there roads for we have a seat belt law only because we were threatened with withdrawal of federal funds and take a question. So how long a swimming least a hundred thousand police officers actually get funded. How long will money run? Well, the easy answer that question is the money will run until it's gone until the eight point three billion dollars that goes to State and local unit of government is gone Congress, of course has the opportunity to pass the initial additional Appropriations after that time to to keep the program's going in communities that simply cannot afford to keep them going themselves like the hope is that these additional police officers but will be worked into the system and and that still be a fundamental shift in policing toward community policing which is really been done in Minnesota already, but they'll be a fundamental shift throughout the country and that communities will put significant dollars in the community policing to go along with the federal contribution Federal money should be thought of more start-up money here it start of money, but I think if the program works well and it's proven to be helpful in fighting the war on crime. I think you'll see Congress wanting to pass more Appropriations that Do to keep the program's going or even to expand it and as to the issue of federal koreshan that's really a fact of life in this day and age and so many different programs that the federal government provides money are there are strings attached to it these in this case. These police officers will be well trained under specifications provided by the federal government. I think that's probably for the best. I don't think there's any kind of severe sanctions involved in the federal laws here. Probably the caller is probably referring to with the seat belt law in the drinking age law. Is there a philosophical question or a problem potential problem here that the federal government is is expanding its role too much in the area of crime prevention law enforcement an area that's traditionally belong to the states and localities. That is a very major question Gary. That's underlying this bill. This is the most extensive and expensive Federal. Intervention into crime-fighting in this country's history is just no question about that both on the prevention side and the increased penalties in the increased numbers of federal crimes. This is in at least in part of federal is a shin of our our criminal justice system and many people will probably be very concerned about that. The Congress has made the determination that the crime problem is. So severe in this country that this is what has to be done that the federal government needs to step in and provide a 50 new death penalty crimes. So that will be applicable in States like Minnesota, which does not have the death penalty and that are the sanctions that the penalties are to be severely increase significantly increased for a lot of different crimes that we have traditionally thought of his state and local prosecution crimes so we could end up with the executions here in Minnesota. Yeah, Gary, I wouldn't expect to see executions within the next 5-10 years perhaps after that Aziz these crimes begin to be prosecuted in Minnesota. We're going to have all kinds of challenges to these provisions and it's going to take some time to do that. And I don't know if we'll actually have executions in Minnesota. It could be that executions resulting from crimes prosecuted by the United States us attorney's office in Minnesota may occur in in Illinois, or some place that does it does have the facilities for executing prisoners, but that's a very controversial part of of this bill in a state like Minnesota, which has traditionally issued the death penalty.