Some courts have upheld them, it's not an exact science. Most of those that weren't upheld were because of, as your example suggested, the judge could see they were grossly disproportionate because they applied to broadly.
But if they took the time to hammer down the mandatory minimums, so that someone who forgot to renew their licence and a gang member who shot at a rival gang member weren't placed into the same category, you could start seeing them being more actively upheld.
Possession of firearm during a violent crime (robbery, assault, etc)? Automatic 20 years and call it a day. But instead if they kill a child and are REALLY sorry for it, they might have to go without dessert for two weeks.
|