June 17, 2019

Man killed after an alleged argument and attack on an off-duty officer in Costco was nonverbal...

Another police officer with an itchy trigger finger.

More at link.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/us/costco-shooting-questions/index.html

Dear police: You can't just go around killing people. You work for us.

I'm renewing my call that before *any* restrictions go into effect on the ability of civilians to carry or possess guns, such restrictions go into effect *first* on police officers.

Independent of that, we really should consider ending the routine carrying of firearms by police. Perhaps they should keep them locked in their cars, and only permitted to take them out in certain defined circumstances. Perhaps only a subset of officers, a special squad to be called only when needed, should have them. Such a policy change would save lives.

June 15, 2019

For those who want to disarm civilians, can we disarm the police too?

More at link.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/15/us/phoenix-police-investigation-shoplifting-incident/index.html

Given recent history, they are lucky to be alive. I wonder if we'd save more lives disarming the police rather than civilians.

For those who do favor disarming civilians as a solution to gun violence, how about this for a compromise? Now I'm just putting this out as a trial balloon, and am not sure I'm totally in favor, but here it is: You can disarm all of us civilians, but the police will be disarmed too.

June 1, 2019

Of rights and straw men.

First of all, this is a democracy, and I have every bit as much right to my opinion on law and government as the most educated attorney or historian. I am not defending rampant ignorance or stupidity, but not all of us have time in our lives to become Supreme Court justices. And this is a discussion board where individuals can anonymously (or not) present their views. If you are of the opinion that only the views of legal scholars matter, then consider that this reply isn't really for you, but for others who may benefit from hearing a counterpoint to your views.

Not that I really need to disagree with the author of this piece much, nor with Burger or Waldman. So the 2nd Amendment was not interpreted (i.e. by judges, attorneys, and politicians) to protect an individual right to own a gun until recently. For the sake of this argument here, I'll just say, OK, I accept that. But it is now, right? Right? By the Supreme Court, no less. Oh, but you might say, this was a bullshit political decision, informed by a bullshit revisionist historical analysis. Do I read you right?

Well, just because an article of our Constitution was not interpreted in the past to protect an individual right, does not mean that it is illegitimate to interpret it that way now. The Sixth Amendment was not always interpreted to provide for a public defender. The Fourteenth Amendment was not always interpreted to outlaw segregation in public accomodations, protect the rights of whites and blacks to marry, or recognize a right to same sex marriage. Various types of speech were once prosecuted as obscenity, sedition, or desecration, but are now protected by the First Amendment. The Fourth Amendment did not always provide a "penumbra of privacy" that protected the right to an abortion, but it does now. Do you think that these modern interpretations are also wrong because they deviate from previous historical interpretations? It is my un-scholarly opinion that Plessy v. Ferguson was wrong and Brown v. Board of Education was correct. Do you think that Brown versus Board was wrong because it went against established precedent? I doubt it.

Anyway, sometimes rights are recognized when public opinion shifts. This is true of many of the above examples. From your cited article:



Is this changing interpretation of rights political? Yes, yes it is. The Constitution is ultimately a political document

My arguments above notwithstanding, you could still argue that the Heller decision was poorly reasoned and incorrect, irrespective of it being a modern versus an older interpretation. Even if you successfully argued this and I agreed with your argument, it would not change my position on the right to keep a firearm being an individual right. Irrespective of the Second Amendment, I believe the right to keep a reasonable weapon for defense of one's home and family is a basic human right, an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment. Furthermore, I believe that the Fourth Amendment penumbra of privacy forbids the government from coming into my home to seize an inanimate possession of mine (guns, sex toys, drugs, etc.), if I am not using that object to harm anyone else, unless they have an extremely compelling reason to do so. Not only is this latter interpretation of the Fourth Amendment un-scholarly, but I recognize that it does not have mainstream acceptance. Nonetheless, it is my opinion, and I have a very expansive view of civil liberties.

For the sake of argument, let's say that you successfully defeated all of my rights arguments above, in the courts of law and public opinion. I would still argue for statute law to grant the privilege of owning a weapon for home defense to the vast majority of non-criminal citizens, because it is good public policy. The police can't be everywhere all the time.

Lastly, "The Founders never intended to create unregulated guns" is a bit of a straw man. I've never read anyone on DU arguing in favor of unregulated guns.