If you act like a serf..then you're a serf...

[centac]

".......that folks are playing footloose and fancy-free with the Constitution which, if allowed to continue, will most certainly lead to said police state......"

I would contend that people have done this since day one - somebody will always push, and exceed, the limits. But in the proferred example they were "caught" and the problem addressed. If we examine the history of our Constitutional safeguards they have become more stringent than in the past and would make it more difficult to implement a so-called "police state" than in the past. The framers of the Constitution didnt write the exclusionary rule, the silver platter doctrine, the right to legal representation, and such - these are relatively recent safeguards.

Look at what happens when people play with the Constitution - evidence is supressed, convictions overturned and USC 1983 actions commence, none of which occurred 50 to 100 years ago.

The system works. Not perfectly, but it works. There will always be examples of mistakes, but those are inevitable in any human endevour. We typically hear of those mistakes far more often than we hear of the gazillion times when they dont occur. If you are demanding perfection, move to Nirvana, otherwise cowboy up and work for a better world.

 

[Taipei Personality]

Well, you had me right up until you said,

If you are demanding perfection, move to Nirvana, otherwise cowboy up and work for a better world.

You have no idea who I am or what I am involved in and I will thank you to remember that.

To your points - yes, people have been exceeding (not pushing) the limits of the Constitution since its inception. However, I don't believe that we would have seen the institutionalized disregard for that contract that we, or at least I, have seen in the past 40 or so years.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Okay. Let’s back up for a minute.

The debate on the right to keep and bear arms is a question of freedom. Should the state support or oppose the freedom of citizens to own and carry weapons? As gun owners, we generally favor government recognition of our right to arms and point to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as our legal framework.

The conclusion should be simple. The United States of America is a free country, and we have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, so there should be no debate. Yet we’ve been struggling with this issue for over a century. Why is that?

Despite our claims to the contrary, Americans are not really pro-freedom. We each like certain freedoms but dislike others. A Republican may wish to do business as he pleases but also want to prohibit “indecent†material on television. A Democrat may seek to protect the rights of an ethnic minority but also think the same people shouldn’t control their own retirement funds. A gun owner may support the responsible usage of firearms but also oppose the responsible usage of recreational drugs. A Christian may not want the government telling her how to worship but also support having the state force non-Christians to recognize her religion.

When this inconsistent approach to freedom is combined with the government’s natural inclination to accumulate power, the amount of freedom must inevitably decrease. The anti-freedom impulses within society reinforce each other through increased government controls, while the pro-freedom impulses grow weaker in the face of opposed interests and with the lack of state support. Tyranny, however benign, is the eventual result.

As I’ve said many times before, if you want freedom in one area, the only way to guarantee it is to support freedom in all areas—even the ones you dislike.

~G. Fink

 

[Taipei Personality]

Thank you, Gordon, for an extremely well-reasoned and accurate evaluation.

 

[richyoung]

I am generally in agreement with Mr. Fink on this topic, with a minor quibble about...

and point to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as our legal framework

.


Even absent this amendment, we would still have the right. The purpose of the 2nd was NOT to establish a new right to bear arms, or even to recognize a pre-existing right. The purpose of the 2nd was to emphasis that this pre-existing right was BEYOND the government's reach, even if a conflict arose with that right and some of the government's legitimate, delegated powers, such as controlling interstate commerce or raising revenue. The right itself arises from the same "penumbrations" that go unmentioned specifically, like the right to privacy, out of which the right to infanticide, (oops, I mean "choice"...) was "discovered" in Roe Vs. Wade. These rights are those "endowed" you by your "Creator", and pre-exist governments and constitutions. Under the 9th and 10th ammendmants, these rights were "reserved to the States, or the people thereof". We recognize, however, that some of these rights aren't absolute - the oft (and wrongly, in my opinion) quoted example of crying "fire" in a crowded theater as an example of limiting free speech, or the ability of law enforcement to search you or your home, even without a warrant, under certain circumstances. Th 2nd was intended to make the "right to keep and bear arms" ABSOLUTE, and to force the federal government to abstain "infringing" on that right, even if a case could be made under a delegated power.

 

[Gordon Fink]

The purpose of the 2nd was to emphasis that this pre-existing right was BEYOND the government’s reach.…

In other words, it is our legal framework. The right to arms is inalienable and will continue to be exercised even in the face of the most draconian arms-prohibition laws.

In retrospect, the word I wanted was “foundation.â€

~G. Fink

 

[Jeff White]

Taipei Personality,
I stand corrected. However, if we look at this sentence:

on 3-7-94 applicant received information from a reliable source who is a concerned citizen, a resident of Iredell County, a mature person with personal connections with the suspects.

It would be quite easy for the magistrate to assume that Detective Proctor did in fact know the source of the information. It wasn't revealed until the hearing on the motion to suppress that Proctor didn't know the informant.

The fact is, that the criminal justice system is run by men, human beings with all the faults and frailties men have. Yet as I pointed out before, when these things happen, the system corrects itself.

Earlier you said;

Of course they pay attention. But what they pay attention to is the fact that the people who use these methods so rarely get caught. The ones we hear about are the ones who have the money to hire a good lawyer to appeal. How about all of the folks who cop a plea just to get the government to go away?

Do you think we sit around and plot to pick on people who can't afford legal representation? Anyone who takes the easy way out and cops a plea is making a conscious decision, no one is making them cop a plea. Representation is available to everyone. If a person's freedom is worth so little to them that spending the money to hire an attorney or refusing to sign a plea agreement and making the public defender do his job, then that's a decision that person made, it's not a decision that the system forced them into. Even the most incompetant, overworked public defender can recognize a defective search warrant. Folks who cop plea agreements to make the government go away are making a very poor decision if they are in fact innocent.

And why, you ask, would police officers and prosecutors engage in these practices? Because the payoff is large compared to the risk of being caught. The police officer gets a bad guy off the street, enhances his or her arrest record, and makes captain. The prosecutor looks tough on crime, enhances his or her conviction rate, and get re-elected.

What payoff? I get paid the same if I convict someone I arrest or if I don't. Personally I try to put together cases that I won't have to get up out of bed in the morning for (I work nights, usually off at 3am) and go to court. That means doing everything by the book and documented well enough that there are no grounds for a motion to suppress hearing and that maybe even the defendent decides to plead guilty rather then pay the court costs and taking his chances at a bench trial or before a jury. I do get a little aggravated when they decide to plead guilty 15 minutes before the trial is called though.

There is a big downside from fudging on things like probable cause for a search. That is that most police officers see the same judges and defense attorneys all the time. If an officer's actions are continually overturned in court, then he soon has no credibility with the judge. Then there is the constant threat of civil action. You have things totally backward. There is plenty of incentive to do things right.

Oh you don't really think that a good conviction rate is how an officer is promoted do you? Maybe in a perfect world.

The prosecutor looks tough on crime, enhances his or her conviction rate, and get re-elected.

My experience has been that the prosecutor will drop or reduce the more serious charges in order to get the easy conviction on the lessor charges.

We have created a Machiavellian criminal justice system in which the loser is the American people.

And we've done that by funding a system that is serving 300+ million people at nearly the same levels that it was funded at when the population was under 200 million. When was the last time you called your representative and demanded that your taxes be raised so that the criminal justice system could be run the way the founders intended it to be?

We recently had a case here in NC where a person, Alan Gell, was released from death row after 8 years. He had been convicted by two prosecutors who withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, evidence that eventually cleared him. These prosecutors knew at the time of his conviction that he was innocent and were willing to kill him to enhance their careers. But, hey, the system worked, right?

Not exactly. There were no charges brought against the prosecutors. They were not held accountable for their actions.

Was a civil action filed in Federal Court? I rather doubt if the statutory time to file such a claim has passed. I would bet by the time it all shakes out that the prosecutors and the state don't exactly get off scott free. Justice is often slower then we like it to be.

Jeff

 

[odysseus]

Something to add...

I was listening to the radio the other day and an interviewee was talking and recalled something from a class at Harvard. A young student asked the professor, "Where and when did slavery begin?" and the professor responded "You are asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is 'When did this idea of Freedom begin?'.

Since the beginning of civilizations, people have been oppressed by ruling factions by threat and act of violence, both physical - and economical. There should be no doubt of this to anyone. Truly we still as a humanity are in the throws of a current fight for Freedom not only ideologically, but also in practice. America is the "great experiment" and since Freedom is so fragile, it can be easily lost and underminded.

Like others have said, you can look around the world and see how it is. I have travled through Asia and Europe. I have traveled in Communist countries during the cold war. That is why those Americans who have are so always concerned about what they see happen in our government, becuase we can even see how "democracies" can become socialistic states with only armed government forces and courts that easily sway against the citizen.

Yes, we all have to vote and talk to our neighbors. Talk to them, don't try to argue to win - it's about showing the path to the light.

-Ody.

 

[richyoung]

In retrospect, the word I wanted was “foundation.â€

~G. Fink
__________________

Like I said - a minor quibble. I just wanted to point out that if the Second Ammendment was ever repealed (as some antis have called for, to their intellectual honesty...) or "suspended" by "executive order" for the duration of the "emergency" (a distinct possibility), all is not lost - there are still rights-based arguments to make that since the Federal government not ONLY 1. isn't granted the power to act in that area, and....
2. in the course of "assuring" that all admitted states had an apporpriate form of government at the time of their admission approved approximately 37 constitutions (the number is in question, as some of the States aren't "states" at all, but rather commonwealths plus does one treat the "readmission" of the vormer Confederate states as a seperate number?)that almost universally have a RTKBA clause, thereby proving that at the area was considered beyond federal reach, (or else the state constitutions would not have had that "reserved" power to even speak to the issue!)
the issue is still outside of their purview. Of course, in the abscence of fair and honest courts with limited powers, the discussion is kind of moot...

 

[Gordon Fink]

No quibble at all. I agreed with you—albeit without the hand-wringing over “infanticide.â€

~G. Fink

 

[Taipei Personality]

Jeff - I certainly was not casting aspersions on you or, for that matter, the vast majority of police officers and prosecutors out there. I understand that you, like that majority, do your job well and professionally.

You're absolutely correct that I am not beating my congresscritter's door down asking him to increase my taxes. Although I agree that the judicial system needs more money, I believe that it's a distribution problem not a supply problem.

However, I'm sure you'll agree that the WO(S)D has created many more criminals than in the past and that jurisdictions are competing for federal drug money. How is that money distributed? Is it by population? I'll venture, although I could well be wrong, that the jurisdictions with the biggest drug problems, i.e., the most arrests, convictions, etc., get the lion's share of the money.

If my supposition is correct, then we have a situation analogous to the school lunch program, asset forfeiture, and any number of other government programs; the money goes to the folks who do the best job politickin' for it.

Please let me know if I'm wrong.

Phil

 

[Taipei Personality]

Oh, and on Alan Gell, in my mind a civil suit is immaterial. The prosecutors should have been held criminally liable. It's not simply a matter of paying him back. Society needs to ensure that this cannot happen again. By these two, anyway . . .

 

[Jeff White]

Taipai Personality,
I never thought you were casting any accusations my way. I'm merely trying to point out that it's not fair to paint the entire system with the broad brush that is corruption and misconduct. The very fact that the cases that are posted about here is proof that for all it's faults (and there are many) the system is working. We are looking at a very tiny percent of all the cases that are brought into court.

I agree with you that if the facts in the Gell case are as you state them, then there should be a way to prosecute those involved. I don't know any more details of the case then what you posted here, so I can't begin to comment on what laws the prosecutors may have broken. Convicting them on Official Misconduct or whatever the equivalent is in NC would probably hinge on proving that they knowingly failed to provide the excuplitory evidence in violation of whatever the NC rules on discovery are. Not to say that they didn't, just saying it might be impossible to prove.

You are also correct in that the problem with taxes is in distribution, not how much is collected. I have said for years that the American people are soon going to reach the point where they will have to pay for all the government they demand. I don't think it's going to be pretty when that one shakes out.

Funding for enforcement of various laws also comes from many sources the public doesn't pay attention to. The United States Department of Transportation has most likely paid for your State and local police to put extra officers on the road to enforce DUI and seatbelt laws. Where I work, the Sate Attorney General and the Dept of Justice has provided a grant to hire a special prosecutor and an investigator for the States Attorney's office to see that domestic violence cases are in fact prosecuted for domestic violence. It seems that one of the unintended consequences of the infamous Lautenberg Amendment was that when defendents realize conviction on misdemeanor domestic battery means losing their RKBA for life, they stopped pleading guilty and paying fines and started demanding jury trials. Of course this greatly upset the Chief Judge of the Circuit, because the grant didn't include any more money for public defenders and courtroom personnel and judges to handle the increased case load.

Yes funding is the name of the game. I'm not sure just how much criminal justice sytem would exist if the local taxes had to fund it all. And that's another insidious way that the feds can take control. I kind of laugh when I see threads about national police forces here. We may end up with a national police force, but it will still wear local uniforms...the people just willingly give up control in return for the money to pay for it.

The biggest federal power grab in history was Nixon implementing revenue sharing. Taking money from the feds is striking a deal with the devil. But unfortunately all the politicians see is more local money freed up to do other things with.

Jeff

 

[hvengel]

I think the original point was that there are those who are on the surface supporters of freedom and gun rights and but who are not doing nearly enough if anything to ensure that those rights are respected. I think that of those on this board that group is a very small minority. But of the larger population of gun owners I am not too sure that is true.

I remember being at a gun show several years ago. At the gun show out in front of the enterence was an NRA booth. As folks were entering the gun show they would ask if people were registered to vote and if they were NRA members. In my case I answered yes to both questions. I am a NRA life member and I have only missed voting in one election since 1968 when the DVM messed up my voter registration when I moved.

I decided to hang out with the NRA guys to see what the general reaction of those going to the gun show was. I was stuned by what I saw. At least 80% of those entering answered no to at least one of the questions and at least 60% said they were not registered to vote. When asked if they would like to register to vote or become NRA members vast majority said no. I hung out long enough that they asked several hundered attendees these questions. I also asked the NRA guys if this was unusual and was told no that what I was seeing was typical.

Here is a little analysis of the numbers to put this into prespective. Only about 70% of those who are eligible to register to vote are registered. Of those in most elections only about half actualy vote. In most elections way less than half of those registered actualy vote. This means that even in elections with a "high" turn out only about 35% to 40% of those who could vote if they were registered actualy did vote. Of the adult population 35% to 40% are gun owners. If most of them were registered to vote and if they voted the gun issue consistantly no anti-gunner would ever win an election any where. We would absolutly dominate the political process.

I am convinced that this is our real challenge. What do we do to get these non-voting gun owners off thier lazy butts every two years to vote? If you are one of these non-voting gun owners please forgive the last sentence but you do deserve to be called lazy and you deserve a good swift kick in the butt. But like I said I don't think there are many here that belong to that group of losers.

Anyone have any ideas how we solve this problem?

 

[RealGun]

The right to arms is inalienable and will continue to be exercised even in the face of the most draconian arms-prohibition laws. - Gordon Fink

There might be a right to keep and bear arms but not a right to buy or fabricate them. Who knows how words might be stretched? We already see denial that the words mean what they clearly say.

It's a little hard to exercise a right if the government comes to you with a list of serial numbers registed to your Real ID and asks for you to surrender those weapons, or else. All it takes is martial law, or demonizing of some reformist political party, and rights are suspended at will.

Much of what we say has not been tested (yet).

 

[richyoung]

I am convinced that this is our real challenge. What do we do to get these non-voting gun owners off thier lazy butts every two years to vote? If you are one of these non-voting gun owners please forgive the last sentence but you do deserve to be called lazy and you deserve a good swift kick in the butt. But like I said I don't think there are many here that belong to that group of losers.

Anyone have any ideas how we solve this problem?

1. Stop PUNISHING people for the "crime" of voting by drawing jury pool members from the voting rolls - this is the #1 reason I get for not voting. Draw prospective jurors from the driver's license rolls, and PAY them a sufficient amount that serving isn't a hardship.

2. Convince the gun-owning non-voters that IF they ever come for the guns, it darn sure WON'T be based on registered voters - they will come house to house, voter or not.

 

[RealGun]

Dear resident,

This letter could have been a notice to surrender all your guns to the local authorities, else receive a visit by a SWAT team. If you value your rights as a gun owner, start by being a registered voter. Find out which candidates do or do not actively support the right to keep and bear arms, self defense, property rights, and freedom from intrusive government.

It is especially important to vote knowledgably in a primary election. MAKE time to go to the polling place for every election and cast your votes. No office up for election is too small to matter. Big elections like presidential elections make less difference than people think they do. One should be especially vigilant in regard to State legislators and members of Congress. Know who they are, what they say, and how they vote on your issues.

Have a nice day.

 

[Gordon Fink]

It’s a little hard to exercise a right if the government comes to you with a list of serial numbers registed to your Real ID and asks for you to surrender those weapons, or else.

Outlaws will still be armed, much as they are now both outside and inside of prison.

~G. Fink

 

[ThreadKiller]

While I believe that ALL gunowners should be NRA members, I'm not so sure about insisting that ALL gun owners vote. A surprising number of gun owners vote for anti-gun candidates.

They'd best stay home.

Tim

 

[gunsmith]

even in the midst

of moving,changing jobs,ending relationships & dealing with hardships I cant share here THR has helped keep me informed and active-b4 my free long distance was taken from me I called anti gun people and politico's directly and challenged them (I was the first guy to call the editor of that Ohio newspaper that outed ccw holders,thanks to THR I was able to call him at home )

even our trolls are smarter then trolls on other boards!

 

[JadeFalcon]

As always, there are exceptions to the rules.

This is off topic but related...

I don't think that anyone should forget(if you studied history) that power gained is not easily or willingly relinquished. The principal function of any (espescially) modern government is to stay in power. Said government will, over time, begin to achieve this goal by any and all means necessary. I don't mean to be cynical, but well, its the safest point of view.

Since I'm cynical I can only assume that those in power are also cynical...commentary on their intelligence and capability aside. That being the case a cynical government will inevitably take a narrow view on its constituents (read: subjects). This narrow view can take many forms: the banning of all firearms in Austrailia in '96, the banning of the carrying of baseball bats in Germany a few years ago...I won't go on because I'm lazy.

My point is that a government concerned with self-preservation and possesing a narrow view will not do the logical things to keep itself in place. It will do the illogical things. Happy people are friendly people and they will vote for you if they like you...or not vote at all as the case may be. But an illogical regime doesn't care if you're happy. It doesn't care if you're free. It only cares about the status quo.

My own father makes the wrong political choices because of his interest in the status quo. I think that at 58 he has grown to either too comfortable with his postion or he cannot see a way out. I wish that he would remember who he was when he was younger and kick off the self-pittying crud that shrouds his actions. But I fear that too many Americans have the attitude that 'that's the way it is and I can't change it'.

For me, that is unexceptable and I will never settle for less than I believe.





piece of advice for anybody - read as much as you can all the time...no book is worthless and guns aren't the only freedom in danger

 

[12-34hom]

The sky is falling.

Jeff White, thanks for your original post, but i think your preaching to the choir.

America's going to hell in a hand basket mantra... :barf.

Same B.S. by the same crowd, i know i sleep better at night knowing their ever vigilant.

12-34hom.

 

[RealGun]

America's going to hell in a hand basket mantra... :barf.

One of the signs is the unwillingness to use sentence structure and capital letters when typing. Another is the tendency to offer more cynicism and sarcasm than constructive ideas.

 

[richyoung]

Gordon Fink for President!


..(said Rich Young, who is angling for a cabinet position, or at least a cushy ambasadorship....)

 

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, voting is important, and too many people stay home. I recall two fairly recent city coucil/mayoral elections in Austin, Texas, which had turnouts of 8% and 11%.

There have been several serious squabbles within the Alpine, Texas, city government. Accusations of violations of state laws in managing the city. Accusations of everything up to mopery with intent to gawk. Days after some court decisions within all this mess, 18% of the registered voters turned out...

But if all you do is vote, don't pat yourself on the back for being an activist.

Do you go to your Precinct Conventions? Get elected as a delegate to the County Convention? Do you work with your party in any get-out-the-vote campaign? Do you personally hunt up candidates and talk to them about your own views of governmental affairs? Are you involved with fund-raising for candidates with views sympathetic to your own?

The above items are just a start...

I gay-rawn-dam-tee you that the people who've passed the laws that are enabling whatever level of police state now exists or is anticipated to come had support from activists who've done all of the above and then some.

Art