TonkinTwentyMil
Member
Then what?
Both DMF and Vernal45 make sound -- but diametrically-opposing -- points in this debate.
However, because some recent SCOTUS case rulings have tended to weaken our Fourth Amendment protections (vis-vis Police power), it may be time to see them strengthened a bit. One shouldn't be required to retain -- or be -- a lawyer just to secure his/her day-to-day Constitutional protections against random (albeit relatively rare) abuses of Police power.
While most of the examples cited bear upon the scourge of illicit narcotics traffic, let's just re-position this whole debate for a moment -- in the context of some future, gun-confiscatory political atmosphere (think Janet Reno and the Clintons, Act-II)... replete with Presidential Executive Orders and hotly-contested/close-vote/hostile-to-gun-owners legislation... AND federal agencies oh-so-eager to enforce "the will of Congress" even if a substantial minority opposes that "will" on Constitutional grounds. (After all, it's just their job.)
THEN what?
I encourage y'all to read (liberal) legal scholar Don Kate's 1979 classic "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out." A key point is that such weapons can never be effectively banned (in the U.S. -- not Canada, Europe, Japan, etc.) because of our unique FOURTH AMENDMENT protections. Kates even quotes a former ACLU chief who admitted this -- unless our 4-A rights are suspended, or seriously gutted -- and the ACLU opposes that, on principle.
Of course, while the ACLU will no doubt champion this proposed Texas legislation, their hypocracy on the firearms-rights issue is downright scary.
Accordingly, pro-gun rights folks are left to fight these slippery-slope games on their own. Politics maketh strange bedfellows, but I don't see 4-A sensitive "liberals" rushing to strengthen the 4-A on behalf of the NRA.
There's no doubt that Law Enforcement (who has a tough job anyway you slice it) could be more effective with diminished Search-and-Seizure protections, unlimited wiretaps (and, perhaps, even "Watch-Listing" certain outspoken gunnies and THR members, eh DMF?), etcetera.
And that's a Police State, folks. Works well in Singapore.
Thus, an interesting question for President Bush's judicial nominees might be: "Do you support watering-down 4-A rights to apprehend drug dealers... AND ALSO to more aggressively restrict gun-owners, as well?"
Something about giving up just a little bit of Liberty for a little more Safety... and deserving neither?
Both DMF and Vernal45 make sound -- but diametrically-opposing -- points in this debate.
However, because some recent SCOTUS case rulings have tended to weaken our Fourth Amendment protections (vis-vis Police power), it may be time to see them strengthened a bit. One shouldn't be required to retain -- or be -- a lawyer just to secure his/her day-to-day Constitutional protections against random (albeit relatively rare) abuses of Police power.
While most of the examples cited bear upon the scourge of illicit narcotics traffic, let's just re-position this whole debate for a moment -- in the context of some future, gun-confiscatory political atmosphere (think Janet Reno and the Clintons, Act-II)... replete with Presidential Executive Orders and hotly-contested/close-vote/hostile-to-gun-owners legislation... AND federal agencies oh-so-eager to enforce "the will of Congress" even if a substantial minority opposes that "will" on Constitutional grounds. (After all, it's just their job.)
THEN what?
I encourage y'all to read (liberal) legal scholar Don Kate's 1979 classic "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out." A key point is that such weapons can never be effectively banned (in the U.S. -- not Canada, Europe, Japan, etc.) because of our unique FOURTH AMENDMENT protections. Kates even quotes a former ACLU chief who admitted this -- unless our 4-A rights are suspended, or seriously gutted -- and the ACLU opposes that, on principle.
Of course, while the ACLU will no doubt champion this proposed Texas legislation, their hypocracy on the firearms-rights issue is downright scary.
Accordingly, pro-gun rights folks are left to fight these slippery-slope games on their own. Politics maketh strange bedfellows, but I don't see 4-A sensitive "liberals" rushing to strengthen the 4-A on behalf of the NRA.
There's no doubt that Law Enforcement (who has a tough job anyway you slice it) could be more effective with diminished Search-and-Seizure protections, unlimited wiretaps (and, perhaps, even "Watch-Listing" certain outspoken gunnies and THR members, eh DMF?), etcetera.
And that's a Police State, folks. Works well in Singapore.
Thus, an interesting question for President Bush's judicial nominees might be: "Do you support watering-down 4-A rights to apprehend drug dealers... AND ALSO to more aggressively restrict gun-owners, as well?"
Something about giving up just a little bit of Liberty for a little more Safety... and deserving neither?