Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Questions and Answers II

In Part One, questions and concerns from Dave Licht about the Second Amendment were posted, and many of you responded with comments of your own. Here are some of my initial observations.

He loaded a lot on the plate, so I'm going to spread this out over a couple posts this week, and do everything in bite-sized chunks.
I have gone to Law school and I have worked in a top law firm (as an intern) and everywhere I turn the people with the experience in the trenches that I respect tell me that the second amendment is NEVER the argument.

I continually talk to experienced, smart, creative attorneys that I respect who tell me there is no second amendment. Yesterday I had a long talk with the partner I work for and he told me to "forget the second amendment, it was poorly written, it's been completely de-balled. U.S. gun laws are entirely statute driven and it has been increasingly thus since "U.S. v Miller" in 1938. He said with the exception of "U.S. v Lopez" there are no meaningful constitutional arguments for inalienable gun rights. The courts have routinely upheld restrictions on possession and ownership particularly local ordinances.

I should throw in that these are seriously constitution believing, gun owning, gun in the top desk drawer attorneys with years of experience, not the bRADY BUNCH.
Unless things radically change, I'd say this assessment of the current state of things is inarguable.

I've been saying for some time that those in power will not allow that balance to significantly change unless forced to. However, it is also my opinion that there will be a "legal resolution" from the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment, and sooner rather than later, and that individual rights will be acknowledged. Perhaps Parker will be that case.

Did I just contradict myself? I don't think so, because I don't think such a ruling will ultimately prove useful at repealing the most offensive of existing gun laws. I believe most of those will be upheld as "reasonable restrictions" where there is a "compelling state interest."

Why do I think SCOTUS will hear and decide on a case? I believe the tension between the Fifth (Emerson) and Ninth (Hickman and Silveira) Circuits can't be allowed to perpetually stand. It's in the interests of the federal government to have one interpretation of the Constitution--"one Ring to rule them all..."

So far, the "High Court" has managed to duck the issue. Some in the "pro-gun camp" say this is a good thing, because the court was not properly stacked to rule for an individual right. This was a significant reason they opposed--and tried to derail--Silveira, citing how it could create "bad precedent." Many of these critics conveniently forgot to mention how the precedent they brought about in Hickman solidified the state of California's legal position that there is no individual right.

That SCOTUS refused to hear the case was not really a surprise. Their dilemma: They couldn't rule that 2A is an unalienable right, applicable to the states as well as the national government, that shall not be infringed, because that would erode the monopoly of power--and no "authority" gives that up unless forced to. And they dared not rule that there is no individual right, because that would provoke widespread defiance and disobedience that could well get out of hand.

The time--and the cases--were not "right" to serve the purposes and maintain the balance.

That's where John Ashcroft showed the way, albeit in an often overlooked footnote...

More later.

Information Request

Many of you know of (or have blogged of) stories about people who used firearms to defend themselves from mutants and were then charged with serious crimes because of that. Or they were sued in civil court by family members (and greedy lawyers) of the shot perpetrators.
Alphecca is looking for help to counter some blatant opinion steering by the "authorized journalists."

Hmmm...Makes Sense!

The city of Carson is urging residents to surrender their weapons at the Carson sheriff's station on Wednesday.
And in other news:
An 18-year-old man was wounded in a shooting at a Carson gas station early Sunday.

Sheriff's officials believe the incident is gang-related.

We're the Only Ones Child-Caring Enough

An 11-year veteran of the New Braunfels Police Department has been charged with one count of possession of child pornography.

Sometimes it takes the "Only Ones" to remind us how important the little things in life are.

[Thanks to AB5SY]

We're the Only Ones Abreast of the Situation Enough

A former sheriff's deputy who sexually assaulted two women and fondled another's breasts while patrolling in the Compton area was sentenced Thursday to 30 years in federal prison.
Lick it or ticket?
[More from "The Only Ones" files...]

We're the Only Ones Violated Enough

A former Los Angeles police officer, who was fired after he was videotaped striking a suspected car thief with a flashlight, filed a $10 million civil rights lawsuit on Friday against the city and Chief William Bratton.
Damn straight. The day an "Only One" doesn't have a guaranteed right to kick a subdued suspect in the head and beat him with a flashlight is the day this is no longer Amerika.