Historic New Law

Tom: I carry a firearm to defend myself, not so that I can respond to dangerous situations and defend others. ... And I don't think police officers are less competent than average gun owners. However, I firmly believe that many officers (especially the younger ones), are more prone to abuse their gun carrying privileges.

We need to raise the bar, and demand more out of our local law enforcement communities. I would not be opposed to paying officers more than six figures per year IF they were properly educated, vetted, and trained. As of now, too many tax dollars are being wasted due to police error. Guilty men are walking the streets because of preventable police mistakes. Our police departments are failing us.

 

Oh, I do know you. You're a classic example of those who are jealous of the police. I deal with your type on a daily basis.

Often commit atrocious acts? There are about 2 million law enforcement officers in this country. You're going to try to smear that many people by posting a few news articles? That type of behavior is atrocious, if anything.

 

The National Guard is not the militia. Here in MA we have what is known as the "State Guard", which is not affiliated with the US Military, and therefore is probably closest to a true militia.

The most interesting Second Amendment case to me is United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875). In that case, the Supreme Court held that certain rights, such as peaceable assembly and the right to bear arms, were "natural rights" that preexisted the Constitution.

 

More info on US v. Miller

For those interested, here is a brief summary of the case Tom referred to. ~ United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174

HISTORY: March 30, 1939, Argued - May 15, 1939, Decided ~ PRIOR; APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. APPEAL under the Criminal Appeals Act from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to an indictment for violation of the National Firearms Act. ~ DISPOSITION; 26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed.

POSTURE: The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas quashed the indictments against defendants charging them with violating the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.S. § 1132. The government appealed.

OVERVIEW: Defendants were indicted for transporting an unregistered double barrel 12-gauge shotgun in interstate commerce in violation of the National Firearms Act. Defendants filed a motion to quash the indictment alleging that the Act was unconstitutional because it violated the Second Amendment. The district court quashed the indictment finding that the section of the Act that made it unlawful to transport an unregistered firearm in interstate commerce was unconstitutional. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment did not guarantee defendants the right to keep and transport the shotgun. The weapon was not part of any ordinary military equipment and its use could not contribute to the common defense. The Court found that there was no evidence that possession of such shotgun had any relationship to the preservation of a militia.

OUTCOME: The Court reversed the decision and remanded for further proceedings.

SYNOPSIS: Jack Miller and Frank Layton were charged with unlawfully transporting a firearm in interstate commerce without having registered the firearm, and without having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for the firearm. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, 26 F.Supp. 1002, the United States of America appeals. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. *Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas.

 

Ummm... Just a couple of things....

Maybe I'm just playing with semantics, but I don't think that its fair to say that police officers and regular civilians OFTEN commit atrocious acts. A very small percentage of both populations do. I don't think you meant to say that.

Second, I think that by simply becoming a police officer, or joining the service, or being a firefighter is a heroic act in and of itself. You're putting yourself in possible danger for others. It's when one or two knuckleheads mess up that cause an image problem for the rest of you--trust me I was a marine and was stationed in Okinawa in the 90's.

Finally, I don't want to judge this law too soon. It may be a good thing, it may be a bad thing. We'll have to see. I think that the notion that there will be more armed people on the streets could be seen as a problem to the police based on confusion (a crook could get a fake badge from MA and cary a weapon in TX), but could also be good as their will be more protection. I don't think that police officers would suddenly say "Hey I have the right to go into the next state, conceal my weapon and bully people with it."

Well, at least 95% wouldn't...

 

The law states that you have to carry the photo ID issued by the department that employs you. If it ever becomes an issue and I have an out-of-state officer with a gun, I'll simply have dispatch call the agency and verify that the person is legitimate.

 

Agreed on the National Guard not being Washington's militia, but it's still the closest thing to a modern equivalent because it serves the same purpose: It's a huge nationally-linked group of civilians who receive some training and can take up arms in times of war, but who are not professional soldiers. (If you run across a copy of my The Bill of Rights, you'll find an abridged version of Washington's actual militia regulations--fascinating stuff.)

Agreed, though it was technically 1876 and the story behind it is a little bit creepy. From Great American Court Cases (Gale, 1999):

Because Louisiana chose not to prosecute the men for murder, they were charged under the federal Enforcement Act of 1870, which prohibited individuals from performing acts that restricted other people's constitutional rights. The Supreme Court struck down the Act as unconstitutional on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another." The Court also made a point of mentioning that the First Amendment should not be applied to state law under the Fourteenth Amendment--a position that the Court would overturn about 50 years later.

The Second Amendment was mentioned in passing as protecting a natural right to firearm ownership, as part of an argument that the Bill of Rights "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." But the case was really about the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second, and the rest of the case--which, let's face it, protected the Ku Klux Klan from being arrested for lynching--has not held up very well over time. Cruikshank is frequently cited by defenders of the natural rights interpretation, but I think we'd be better off looking at the Framers, who did consider gun ownership a natural right (but may or may not have explicated this in the Constitution).

But agreed 100% on the idea of the Bill of Rights guaranteeing natural rights that people have whether governments choose to recognize them or not; this idea is especially implicit in the Declaration of Independence, but goes back further to that to the Enlightenment in Europe. Up until that time, most folks believed that rights were things that you were given, not things that you were born with. What a huge, liberating paradigm shift that must have been.


Cheers,

 

I hate guns, generally. Despite all the back-and-forth here about it, I think Tom Head's analysis of it a few posts back is pretty much correct and in accord with what I've always believed; and that there is absolutely no constitutional right to bear arms. So simple and straightforward is the issue, in fact, that I've always wondered why we even need to employ such sophisticated constitutional and historical scholarship to it when a simple analysis of the construct of the sentence, as a matter of middle-school grammar, settles the argument quite nicely, thank you. But I digress.

Many states -- as Nosborne48 pointed-out is true about his -- authorize police officers to carry firearms (usually only as long as they're also carrying their badge and ID, and sometimes they're even required to carry handcuffs, too, depending on the state) while off-duty or even if retired. Some states (and/or cities within the ones that allow it) even require it -- at least of the off-duty officers.

And, personally, I've never, ever had any problem with that. (Surprising, coming from me, no?)

To me, codifying it nationally so that some kind of rational standardization will now waft its way across the whole of the landscape is probably a good thing. Though I know that there are cops in the world who, if they weren't cops would be criminals, I concur that if anyone should be allowed to do it, it should be adequately-trained, oath-sworn law enforcement officers.

Knowing that if Bruce ever comes to visit me here in Napa (an eventuality, I realize, for which neither of us should ever hold our breaths), he'll be packing heat, is somehow weirdly comforting.

Go figure.

EDIT: I do think, however, that any law authorizing such a thing should include some fairly rigid rules about the off-duty and/or retired officer never being allowed to be under the influence of anything while carrying; and/or that he can't fall asleep or in any other way not be in a state that would allow him to notice that someone's lifting the weapon from him; and stuff like that. I haven't read the new law, so maybe it's already got some safeguards in it. But cops are people, too. When they're off-duty they should certainly have the right to drink to a bit of excess (as long as they stay orderly and don't break public intox laws, etc.; and as long as they don't drink and drive... you get the point); and when they do it would be nice to know that they're not going to pass-out (or even just fall asleep on someone's sofa) and make it easy for someone to take their weapon. Those would be my concerns, as an afterthought. Just sayin'. All of that having been said, I am reminded of the San Francisco police officers in the recent, infamous "Fajitagate" case who got all liquored-up and beat the ever-loving crap out of a kid they decided deserved it. And how one of them, later, got arrested and carried away, resisting, by Las Vegas police after an argument with his own father in a casino. This law would have armed those knuckleheads even when they were in Vegas. Sobering, ain't it?

 

You never know, Gregg. I don't take any of this stuff personally, and I would meet any member here if we happened to be in the same place at the same time. Anyone coming to Boston should let me know.

There are safeguards in the law, which reads;

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

Needless to say, I won't touch a drop of alcohol if I'm carrying a gun, and I almost never leave my house unarmed. My wife likes that very much, because when we go out to dinner, I'm automatically the designated driver.

 

Talking about guns,crime, and how only a few should be allowed to carry guns. When I was 12 years old I bought my first gun, a Mossberg .22. I put it across the handlebars of my bike and rode home with it. Nobody got excited, most families in that town had several guns in their household. Here are the crime stats for that County: http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/crime/county/21159.html

How does that compare with crime in your area? (Or any with which you are familiar)

 

Hey, Martin County had 38 arrests last year.

Then again, that's less than half of what my station does in a week.

 

My view is simplistic and is devoid of the theory of rocket science:

• There is nothing wrong with allowing a policeman to carry a gun in America.

Many people are somehow strangely offended by this simplistic concept.

 

See... I knew I'd get into some kinda' trouble with that flip remark -- mostly 'cause I worried you'd think I was being sarcastic or, worse, disingenuous. The truth is, I meant it -- or at least the spirit of it -- flip though it may have been. Look, we don't agree on all kinds-o-stuff, but from what little I've read in these forums, one thing I've got a gut feeling is true about you: You're a good cop. Most cops I've met (and I've met a bunch) are -- despite my not being able to watch any three episodes of "Cops" at a sitting without seeing at least one flat-out constitutional rights violation (or damned near it).

Allowing police officers to carry guns pretty much any time, anywhere, whether on duty or not, somehow feels okay to me -- and, mind you, I'm a strong gun control advocate. Please don't misinterpret my earlier flip remark. From the heart: I'd feel safe standing next to you any time -- even if we were vigorously arguing some political issue that had us both red-faced. No problem.

 

I tend to favor the common defense interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is a middle ground between the natural rights interpretation (which simply isn't in the amendment, however much the founding fathers might have agreed with it) and the militia interpretation (which suggests that since the original meaning has changed, the amendment is no longer binding at all). My argument is that everyone has a right to bear arms to contribute to the common defense, but that when arms do not contribute to the common defense (as in the obvious case of giving gun ownership to, say, convicted violent offenders), the amendment does not apply. In any case, the right described in the Second Amendment is a communal right to sustain a "well-regulated" militia, not a personal right to firearm ownership. We can't just clip words out of the amendment and pretend the rest is binding on its own; or rather we can, but the Supreme Court can't. Some folks say the "well-regulated militia" is just a side note for posterity's sake on why the natural right to bear arms can be useful. If that's the case, blame James Madison for your troubles; it's that phrase (very superfluous at the time, since it was right after the Revolutionary War) that ties in the right to bear arms with common defense and makes the amendment's purpose unclear.

But just because the Second Amendment doesn't specify a personal right to bear arms doesn't mean there isn't such a right; the Ninth and Tenth Amendments clearly state that there are other rights not enumerated in the Constitution (as if we didn't know that already). If you believe gun ownership is an individual natural right and that the Supreme Court isn't doing enough to protect it, the thing to do is get your local legislator to co-sponsor a constitutional amendment that explicitly protects the right to bear arms as a natural, individual right independent of the common defense. I want to see folks take this route with the right to privacy, to enshrine it from future Supreme Court tampering.

And I'd like to see folks do this with the preferred freedoms interpretation of the free exercise clause, which is why I like the idea behind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was the only piece of legislation I can think of that was vigorously supported by both Ted Kennedy and Jesse Helms, with support from both the ACLU and the Christian Coalition; unfortunately, it really did violate separation of powers (and I think everyone who voted for it knew it was a symbolic gesture), but a constitutional amendment would not.


Cheers,

 

This is becoming an ever-increasing violent society. I am sure many citizens appreciate this new law.

I understand the hesitancies. I grew up in the South and know all about police officers who are corrupt, who plant evidence, etc.

I am aware of the "Vic Mackey's" and "Mark Furman's" of the world. I have seen unfairness on the part of police officers--I've been on the receiving end myself in a few situations.

Yet, all this being as it may, the overwhelmining majority of American law enforcement officers are good, honest, decent, hard-working, fair-minded folks.

I support this law and Bush wholeheartedly and unequivocally.

 

Well, I support this law; Bush I'd like to look back on as one of our more colorful one-term presidents. I guess we'll find out how it goes soon enough.


Cheers,

 

According to the latest polls, Bush now has a 51% approval rating. It's not great, I'll admit. But, according to the historians, no President with an above 50% approval rating this late into the campaign, has lost reelection.

Also, let's remember, Bush hasn't even had his convention yet. He has yet to address the American people with is acceptance speech not to mention the debates that will be forthcoming.

I still stand by my prediction that Bush will win with at least 54% of the vote.

BTW, Tom, how's Barbour doing? I felt like he'd be a good Governor.

 

And yet also according to the historians, no president since Truman with lower than 50 percent approval rating--for as late as Bush had it--has won reelection. I'd say that whichever way this goes, it'll be a historic outcome. Right now I don't think there's any denying that Kerry is leading in the electoral count according to state polls (by 80 votes or so, last I checked), and he's still slightly ahead in the popular vote as well.

This is true, and that's where he'll have to come in ahead if he's going to win.

I guess we'll see about that one. I expect this to be a very close race, especially with Kerry still ahead in most polls. Bush's best hope is to have a really good convention that bounces him ahead (unlikely given the number of voters who have already committed to one candidate or the other), and then keep that lead heading into November 2nd. But even that might not be enough if Kerry continues to lead in the electoral college; could we see a reversal of the 2000 scenario, where this time the Republican wins the overall popular vote but loses the election?

Bush could also take the lead if he were to capture bin Laden, or see some really good job numbers, or both.

I'm not displeased with him so far; he cut education funding, but then anybody with this state's budget deficit would have to. He hasn't made any particularly embarrassing or disturbing gaffes, and some of his economic development plans look promising. I was worried about his social conservatism, but maybe I shouldn't have been; the thing about Mississippi politics is that the Republican doesn't have to prove s/he's conservative, while the Democrat does, leading to weird scenarios like the one where Ronnie Musgrove asked teachers to stick "In God We Trust" signs in public school classrooms, where Rep. Ronnie Shows proposed the anti-gay marriage amendment years before it became an issue for anybody else, etc. etc. etc. Barbour doesn't have to do that kind of thing because his conservative credentials are in hand, so he can focus on economic issues instead. So to answer your question a little more directly, he'd get a tentative thumbs up on his job approval rating if I were polled right now.


Cheers,

 

I have to say, Tom, that you are one of the most fair-minded and objective politicos I have ever known.

 

I know there are 'lies damned lies and statistics' but I seem to recall statements that : -

in the US, people in households where guns are available are more likely to die from gunshot wounds than those without (presumably domestic disputes).

over the whole course of the Vietnam war, more US citizens died from gunshot wounds in the United States than in Vietnam

I also remember reading the sad case of a US woman found shaking in her car, unable to believe or understand why she had just shot and killed another motorist over a minor traffic dispute.

The possession of a gun by someone like that destroyed 2 lives, indicating the need for some for of psychological testing for gunowners. (perhaps like the suggestion about political office: anyone who actually wants it should be automatically barred!!)