May 8, 2014

Law enforcement and the second amendment

Robert Farago at TTAG pulls this quote (h/t geoffB) from a NJ editorial, which gets to the very heart of the increasingly nannystate-dependence of some of our more vocal activists, who spend much of their time begging that their responsibility for their own well-being be taken away from them — which I suppose frees the cowards up to demand that the non-cowards join them in “willingness to nut up inequality”:

“We want law enforcement to have the ultimate say over who can be armed in public — not lobbyists with the NRA. Thankfully, the Supreme Court’s brush-off of this latest challenge reaffirms that.” – Editorial, U.S. Supreme Court shrugs off weak challenge to NJ gun law [via nj.com]

As geoff notes in his email,

I do realize that by not taking the case the Supreme Court isn’t saying that they won’t take some future case and rule against the New Jersey law but then again they might never do so. What this “exception” to the 2nd amendment does to it could be extended to other amendments too. Think of the way “justifiable need”, as determined by some government designated, government employee could be used to limit all of the constitutional rights that are supposed to limit government.

This certainly is chilling to contemplate for any number of reasons, the most succinct and pointed of which is that politicians, certain civil servants, and top-of-the-chain bureaucrats enjoy petty tyranny, and most — being posturing dicks — are pretty much the last people on earth you want controlling anything unchecked.

Of course, a federal court — the 9th circuit, of all places — struck down California’s attempt to limit CC permits to those who showed “good cause,” noting (correctly and obviously) that the Second Amendment is available to all citizens as a basic right and therefore isn’t subject to such restraints, which in essence amount to a kind of subjective, government-graded literacy test or poll tax.

So I’m not sure how that impacts the NJ law, if at all, but it sure does seem to me that handing law enforcement the keys to the car — then allowing them to remove the unlock mechanism and the backdoor interior handles — is not the best idea, all things considered.

I mean, haven’t we seen how, historically at least, such a diminution of individual rights in favor of dispensation to a singular group with ultimate authority, ends often very very badly for those who agree to sign away their liberty (and those who are swept along for the ride by force of law)…?

Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:11pm
14 comments | Trackback

Comments (14)

  1. What a refreshing read Jeff G. !

  2. politicians, certain civil servants, and top-of-the-chain bureaucrats enjoy petty tyranny

    This month many communities here in CA started water rationing. What the petty tyrants live for: a crisis + shortage = control!

  3. I think Clarissa explains it all: you have a right to a gun but, you don’t need it. Pretty simple don’t you think?

  4. bgbear: You don’t need the right or you don’t need the gun? ;-)

  5. “We want law enforcement to have the ultimate say over who can be armed in public[.] ”

    What can you say about the author other than he’s a slave any master would be proud to own? He certainly wears his collar with pride.

  6. “We want law enforcement to have the ultimate say over who can be armed in public — not lobbyists with the NRA “
    What the hell does that even mean? Lobbyists don’t have the ultimate say, otherwise they wouldn’t be lobbying .

    From the same editorial, “That’s not what we want for New Jersey. We don’t want to have to worry that every guy we get into a fight with over a parking spot might have a handgun tucked into his belt. We don’t want guns in our bars and airports and on our playgrounds.” Yeah , because everyone with a CC permit and carrying a gun will drop you like you’re hot at the slightest provocation. But a thug without a permit who is carrying? Oh, he’ll give you hugs and kizzles, right?

  7. “Sufficient need”? Isn’t “Because the Constitution says so” sufficient need for any legal question?

    Oh, right, plain text written by farmers and merchants and soldiers doesn’t mean anything unless a bunch of black-robed people who get paid by the comma agree that “the People” means “only certain specified government employees”, and “shall not be infringed” means exactly the opposite. I keep forgetting. I mean, what would happen if the People thought they were running things?

    Those that can, do.
    Those that can’t, teach.
    Those that can’t teach, litigate.
    Those that can’t litigate, issue rulings from the bench.

  8. Don’t we already have LEOs who think that anyone who claims they need a gun has to be crazy?

  9. I don’t “need” to say anything about the events of the day, either, but if I should “want” to exercise those First Amendment rights, that should be sufficient in and of itself.

    Same with the Second.

    The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government – even the Third Branch of Government – the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. — Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the 5-4 majority in District of Columbia, et al., v. Heller

  10. I think Clarissa explains it all: you have a right to a gun but, you don’t need it.

    What exactly don’t we need? The gun, or the right to the gun? Me? I think you need a gun in order to have a right to it. Because if you don’t have a gun, you won’t have the right to have one when when you need it.

  11. We don’t want to have to worry that every guy we get into a fight with over a parking spot might have a handgun tucked into his belt.

    I handle that by not getting into fights over parking spots. My list of hills worth fighting on has a pretty close correlation with my list of hills worth dying on. Parking spots is on neither list.

  12. Indeed, one could make a Darwinistic argument in favor of letting people who’ll shoot each other over a parking spot do exactly that, in the hopes of culling some of the more egregious examples of the ‘stupid gene’.

  13. Sounds good JB but, gangbangers have been culling each other for decades and they still keep replenishing the stock.

Leave a Reply