Re: Article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the importance of the 14th amendment

26
Under the 14th, every white man considered a person of interest in a crime should be treated as if he were Black. Lots of blue stripe flags would come down real quick.

Wait, you say? The 14th was meant to work the other way? Well, how about lets get on that then?

Of course the 2nd is not absolute. We don't let people own guns legally after they have been convicted of a felony by a jury of their peers. In some states, misdemeanor drug convictions need not apply. Why? Because these people were determined by our legal system to pose enough of a threat to society to permanently disqualify them from certain basic enumerated rights, following the process laid out by laws written by elected representatives. Nothing in the Constitution says that conviction of a crime disqualifies one from certain rights, yet we don't allow felons to associate with other felons freely either, nor force them to quarter soldiers.

Not every red flag law is crafted alike, but they share the aim of enhancing public safety through imposed limitations on access to weapons following a legal process, short of a conviction. Those limitations should follow a standard of judicial review, as with a search warrant or restrictions on travel after arrest, with clearly defined restrictions of specified duration. If conviction is a red card, 'red flag' restrictions should be a yellow card.

But! These depend on equal protection and treatment under the law! The grandson of a representative or son of a president can not be treated differently from a Black kid on the streets of Chicago. They depend on faithful implementation by local law enforcement and prosecutors. They depend on due process. We have problems here.

Root cause mitigation for social violence will do more to keep people safe. Red flag laws are a stopgap at best, like the Russian army issuing tampons to treat bullet wounds - far from ideal, but in dire extreme, better than nothing at all.

Re: Article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the importance of the 14th amendment

27
F4FEver wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 7:46 am
CowboyT wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:19 pm
CDFingers wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:13 pm
sikacz wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:53 pm True enough T, especially your last paragraph.
Except that red flag laws were not at all in effect in the Colorado Q club shoot. Absolutism is not the proper path.

CDFingers
Still doesn't mean these oppressive "Red Flag" laws are a good idea; quite the opposite, actually.

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

I know, Barry Goldwater, not a Democrat/Progressive, but in this case, he's right, 100%. What one might call "absolutism" could also be said about Harriet Tubman in her quest for Negro freedom back in the day (and BTW, she carried a gun, too). Same applies here, I think.
How are RFLaws a 'bad idea'? How would they be a 'bad idea' in the Colorado Springs shooting, since you like to bring up single anecdotal examples(lady 8 days into her 10 day waiting period)? Cuz the shooter 'would get a gun anyway'?
"Guilty until proven innocent", that's why. That's what's wrong with them. And that's bullshit, *ESPECIALLY* when it comes to a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

CDFingers also pointed out what he believes to be a difference between "liberty" and "freedom". I read the whole post. First, his mom did absolutely right when she dealt with that other girl harassing her, and while I don't know if she's still with us, I give her a high-five for that.

But here's what I believe to be the flaw in the general case he makes. Turns out the word "freedom" has more than one definition. Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say about that.

1: the quality or state of being free: such as
  • a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
    b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
    c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous
    freedom from care
    d: unrestricted use
    gave him the freedom of their home
    e: ease, facility
    spoke the language with freedom
    f: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
    answered with freedom
    g: improper familiarity
    h: boldness of conception or execution
2
  • a: a political right
    b: franchise, privilege
In the context of the people governed by a government, when we speak of freedom, we're speaking primarily of definitions 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b. We obviously are not speaking of 1g in this context. :-)

Likewise, liberty also has several definitions.

1: the quality or state of being free:
  • a: the power to do as one pleases
    b: freedom from physical restraint
    c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see despot sense 1) control
    d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
    e: the power of choice
2:
  • a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege
    b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits
    was given the liberty of the house
3: an action going beyond normal limits: such as
  • a: a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity
    took undue liberties with a stranger
    b: risk, chance
    took foolish liberties with his health
    c: a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice
    took liberties in the way he played the game
    d: a distortion of fact
    The movie takes many liberties with the actual events.
4: a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours

Here, we are obviously not talking about 3a, 3b, 3c, or 4. Rather, we are speaking of 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, all of which refer to...freedom. To a lesser extent, we are also referring to 2a, which is lesser because it refers to privilege. One could take 2b as well, which appears to be where CDFingers is going with this, but then we run smack-dab into the entirety of the definitions under 1. In the context of the Constitution, not only that document, but also the Founding Fathers's papers on the subject, all refer primarily to the definitions under 1.

Given that, "liberty" and "freedom" are therefore synonymous in the context of government and the United States Constitution, and that is the context in which Mr. Goldwater--admittedly not my favorite, either--meant his statement. As the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and this is, I believe, one of Mr. Goldwater's "stopped-clock" moments. Freedom/liberty end at the point where you are actually preventing someone else from likewise exercising their rights, and therefore any limitations on freedom/liberty have to be *VERY* limited and *VERY* carefully considered.

Prof. Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center, Columbia University, and formerly chief legal counsel of the Free Software Foundation, talks about this very point.

https://downloads.softwarefreedom.org/2 ... moglen.ogg

This is definitely worth your watching, folks. He's a Liberal like us. It's because of him that Phil Zimmermann, inventor of Pretty Good Privacy, is not rotting in jail today for exercise of his First Amendment rights. It's all about the freedom. And it applies just as much to the 2A as the 1A.

And speaking of the First Amendment....

You know, I've noticed here that just about everyone else seems to want to ignore the discussion of applying this to the First Amendment as well, which I mentioned previously in another thread ("the pen is mightier than the sword"). How about we actively advocate for that as well, then--Red Flag laws for the First Amendment?
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the importance of the 14th amendment

28
Nonetheless, the Constitution promises us the blessings of Liberty. While it is true that the pen can persuade many to take up arms against "the other," in the final analysis the person who pulls the trigger makes the choice. Whether that choice is made freely with respect to decades of propaganda freely distributed, remains an interesting question.

on edit

I came back to add that, if we avoid red flag laws because there might be discrimination, we pretty much guarantee things such as the recent shooting made by a guy who certainly should not have had access to guns. I cannot support such a position.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the importance of the 14th amendment

29
CDFingers wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:25 pm Nonetheless, the Constitution promises us the blessings of Liberty. While it is true that the pen can persuade many to take up arms against "the other," in the final analysis the person who pulls the trigger makes the choice. Whether that choice is made freely with respect to decades of propaganda freely distributed, remains an interesting question.
That's exactly how Hitler managed to get into power and do what he did. Same with dictators all throughout history.
CDFingers wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:25 pm on edit

I came back to add that, if we avoid red flag laws because there might be discrimination, we pretty much guarantee things such as the recent shooting made by a guy who certainly should not have had access to guns. I cannot support such a position.

CDFingers
Likewise, I cannot support a position that assumes guilt until innocence is proved, just because some White female decides to cry wolf for whatever stupid reason. That's the problem with these Red Flag laws.

As for the "there might be discrimination" position...that's what the 14th Amendment is all about!

It looks like we simply will agree to disagree on this one. Well, this is America, and we get to do that here. That right, BTW, is backed up by the force guaranteed to us by the 2A. Worth pointing out.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the importance of the 14th amendment

33
CDFingers wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 7:11 pm We'll just have to have different positions on this. I do not understand the Hitler reference, but then, sometimes it'll be that way. I will put another statement on the mass shooting thread.

CDFingers
Fair enough; I'll explain. It was simply that Hitler managed to use the "mighty pen" to get people to support him, and then he used the "mighty pen" again to direct the hatred against the Jews and other "non-Aryans". Other dictators have done similar things. That's why the pen can be so dangerous, guns or not.

Yeah, I think this has been a good discussion. I'm very glad that we live in a country where we *can* have discussions like this openly, and keep it civil. That's a really good thing, folks.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the importance of the 14th amendment

34
wings wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 7:54 am Under the 14th, every white man considered a person of interest in a crime should be treated as if he were Black. Lots of blue stripe flags would come down real quick.

Wait, you say? The 14th was meant to work the other way? Well, how about lets get on that then?

Of course the 2nd is not absolute. We don't let people own guns legally after they have been convicted of a felony by a jury of their peers. In some states, misdemeanor drug convictions need not apply. Why? Because these people were determined by our legal system to pose enough of a threat to society to permanently disqualify them from certain basic enumerated rights, following the process laid out by laws written by elected representatives. Nothing in the Constitution says that conviction of a crime disqualifies one from certain rights, yet we don't allow felons to associate with other felons freely either, nor force them to quarter soldiers.

Not every red flag law is crafted alike, but they share the aim of enhancing public safety through imposed limitations on access to weapons following a legal process, short of a conviction. Those limitations should follow a standard of judicial review, as with a search warrant or restrictions on travel after arrest, with clearly defined restrictions of specified duration. If conviction is a red card, 'red flag' restrictions should be a yellow card.

But! These depend on equal protection and treatment under the law! The grandson of a representative or son of a president can not be treated differently from a Black kid on the streets of Chicago. They depend on faithful implementation by local law enforcement and prosecutors. They depend on due process. We have problems here.

Root cause mitigation for social violence will do more to keep people safe. Red flag laws are a stopgap at best, like the Russian army issuing tampons to treat bullet wounds - far from ideal, but in dire extreme, better than nothing at all.
Wings gets it....'others', where absolute-ism is their mantra, don't. A identified dangerous person, who has made threats of violence using a gun, to others...sure, let him own as many guns as he wants. I guess 'some' think the body count via 'mass shootings' in the US is the 'price we pay' for the 2A..BS to that.
Likewise, I cannot support a position that assumes guilt until innocence is proved, just because some White female decides to cry wolf for whatever stupid reason. That's the problem with these Red Flag laws.
That's why RFL, when applied properly, doesn't assume anything. That's why both parties, with legal counsel, stand before a judge. It's NOT just "some White female deciding to cry wolf for whatever stupid reason". That happened in Colorado and the lady ended up getting charged with perjury.

BTW-get a traffic ticket, go to court to 'prove your innocence'...and undoubtedly 'some' don't like background checks either...trying to 'prove' you are legally 'allowed' to own a gun...

Re: Article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the importance of the 14th amendment

36
CDFingers wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:55 am Not to put too fine a point on this, but the shooters are men.

Think about that for a moment, guys.

CDFingers
Yup that is true in most cases, it's rare to see a female mass shooter, mass murderer or just responsible for mass injuries.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the importance of the 14th amendment

37
highdesert wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 9:44 am
CDFingers wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:55 am Not to put too fine a point on this, but the shooters are men.

Think about that for a moment, guys.

CDFingers
Yup that is true in most cases, it's rare to see a female mass shooter, mass murderer or just responsible for mass injuries.
I guess I do have to put a fine point on it. Statistically, the mass shooter phenomenon is uniquely male.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the importance of the 14th amendment

38
CDFingers wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 10:09 am
highdesert wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 9:44 am
CDFingers wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:55 am Not to put too fine a point on this, but the shooters are men.

Think about that for a moment, guys.

CDFingers
Yup that is true in most cases, it's rare to see a female mass shooter, mass murderer or just responsible for mass injuries.
I guess I do have to put a fine point on it. Statistically, the mass shooter phenomenon is uniquely male.

CDFingers
Our society raises men to think violence is a way to address issues. It also raises men to see women objectified, thanksgiving day parade is a typical example. End result is messed up men, ones who think they are privileged and allowed to use violence to address their perceived wrongs and project violence toward those who they perceive as rejecting them.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the importance of the 14th amendment

41
CDFingers wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 10:36 am sika, that is such a primo piece of support for root-cause mitigation.

CDFingers
So many of the root causes can be lumped together with a single word, Despair. I give President Clinton credit for trying to address it when he said:
. . . anxious Americans may feel "like they're lost in the fun house" and that it is his job to "get people out of their funk about it."

"What makes people insecure is when they feel like they're lost in the fun house," he said. "They're in a room where something can hit them from any direction at any time; they always feel that living life is like walking across a running river on slippery rocks and you can lose your footing at any time."
"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Matt. 25:40

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sikacz and 2 guests