WhatFinger


They’ve always done it? Not like this, they haven’t.

Abuse Of Law Is Emerging As A Pattern and Practice



In an earlier piece, I congratulated the Gura team for their win in D.C. v. Heller, the Washington, D.C. gun ban case. Like most good lawyering, not only does the team win, but all of America wins. Well done. [Now here’s some people I’d like to meet and shake hands with, and I hope to see this team perhaps at the 2008 Gun Rights Policy Conference in Phoenix. Our friends to the North are most welcome. Please come. For details, see [url=http://www.saf.org]]http://www.saf.org][/url]

Support Canada Free Press


In the Heller case, I point out that one can win their rights if they have the Time, the Team and the Wherewithal, and I point out often that D.C. v. Heller will mean new challenges to gun bans nationwide. To them, and to citizens prosecuting their claims, I said Good Hunting.   I say it again: Good Hunting.   But there is much more to this than a simple road map back to safe streets in Liberty. I have my own Formula for Safe Streets in America, and here is an observation: The road back to any community of safe streets is fraught with highwaymen who will stop you to rob you, and where anti-gun, anti-liberty types are eager to describe gun ownership as a return to the Wild West, it is they who are lying in wait, ready to bushwhack Americans.   [In the Wild West, an ambush was lying in wait, and bushwhacking was murder. Vigilante was the intimidation and murder of others outside legal due process for political purposes. For instance, the Vigilantes silenced the abolitionists who wanted to do away with Slavery. Who is Vigilante today, wishing to silence people for political purposes?]   Understand that the anti-gun individuals are not government, they are individual officials who use and abuse government clout and the authority of their office to vex and frustrate rights. This brings abuses to meet the test of an interesting new tool called Interference With Civil Rights Under Color Of Law.   The FBI is charged with investigating such abuses under color of law, and in the United States Code, a Pattern and Practice of violating rights is an element of the offense, which interests me a great deal. There are rules against abuse of process, abuses under color of authority, but this is something different I see. It comes to address abuses of civil rights specifically under color of existing law, which is to follow a predatory selective enforcement (abuses in themselves) which might ordinarily be simply a conflict in laws, and therefore a matter of legal opinion. In the past, almost throughout the entire history of the nation, it was the Citizen on the defensive, the citizen charged with violating some of the more than 20,000 gun laws, oftentimes facing some real hard time, not to mention legal bankruptcy. Every single defendant citizen had his hands full as the Plaintiff or some enforcement agency had unlimited staff and unlimited funding. They also had the support of unlimited citizens who believed the Agency would not attack a citizen for nothing.   But, under this legal tool, for the intentional acts of a defendant who is now more likely to be not a citizen but a college campus, an employer’s workplace or a major city, there is no conflict of laws to hide behind, but more of a naked violation of civil rights to answer.   But it has to be done right. For instance, recently, Virginia Tech was sued by some of the surviving families of the Cho campus shooting of 32, and she settled with the plaintiffs for a cool $11 Million approved tentatively around April 10th, 2008. You might say she dodged a bullet by settling, and here is how: She short-circuited being compelled to drop her gun ban. She elected to pay $11 Million rather than be compelled to really do the right thing, that is (perhaps somewhere in the proceeding) affirming guns on campus. Instead, she and other campuses around the nation get to continue banning guns on campus.   For now. It could be in the offing that Virginia Tech paid $11 Million for nothing.   Either way, a court order to her would have done two things: 1) it would have ordered compliance and changed the entire complexion of how campuses make such a counter-intuitive policy which may be found to be a proximate cause of so many deaths, or; 2) she would have refused (as New Orleans and Washington, D.C. refuse) and continued this new pattern and practice of violating civil rights with impunity.   That lawsuit was a liability question, which turned on what the then legal team called a ‘watered down’ response of alerting the V-tech student body. New lawsuits will probably focus on recognizing and restoring the civil right to keep and bear arms anywhere, an entirely new issue.    There will certainly be plenty to work with, beginning with Washington, D.C.’s ignoring its adverse ruling from the Supreme Court, a little catch up with New Orleans for confiscating guns, and nearly every single workplace, college campus and public building banning guns. Chicago’s looking at one lawsuit right now, and San Francisco’s looking at an easy out to sidestep one: her gun ban was found unconstitutional. Now she’s been warned. Twice in two decades: what will she do? Start respecting rights whether she likes them or not, or continuing to violate them with no penalty?   It won’t any longer be a matter of conflict of laws or legal opinion, but of violation of a civil right under color of law. The very laws they hide behind will be exposed as very poor cover for intentional interference.   Furthermore, a gun control model has proven to the glee of these predatory officials just how they can clone the formula into intruding on every single institution we live by and hold dear.   The repeal of all gun laws can unwind many of these predatory policies modeled on a gun control formula, from PC to high-tech surveillance, and will not trouble America as some predict, but free America from a new kind of abuse of power, the kind which points to Crime itself as its justification. Repealing all gun bans sets us back onto a path of Liberty that has made us beacon to the world – the founders’ declaration that the Citizen is supreme authority, which supreme authority, it was declared, is backed by the monopoly of lethal force.   Always.


View Comments

John Longenecker -- Bio and Archives

John Longenecker is an author of Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns – Meeting Dependency And Violent Crime With American Spirit, Independence, And Citizen Authority [CONTRAST MEDIA PRESS].  Safer Streets Newsletter.


Sponsored