Predictable:
The New York Civil Liberties Union today filed suit against the city to keep police from searching the bags of passengers entering the subway, organization lawyers said.The ACLU's tried this before--and lost. Why, exactly, does the ACLU consistently support punishing law abiding Americans? Why, exactly, do leftists consistently support the lawless ACLU?
The suit, which [was] filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, will claimed that the two-week old policy violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures, while doing almost nothing to shield the city from terrorism.
(via The Corner)
More:
Atlas Shrugs: "[I]n order to move about freely we have to be alive first."
Still More:
Dingo disputes, I respond.
(via Joe's Dartblog)
8 comments:
Predictable, is right.
Imagine that- we've reached a point where being stupid is applauded by some.
Thanks for the link.
I sort of postes on this here.
Would you also then support banning weapons that terrorists could use to hurt us, but the NRA fights to keep legal?
Dingo:
Weapons "that terrorists could use to hurt us"? Like airplanes and box-cutters? Or do you mean guns, the individual right to own being protected under the Second Amendment? Perhaps we should outlaw cars: they're not mentioned in the Constitution and terrorists might decide to run-over their targets.
If liberals read the rest of the Bill of Rights as they attempt to read the Second, they're would be no Miranda warnings, right to counsel, exclusionary rule, "separation of church and state," categorical exclusion of minors and the retarded from capital punishment, etc. But at least, in that case, affirmative action would be prohibited and racial profiling -- which might save many -- would be allowed.
I am talking about 50 caliber rifles. The ones that can destroy a jet engine from a mile away.
Is the NRA's lobbying to protect the right to buy these guns on the open market a right to be murdered?
and if so, why is the 2nd amendment absolute while the 4th and 5th are not.
I think that the searching of bags is a necessary thing due to current circumstances, but so is the limitation on purchasing of large caliber weapons. I think the NRA is as absurd as the ACLU on this. I was asking if you agree or disagree.
Dingo:
I'm glad we agree that the subway searches are reasonable. But, and contrary to SC&A, I don't think the analogy to the sale of .50 cal. single-action rifles a good one. As you yourself recognize, there's a distinction between the right to possess arms and reasonable restrictions on their use. The vast majority of gun owners are no threat. The vast majority of Islamic terrorists are.
Part of the problem -- whether based on a reluctance to institute racial profiling or not -- is that our anti-terrorism efforts domestically are geared more toward finding bombs than finding terrorists. Anything -- box-cutters, cars, etc. -- potentially could be a weapon. We should at least investigate the screening used by El Al, which has an excellent anti-terror record, despite being the airline of little Satan.
As for the Second Amendment, its language plainly establishes an individual right: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "legislative history" of the Amendment supports that conclusion (29 Akron L. Rev. 57, 70 (1995):
[T]he U.S. Senate actually rejected a proposal to add the words "for the common defense" at the end of the phrase "keep and bear Arms." This decision further underscores the fact that "the people" have an individual right to bear arms that extends beyond the citizen's duty to serve in the militia "for the common defense." (footnote omitted)
So there's really no comparison between prohibitions on buying .50 cal. rifles and prohibitions on searching subway passengers.
It's unnecessary for our purposes to decide whether Second Amendment rights are absolute under any circumstances. That's because it's plain that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of only "unreasonable searches and seizures" is not absolute. (The Fourth and Eighth Amendment are the two provisions of the Bill of Rights I concede are "living" to some extent, based on the words "unreasonable," "cruel" and "unusual.") I agree with NY Girl, M_O_M, Chris and, I think, you: in today's environment, with today's risks, subway searches are reasonable and thus lawful.
That line of reasoning makes no sense. I am a responsible citizen. If I had a bomb, I could take it onto the subway, ride it all day long and never trigger it. Therefore, by your reasoning, there should be no reason for me not to be allowed to take a bomb on the subway. But, just because I am a responsible citizen, the need for security is more compelling than the need for privacy.
Additionally, your reasoning works against you in another way. The reason behind searches is to stop an action from happening, right? You are trying to stop the action of someone causing harm to innocent citizens. In the case of a bomb, the best way to stop that is to stop it from reaching the point where it can be triggered. But, for a 50 caliber rifle, it can be fired from a mile away, so you don't have the option of searching for it and stopping the weapon from reaching the point where it can cause destruction. The only point where you can stop this is at the point of distribution (gun shops).
And, yes, there are limitations to the 2nd amendment. You cannot own a tank, F-16, cruise missile, or nuclear weapon. Reasonable applies to the 2nd amendment also.
If there was no threat of terrorism, searching my bags on the subway would be unreasonable. The only thing that makes it reasonable now is due to the increased threat. Since reasonableness is a sliding scale in the 4th, it is only hypocritical to say that reasonableness is not adjustable for the 2nd.
So, on one had, you are deriding the "right to be murdered" for the ACLU's actions, but you are defending a suicide pact on the NRA's side. We all have to give up some our civil liberties in order to keep us safe. Gun owners are not exempt from this duty.
Dingo:
I'm confused: aren't you mixing the language and protection afforded by the 4th and 2nd Amendments? Whether or not you have the "right" to buy a bomb, it still may be "reasonable" to search you on the subway.
Many objects, many purchases, have both lawful and unlawful -- or dangerous and safe -- uses. Cars kill, yet we don't forbid them. VCRs can violate copyright, but they're still in stores. Sure, copyright would be more secure without photocopiers--but the most effective protection isn't necessarily lawful or logical in a free society.
In the case of arms, any restriction on sales must be Constitutional under the 4th Amendment. And regardless of whether one concludes that the right has limits, it's unquestionably more protective than the 4th Amendment. Simply put, it doesn't say "reasonable." That's not hypocritical--that's the text of the Constitution. (Besides, the last Supreme Court pronouncement on the 2nd Amendment, Miller v. United States, would protect an individual's right to own those weapons normally used by the military or National Guard, see 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) ("In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."), which might include tanks or F-16s.)
I don't read the 2nd Amendment as limitless--it's settled law that the similarly worded 1st Amendment isn't absolute, especially as related to conduct. Similarly, "keep" and "bear" doesn't legalize murder.
I'm deriding the ACLU's head-in-the-sand balance of search and seizure "reasonableness." I'm also deriding your opinion that outlawing the sale of .50 caliber single-shot rifles is the "only" way to stop terrorist killings, just as I would deride making all photocopying a felony. But, I beg you: if you want a gun ban (and assuming your proposal is Constitutional), convince the legislature and the people. Fight fairly and as the founders intended--with a numerical majority in the democratic process.
Sure I'll oppose you. That's representative democracy--let the most popular policy (if Constitutional) win.
Post a Comment