OK, all you anti-gun liberal types out there

[unixronin]

(Not meaning to imply that all liberals are anti-gun, by the way.  I'm just talking to the "Ew, Guns Are Icky" set here.)

Remember all the times we evil gun-totin', NRA-decal-displayin' gun nuts have said that the Second Amendment is the most important of all the amendments, because it protects all the rest?

Well, having become one of the most strictly anti-gun states in the US, Massachusetts is now going after the right of peaceable assembly.

Yeah, yeah, I know; it says it's only for use against gangs and only in "safe zones".  But as metahacker points out, the devil is in the details.  Surely you folks remember "designated free-speech zones", right....?  Remember the first rule of legislation:  Any law, no matter how clear its original intent, sooner or later succumbs to "mission creep".

"Yeah, I know this law was passed for X.  But we're already using it for Y.  Why don't we use it for Z as well?  I bet we could, especially in front of Judge J."

Speaking of which...

mazianni found these two articles on the 9th Circus's ruling that US border agents can search laptops and other personal electronic devices for evidence of crimes without a warrant or cause.  Once again, "security" trumps liberty, and another little piece of the Fourth Amendment is whittled away.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  ...Unless we want to.

Comments

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I don't see this as going after the right of peacable assembly. Emphasis on the peacable. It's aimed at preventing known gang members from ganging up to commit gang activity.

But whether or not this law is constitutional, your post is incredibly misleading. As the article clearly states, similar laws are already in place in Fort Worth, Texas -- land of many guns. Have the citizens of Texas arisen in armed rebellion to protect their right to peacably assemble?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It's aimed at preventing known gang members from ganging up to commit gang activity.

Oh, sure. And civil forfeiture was aimed strictly at drug dealers. Now it's being used in California to seize land that the state wants when the owner doesn't want to sell, and in New York to steal motorcycles from their legal owners if the owner can't prove — on the spot — that the VIN number hasn't been altered or transferred to a different (custom, say) frame.

Mission creep. You think this'll be any different?

As the article clearly states, similar laws are already in place in Fort Worth, Texas [...]

... and a couple other places.

Does that automatically make those laws a good idea?

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Does that automatically make those laws a good idea?

Nope. And without even addressing the idea of whether this specific law is a good idea or not, I can still tell you that your post is misleading.

Your post states that:

1) The right to keep and bear arms is what guarantees other civil rights. This implies that it is the fear of armed rebellion which prevents the government from undermining civil rights.

2) Massachusetts first enacted strict gun-control laws, and now is attempting to undermine civil rights. Implying that (2) proves (1), that if a government wants to undermine civil rights, first it will remove the right to keep and bear arms.

I say that your second point is grossly misleading. Without even addressing the question of whether this anti-gang law undermines civil liberties or not, it is NOT the case that this proves your point, any more than the fact that "my grandmother ate carrots for years and eventually died" proves that carrots are toxic.

This very same anti-gang law has been enacted in many places, including Fort Worth, Texas. The local authorities of Fort Worth, Texas did not crack down on gun-control before passing this legislation. And the people of Fort Worth, Texas, the majority of whom are gun-owners, have not arisen in armed rebellion to preserve their civil liberties.

As to whether or not the law itself is a good idea, I'd say it seems to me to be pretty much the same thing as laws that make it illegal for known pedophiles and drug dealers to hang out at playgrounds. In a way it makes sense, in another way it could be the first step (or second, or thirteenth) down a slippery slope.

Frankly, if I lived in a neighborhood that was being overrun by gang activities I'd be a big supporter of a law like that, because I'd be pretty well convinced that a gathering of gang members on a street corner was in no way a peacable assembly. I would get upset, though, at any misuse of the law to break up a gathering of peaceful war protesters on a street corner. This is why judges have the right to interpret the police force's application of laws, though -- to correct misuse. And why judges are elected by the people -- so the people are ultimately in charge.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I believe you're intentionally attempting to read a proof into this where no "proof" of anything was intended. This is commonly known as a straw man argument.

You're correct about judges ruling on the application of the law. Unfortunately, there's a disturbingly common trend in recent decades that when law enforcement wants to take an existing law and apply it more broadly, nine out of ten times, the judges say "Sure, go ahead."

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Well, having become one of the most strictly anti-gun states in the US, Massachusetts is now going after the right of peaceable assembly.

No, sorry mate, but she's right. Your prose is flavored like a proof, even if it's not what you intended.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Come on, don't give me that! I've just said that you set up a straw man argument.

Is there any other reason for what you wrote, other than to imply that the lack of a well-armed populace in Massachusetts is responsible for a decline in civil liberties in that state? I'm referring to this:

Remember all the times we evil gun-totin', NRA-decal-displayin' gun nuts have said that the Second Amendment is the most important of all the amendments, because it protects all the rest?

Well, having become one of the most strictly anti-gun states in the US, Massachusetts is now going after the right of peaceable assembly.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

OK, to clarify:

I did not state, nor intend to imply, "Massachusetts feels it can now go after other rights because it has de facto eliminated the Second Amendment within Massachusetts." (And that should not be taken as a statement that it has. Severely weakened and made it difficult to exercise, but not eliminated.)

What I intended was rather "Long known for its dislike of the Second Amendment, the State of Massachusetts is now going after peaceful assembly as well."

No "proof" of anything is or was intended. An example supporting the idea, sure. But "proof" would have to occur on a national level, and would have to have as a necessary precondition the complete (at least de facto, if not actually de jure) elimination of the right to keep and bear arms, clearly seen be followed nationwide by a major clampdown on or elimination of other essential liberties. And that's an experiment I'm rather unwilling to undertake to achieve a proof. It'd be sort of like proving that if you jump off the Sears Tower with nothing to slow or arrest your fall, you'll die.


Now, if you want to read what you quoted as an assertion of proof, I guess that's up to you. But one example in support does not a proof make.

(Which, ironically, is — I think — at least in part what you're arguing, which leaves me feeling kinda silly having to argue it back at you.)

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

You are a geek gang member. I will swear to it in court as an orificer of the slaw!!! You will be detained for interrogation should you violate these areas. Verstehen Sie die Frau?
;)

Contrary to popular belief Texas is less free than several eastern and western states.
I have no idea what squirrels are in their brains but hope not to become infested.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Contrary to popular belief Texas is less free than several eastern and western states.

I'll believe it. Witness the way the local authorities have swooped in and disrupted the lives of all those Mormon families in Eldorado. Some 450 kids separated from their parents! If anyone had tried to take my kids from me, and on so little grounds, I would have seriously considered armed rebellion myself.

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

The passivity of their response is indicative of their innocents. Of course the 'social' services folk will bludgeon the kids till the get told what they want. It's the same as has happened before. I think it was in Salem.

At least they didn't end up burned alive but then the feds weren't involved.