« The modern Hollywood "blacklist" | Main | Code of the Duel »
Judges and arms
Alan Corwin forwards to me a discussion between him and another relating to the arming of judges. (To be more precise, proposals to exempt judges from various firearms regulations, in the same way that LEOs are generally exempt. There is an attorney general's opinion in AZ, where a JP asked if he was a "peace officer" and thus able to carry concealed (back before there were permits for it). The AG ruled that a JP is only a peace officer when he is responding to a riot (one of their duties under law). Anyway--
blondrukuz writes:
>i am doing a paper on if judges should be allowed to carry guns. i
>was wondering if u had any info on possible specifics when it comes
>to judges. i know law enforcement has seperate policies regarding
>guns versus the public. are the judges treated as pubic persons? can
>they carry firearms? in all states? i am from california. thank you
>for any information u may have.
Alan replies:
As a matter of principle I would generally be against giving any
group special privileges that the American public at large does not
enjoy. The idea that a judge needs personal protection more than you
or I, or has a right to keep and bear arms that you or I do not have,
or has more justification for self defense than other people do, is
blatantly elitist and simply unacceptable as a standard for the
American way. This would apply to many other groups that also seek to
exempt themselves from laws that constrain the rest of us.
That said, it's obvious that many groups, especially government
employees like judges, prosecutors, officials of many descriptions
and more are seeking to lift themselves above the rest of us, with
privileges and 'rights' we don't have and cannot get. This helps
destroy the American Dream, and is increasingly popular. California,
where you are from, leads the way nationally down roads such as this.
It's a shame, and an affront to everything that has made America great.
Should judges be allowed to exercise an uninfringeable right under
the Constitution to keep and bear arms? Of course, just like the rest
of us. If judges are somehow granted this privilege, and you and I
are not, tyranny has increased.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
from Unintended Consequences, obviously a piece of fiction:
January 3, 1939
"All rise. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division, is now in session, Judge Heartsill Ragon presiding."
"You may be seated. First case, UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al. Mr. Gutensohn?"
edit
"Mister Barry, I have carefully reviewed this 'National Firearms Act' of yours, and it imposes the same five year prison sentence and $5000 fine on interstate transport of automatic weapons as well." The District Attorney got a sick look on his face. He knew where this was going. "Tell me, Mr. Barry. Are you familiar with the Browning Automatic Rifle, the model 1918 BAR?"
"Yes, your Honor."
"So am I. In fact, my son carried one in France at the very end of the Great War. A marvelous weapon, and one he could well have used at the beginning of the war and not just the end. In fact, the BAR is a weapon which I wish I had had when I fought in the war with Spain in 1898. And, Mr. District Attorney, the Browning Automatic Rifle is, I believe, currently issued to U.S. soldiers and members of the Arkansas National Guard, is it not?"
"I believe so, your Honor."
"Mr. Barry, if the Treasury agents had found a BAR and not a shotgun in Mr. Miller's truck, would they have arrested him for violating the National Firearms Act?"
"I can't say what the agents would or wouldn't have done, your Honor."
"I'll rephrase the question, Mr. Barry. If the agents had arrested Miller and Layton for possessing a Browning Automatic Rifle without having paid a $200 tax and without possessing the stamp-affixed federal order form as per this National Firearms Act, would you be prosecuting them under the National Firearms Act as you are now doing?"
The District Attorney licked his lips. How the hell do I answer this one?
"Well, Mr. Barry?"
"They would be in violation of the Act, so yes, I would prosecute them, your Honor."
"And if I happened to have a Browning Automatic Rifle at home in my bedroom, the very same type weapon that my son carried proudly defending our country in 1918, and if this weapon in my bedroom was not stolen from a government arsenal, but rather one that I had bought with my own money from the Colt factory in 1920 so that I would be prepared to act as a member of the militia, or to defend myself from an abusive government should the need arise, and if I had brought this BAR here to my Arkansas bedroom from my former residence outside the state, would you prosecute me for violating the National Firearms
Act and recommend that I be thrown in prison for five years, Mr. District Attorney?"
The D.A. was sweating despite the cool air in the courtroom. "Your Honor, I would never prosecute someone who has not been arrested."
"And if I were arrested, Mr. District Attorney? Should I then go to prison for five years, pay a $5000 fine, and be disbarred, according to you and your National Firearms Act?"
"Your Honor," he said, holding his hands palms up and pleading with the judge, "the Treasury agents would never arrest you."
"Why not?" thundered Judge Ragon. "Because I'm a judge? Because I'm not a moonshiner? Mr. District Attorney, I see no exemptions in this National Firearms Act for judges or any other categories of 'the people', to which our Bill of Rights refers. Do you?"
"No, your Honor," Barry said softly.
"I didn't think so. I believe you understand my position, Mr. District Attorney. Mr. Gutensohn," he said, addressing the defense lawyer, "the demurrer you filed is accordingly sustained. The National Firearms Act of 1934 violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." He banged his gavel once upon the bench. "Case dismissed. Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton, you are free to go."
I believe that this issue is directly addressed in Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. One clause within that section prohibits the granting of "Titles of Nobility." The Founders were all too familiar with special "privileges" being granted to the nobility, which we as Americans would assert are rights which belong to all people. Perhaps modern Americans would have understood Madison better if he had been less articulate, and had simply said, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander."