Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Busted on YouTube!
Before you head out tonight, do yourself a favor and check out the version of Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters, put out by the good guys over at Flex Your Rights, the invaluable group that educates citizens to insist on constitutional rights in difficult situations.
|8.5.06 @ 8:03PM|#
Interesting lessons, but I find it annoying that every example shows someone with something illegal to hide, so that the video presents the exercise of civil liberties as nothing but a tool to protect criminals. Why don't they show law-abiding civilians who simply want to keep their and others' legal, but possibly unpopular, activities private? I'm interested in civil liberties not to shelter inebriated drivers, vandals, and drug pushers, but to protect the free expression of ideas, from which some lasting good can arise. Grrrr.
|8.5.06 @ 8:16PM|#
M,
I'm right with ya.
a bit of a thread hijack: The Utne reader discusses libertarians
and rights (thought ya'll'd like to know):
"For decades libertarian property-rights advocates have been
pushing legislation that would force the government to reimburse
citizens for "regulatory takings" -- hypothetical losses resulting
from development limits and regulations like zoning. They claim
that such regulations reduce property value, thereby violating the
Fifth Amendment injunction against taking private property for
public use "without just compensation." But, Ring argues,
supporters of the cause don't actually expect to be compensated for
regulatory takings; they expect that given the choice between a
payout and waiving regulations, the government will choose to
waive, allowing land owners to develop however they see
fit...
"National libertarian groups are not just funneling big bucks into
this campaign to protect a few property owners from eminent domain.
They have their sights set on something much bigger � laying waste
to land-use regulations used by state and local governments to
protect the landscape, the environment and neighborhoods. Their
goal has received little attention, partly because of its stealth
mode. But the fact that the libertarians just might pull it off
makes the campaign the hottest political story in the West this
year."
http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2006_260/news/12208-1.html
|8.5.06 @ 8:26PM|#
I bought the video awhile ago -- its great, especially for the
under 30 set more likely to get flack from Jonny Law.
Also, you are wrong 'M' about someone always breaking the law in
the video --in the third scenario on the video the black kid is
doing nothing wrong and has nothing in his possession that is
illegal.
The video is a great tool for even those with the shortest of
attention spans, 30 minutes and you got the basics to flex your
rights, whether you are doing something technically illegal or
not...I hope the video goes viral...
D.A. Ridgely|8.5.06 @ 8:46PM|#
Also, you are wrong 'M' about someone always breaking the
law in the video --in the third scenario on the video the black kid
is doing nothing wrong and has nothing in his possession that is
illegal.
On the contrary, just ask any African American and he'll tell you
the kid was guilty of being Black In Public.
I always feel torn on these 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment issues on
grounds of federalism. Thus, while I am very happy to have the
constitutional protections that derive from what amounts to
judicial activism in cases such as Mapp and
Miranda, the problems inherent in a "results oriented"
constitutional jurisprudence are too obvious to mention.
In any case, the video is excellent. It's a shame this sort of
stuff isn't a required part of every high school civics or American
government class.
|8.5.06 @ 10:19PM|#
I told an officer in Utah that he could not search my van and he
did anyway.
That locking the door when you get out trick is pretty slick
though...i wish i knew it back then.
|8.5.06 @ 10:26PM|#
Actually, even the guy sitting on the bench was probably guilty
of vandalism -- the spray paint, drawings that match the marks on
the building, and being near the scene of the crime would almost
certainly be enough for an indictment.
In any case, if they showed cases where police searched law-abiding
folks, and found no evidence, they wouldn't have been able to end
the story with the person being thrown in jail, which really
hammers home the point that seriously bad consequences can follow
from ignorance of your rights.
|8.5.06 @ 10:30PM|#
criminal past,
Yeah, but it's a little tougher when you don't have power locks.
Somehow I don't think "it's just a habit" is going to fly if you're
going around to each door and making sure it's locked.
Also, I love how the narrator tells you to use the "all-important
peep hole" in the house search scene, since a lot of houses don't
have them, especially on back doors, where police often like to
show up in those situations.
|8.5.06 @ 10:42PM|#
Since physically resisting the cops is a big no-no, what do you
do if they stick their foot in the door? You can repeat "Officer,
unless you have a search warrant I will not let you enter, now
please remove your foot" as many times as you like, and maybe you
can get the evidence that they collect stricken from the record as
a result. Maybe.
But your furniture will still need new upholstery.
|8.5.06 @ 10:52PM|#
Anyway, Ira Glasser is a former Executive Director of the ACLU.
I know that there is a lot that people here don't like about the
ACLU, but the ACLU is a valuable advocate for limiting the powers
of the police. The information they put out there, the cases that
they take, and the precedents that they labor to set, change, or
uphold, are very important for ordinary citizens, not hurting
anybody, trying to live their lives and do what they like on their
own private property without being hassled by the cops.
Yes, yes, I know that there are plenty of rights that they don't
labor to defend, and some cases where they take anti-libertarian
stances, but they are still effective advocates for a host of vital
rights.
I am proud to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
uncle sam|8.5.06 @ 11:19PM|#
I know that there are plenty of rights that they don't labor
to defend, and some cases where they take anti-libertarian stances,
but they are still effective advocates for a host of vital
rights.
Too bad, they could get more members from the libertarian community
if they were more consistent. I wonder how many liberal members
would they lose?
|8.5.06 @ 11:31PM|#
The kids in the first video weren't 'drug pushers.' They just had a little marijuana on them for their own recreational purposes. But if anyone should have gotten arrested in that video it should have been Troy for his imbecilic ranting 'You the man!!! Dude, that was like, like, some serious jedi mind games....you the man!!!'
|8.5.06 @ 11:33PM|#
Too bad, they could get more members from the libertarian
community if they were more consistent. I wonder how many liberal
members would they lose?
Depends on how they became more consistent. If they spent energy on
every type of liberty, and defined all of those liberties in a
libertarian manner, then they would lose many of their lefty
members and become a small, eccentric libertarian organization. Not
to mention an organization that lacks focus.
OTOH, if they dropped their non-libertarian stances rather than
reversing them, i.e. became a more tightly focused organization
that is silent on non-core issues, they'd probably pick up more
libertarians and lose some lefties. I don't know which way the
balance would work out.
Of course, some libertarians would probably be upset that they pick
and choose among the different aspects of liberty, and refuse to
join. (To which I would reply that nobody gets upset if a gun
rights organization sticks to the second amendment.) That puritan
aspect among libertarians would probably limit the number who join
and hence reduce the incentive for the ACLU to become more
libertarian rather than left.
Warren|8.6.06 @ 12:34AM|#
Too bad, they could get more members from the libertarian
community if they were more consistent. I wonder how many liberal
members would they lose?
The problem isn't membership, it's leadershit. The ACLU is staffed
by leftist lawyers. While libertarian-lawyer isn't an oxymoron,
libertarians tend to share the Lawrence Garfield view. "Lawyers are
like nuclear weapons."
The Institute for Justice is more libertarian than the ACLU.
However, the IJ is focused on the law, and not law-enforcement. We
still need an ACLU to protect our fourth and fith amendment rights.
Although, lately they seem to be doing a crappy job of it. Perhaps
if they were purer (by libertarian standards) they'd be more
persuasive.
|8.6.06 @ 12:45AM|#
D.A. Ridgely,
The "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment should
take care of any of your concerns.
Warren|8.6.06 @ 12:48AM|#
The advice given to the home owner seems a bit peculiar. When
she gets her second chance and does everything the "right" way,
along with not consenting to a search, we see her telling guests
not to smoke pot in her house, and keep the noise down. We�re also
told that we need to know who everyone is, and monitor everyone's
comings and goings.
All of this is good advice of course, but it smacks of "if you
don�t want to be arrested, don�t break the law".
|8.6.06 @ 12:51AM|#
thoreau,
Yes, yes, I know that there are plenty of rights that they
don't labor to defend, and some cases where they take
anti-libertarian stances, but they are still effective advocates
for a host of vital rights.
Why do you bring this up? To create controversy? I think we're all
aware of the problems that your run of the mill libertarian has
with the ACLU.
|8.6.06 @ 2:31AM|#
Interesting lessons, but I find it annoying that every
example shows someone with something illegal to hide, so that the
video presents the exercise of civil liberties as nothing but a
tool to protect criminals.
The so-called "crimes" are irrelevant to the lesson.
In the first place, civil rights pertain to everybody. Second, all
of those so-called "crimes" were really victimless crimes,
activities made illegal by Statist from the left and right. I do
not find them annoying, nor do they distract me from the important
issue which is excersizing your rights during encounters with the
police.
Actually, even the guy sitting on the bench was probably guilty
of vandalism -- the spray paint, drawings that match the marks on
the building, and being near the scene of the crime would almost
certainly be enough for an indictment.
The kid could have stated clearly to the police officers that he
does not consent to searches of his personal belongings, thus
avoiding indictment. Besides, merely being near the scene of the
crime is not evidence of wrong doing. To me, the police acted as if
the kid was guilty for merely being there. I find the mese
supposition of guilt by the officers reprehensible and
dangerous.
"National libertarian groups are not just funneling big bucks
into this campaign to protect a few property owners from eminent
domain. They have their sights set on something much bigger �
laying waste to land-use regulations used by state and local
governments to protect the landscape, the environment and
neighborhoods. Their goal has received little attention, partly
because of its stealth mode. But the fact that the libertarians
just might pull it off makes the campaign the hottest political
story in the West this year."
What was that phrase that applies to this?? Ah, yes: PARANOID
CONSPIRACY THEORY.
So we are to think that government is this big protector of the
environment against the destructive hands of property owners?
Sheesh.
|8.6.06 @ 2:46AM|#
Interesting. I spent most of my life in a state where possession
of pot is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year, although I
currently live in a state where standard punishment is continuance
(meaning don't get caught twice in 6 months). Anyway, I was
harassed by the police many times, and I never had a bag dumped or
my shoes removed or anything like that. Maybe I was lucky, but I
never had a cop just demand to do that. They'd ask "is there
anything illegal in that bag" and I'd say "no officer". The way I
see it, that's doing them a huge favor, saving them lots of
trouble.
I've had the "flashlight search", the one you don't get to refuse
consent to because he doesn't ask.
Never had them find anything of mine, but if they did, I would
never have admitted it. I guess the way I see it, if you admit that
the weed is yours, you remove any possibility that the cop will
just pocket the shit and smoke it up behind the police station with
the other assholes. He really can't let you go at that point. It
would make him an accessory. So really you're doing him a huge
favor by not confessing no matter what. Never had them find it in
my shoes, but you know, I do believe I would deny knowledge of how
it came to be there just the same. Hey, maybe somone put it there,
the possibility always exists.
Maybe I just haven't met a sufficiently zealous cop yet.
And I find it interesting that after I turned 25 or so, cops just
stopped bothering me. I guess it's just that young men commit most
of the crime so they get all the harassment.
|8.6.06 @ 2:48AM|#
I'm sending this to my kids.
That comment about the video showing exercise of civil liberties as
nothing but a tool to protect criminals is total crap. I know my
kids are good, but I know they aren't good enough to avoid breaking
every pissant law that some overzealous cop could choose to render
to some overzealous DA. If a single friend of my kid's friend had a
single joint in my borrowed car...well, you know the rest.
For those of you who have kids of certain partying age, if you
think that none of the people they hang out with have never broken
a drug or underage drinking law, then please put on this tin foil
hat so I can recognize you on the street and offer you shares in
the Brooklyn Bridge.
|8.6.06 @ 2:49AM|#
Also, I would never just give him my license. I always say "I'm going to have to reach into my pocket to get that". Just so I don't get shot. Call me paranoid, but I always mention that.
|8.6.06 @ 3:04AM|#
Thanks for that, Nick! I think that if Jefferson and Madison
could watch this fine video and its dissemination from a site
dedicated to Free Minds and Free Markets, they'd be so
delighted.
Long live our Bill of Rights.
Kudos to Flex Your Rights. And Kudos to Reason, I'm honored to
comment here.
|8.6.06 @ 3:25AM|#
Not being a film critic, I defer to my betters, but whether or
not the depicted young artist was actually the suspected vandal
seemed to this viewer, to the police officers depicted in the
drama, and conceivably to the judge, at least ambiguous.
The purported object of the film was not to hold a brief for the
injustice of racial profiling, but to equip citizens to defend
their rights, a noun related to an adjective. The right to do wrong
[eg, be protected in driving stoned, defacing others' property,
inducting minors to the pleasures of addictive substances] is, and
therefore should be shown as, a cost we willingly pay for the right
to do right [eg, generate innovative political philosophy].
My reference to "drug pushers," third on my list, pertained
correspondingly to the third, not the first, video. An argument by
proponents of unlimited government surveillance could simply depict
the very same unsupervised gathering, modifying it to bolster their
case merely by showing pot supplied to persons not weeks, but, say,
a decade shy of the age of majority. That's why I fear the film
undermines its own point.
The bad consequences of tolerating enforced public inspection of
legal activities can indeed include jail, for example through
convictions whose wrongful nature may never come to light. An
additional threat against which the Bill of Rights guards is the
public humiliation that would discourage social progress that
depends on individuals' being left alone long enough to articulate
and coordinate a dissent from the status quo.
It is precisely envisioning the effect of its technically excellent
instruction on a high-school-age audience that makes me lament this
film's coarse appeal to instinct, and only instinct, as the
preserve of civil liberties. I don't envy the civics teacher
responsible for leading the discussion that would follow Mr.
Glasser's championing of privacy, illustrated as it is exclusively
by self- and (possibly) other-defeating behavior. Such a teacher's
charge would be to show that -- or at least guide students to ask
whether -- protecting political or cultural dissent serves, or is
consistent with, ultimate community benefit. This film fails to
support that view, and shows the social risk attendant when police
can't intervene. All that's missing to make it the perfect
nanny-state vehicle are follow-up scenes of the car crashing and
killing someone because the driver was high, the business ruined
from graffiti, the kids at the party subsequently dropping out of
school and into rehab programs or worse. With friends like this,
civil liberties doesn't need J. Edgar Hoover, RFK, GWB. Is this an
instance of the Law of Unintended Consequences or is the ACLU now
receiving kickbacks from statists?
How many teenagers will gain from this video a subtle appreciation
of the civic value of non-conformity? Will their images of
dissident creativity transcend the works of stoners and vandals? I
wish the ACLU had also thrown the Boy-Scout set some motives for
protecting citizens' freedoms from state intrusion, rather than
reinforcing the growing superstition that unlimited searches and
seizures are the only practices that keep roads, walls, and minors
safe.
|8.6.06 @ 3:33AM|#
Left Stream Man, you magnificent troll!
I grew up in a county that began making payments to landowners who
voluntarily agreed to limit development back in the early
1970s. Making "just compensation" is an option, but it has to be
budgeted for, just like any other public expenditure. The
temptation to write a regulation and push the cost onto a third
party is usually too great for elected officials to resist.
Kevin
|8.6.06 @ 3:43AM|#
I pretty much knew everything on that video but as Ira says kowing is way easier than doing. I'm over the harassment age also but they still scare the shit out of me.
|8.6.06 @ 4:22AM|#
Btw, in certain jurisdictions possessing spray-paint cans on public property is in some circumstances illegal. (We don't make the news, just report it.)
|8.6.06 @ 6:41AM|#
And dont ask why I know this/watch it, but that kid driving is Coop from The Guiding Light.
|8.6.06 @ 6:45AM|#
I am proud to be a card-carrying member of the
ACLU.
My sentiments exactly, Thoreau. The "good outweighs the
anti-libertarian bad" is also why I maintain membership. Who better
than libertarians to remind the ACLU of what the "CL" is about?
D.A. Ridgely|8.6.06 @ 9:55AM|#
P.L.,
I am aware of the effect of the 14th Amendment as SCOTUS began
after its passage to selectively incorporate constitutional
protections and limitations on state government that had previously
been assumed to apply only to the relationship between federal
government and its citizens. But it is that very selective process
together with the Court's expansive "interpretations" of the
meaning of, e.g., due process beyond the plain meaning of the
constitutional text that trouble me and many legal scholars
irrespective of whether we like the effect of the Court's
rulings.
|8.6.06 @ 10:21AM|#
I told an officer in Utah that he could not search my van
and he did anyway.
The fact that you refuse to allow a search will help in court if
you are arrested.
While many judges will accept refusing a search as "probable cause"
and issue a warrant, trial judges can revisit that and question and
even suppress warrants they find questionable. Consent to a search
will automatically make any evidence admissible unless you can
prove the consent was under duress (an extremely high
hurdle).
A cop who goes ahead a conducts a search without consent or a
warrant will get bitchslapped by the trial judge if a case goes to
court. Unless of course he lies and says you consented to the
search in which case it's "your word against his". Judges tend to
believe cops in spite of the fact that it is well known that they
are notorious liars.
Either way you have nothing to lose by refusing a search or
refusing to give statements.
I am a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA. In spite
of both organizations having disproportionate numbers of of shrill
crackpots* and idiot activists, on balance I consider both to do a
lot of good.
I, of course, prefer to be a quiet crackpot. :)
|8.6.06 @ 10:22AM|#
M,
In six, windy paragraphs, you made one decent point, i.e., about
the negative propoganda potential of this film in the pious hands
of our drug warriors--the kind of people who could look that young
girl in the eye and call her a drug pusher and a menace to
society.
I don't know where the hell you grew up, but in the world I live
in, kids do crazy shit. Most of those kids grow up to become
perfectly good doctors, lawyers, businessmen. A few even beome
President. (Insert joke here about Clinton not inhaling, or W in
his frat house days).
|8.6.06 @ 12:42PM|#
"Left Stream Man, you magnificent troll!i
Right wing Kev, you magnificant reactionary ;~)
I didn't write the piece, just thought ya'll might find it
interesting to see how the issue is being portrayed in the world.
You might even take the time to follow the link and read the piece.
Dondero comments on the web with a compliment to the writer for a
fair and balanced job discussing the issue from both sides.
|8.6.06 @ 12:46PM|#
"What was that phrase that applies to this?? Ah, yes: PARANOID
CONSPIRACY THEORY."
Yep. I was struck with how much this seemed a mirror image of the
articles we see too often around the Reason neighborhood. Same
paranoia, different target.
|8.6.06 @ 12:48PM|#
In re: "the kind of people who could look that young girl in the
eye and call her a drug pusher and a menace to society" -- that
would be me, though I'd use different rhetoric. It's just that I
prefer influence by means of persuasion rather than force.
I'm sorry you don't like my writing style; I'll keep working to
appreciate yours.
|8.6.06 @ 2:01PM|#
I think the video is very good. I was pulled over 6 or 7 times within a year's time, but never received a ticket. Cops in some places are real assholes who get off on harassing people. I refer to it as "fishing", meaning they pull someone over hoping to find something to bust you on. I was even pulled over walking home one night (trying to avoid a DUI). I was a smartass that night and told the cop that I guess I would be better off driving drunk than trying to keep the roads safe. Luckily he got a call of an actual crime and let me be, rather than keep messing with me and possibly making me get obnoxious enough to get a public intox. charge.
uncle sam|8.6.06 @ 2:31PM|#
"a menace to society"
Who is a menace to society and just what is it about society that
can be menaced?
For many moons, illegal consumption of alcohol has been a rit of
passage for a significant portion of society, yet society kept
plugging along. Before prohibition, many drugs (which are now
illicit) were easily available at a local pharmacy. First came
alcohol prohibition, voila, the roaring 20's and the spread of
organized crime as government enforced an illegal monopoly. They
dumped that, but politicians need a good supply of threats to
society, so they started making other drugs illegal, and criminal
organizations needed something else to make money on. So opium gave
way to more potenet forms and gang violence still makes the
news.
So what who is the greater threat to society, drug users and
suppliers, or politicians and fear mongers who ignore the workings
of the market place and cost us billions of dollars every year in
their rather successful endeavors to fill prisons?
|8.6.06 @ 2:55PM|#
Well, U.S., there are a couple of perspectives.
Economic - Let's take a young person who is found with certain
mind-altering chemicals and turn them into drags on our society.
Let's warehouse them in a prison where all they can learn is crime,
then put a conviction on their records so that whatever genius they
may have contributed to mankind will be lost forever.
Moral - Let's take a young person and tell them how bad they are
for doing something we don't want them to do or possessing
something we don't want them to have. Let's use state power to
convey this message, because if something we don't like is legal,
why, people will think it's OK.
Political - Let's pander to Ma Kettle by asserting that drugs are a
problem. Of course, nobody in their right minds will believe that
mere possession or use of drugs is a problem, so we'll have to
craft stories about how these activities may lead to real problems,
such as drunk driving, anti-social behavior, etc. And if Pa Kettle
asks us why not simply punish the real problems as they occur, we
can ask him "what are you, weak on crime?"
So many ways to look at this...
|8.6.06 @ 3:22PM|#
Uncle asks,
"Who is a menace to society and just what is it about society that
can be menaced?"
As I said, I'd use different rhetoric. Society being an aggregate
of individuals, I'd address the harm that in-toxic-ants cause the
user, harm revealed in the word itself. Drug use also deprives
others of gifts withheld by drug-users' clouded
consciousness.
So I'd address drug-users pretty much the same way I'd try to
dissuade a cutter [usually a young person, practicing physical
self-mutilation]. I don't think I'd like to see warrants issued to
keep kids from slicing their arms, but sometimes it can be helpful
to be persuaded that one is harming oneself, and that one is
depriving others through one's diminished participation in life.
Seems to me that if people knew, deeply enough, that their
contributions were valued, they would prefer the satisfactions of
sobriety. I know, that's not a universally held view.
As for Uncle's question about whether tyrants or self-defeaters are
the greater threats, I'd say the first sins by commission and the
second by omission. And as was pointed out, some combine the
practices. Say, why not resist both temptations? Now there's an
idea!
Supplying drugs seems to me in itself an initiation of fraud -- a
libertarian anathema. I know that many disagree. And it is true
enough that something's being not-worth-doing does not in itself
make it worth prohibiting. My concern was that the video, targeting
a young audience, suggests that all behaviors not effectively
prohibited are worth preserving. If we agree that education is not
the police officers' job, whose job is it if not, say, makers of
instructional videos for teenagers?
|8.6.06 @ 3:28PM|#
"Of course, some libertarians would probably be upset that
they pick and choose among the different aspects of liberty, and
refuse to join. (To which I would reply that nobody gets upset if a
gun rights organization sticks to the second amendment.) That
puritan aspect among libertarians would probably limit the number
who join and hence reduce the incentive for the ACLU to become more
libertarian rather than left."
Thoreau, if the NRA had published that their stance on the First
Amendment was a "collective" one that didn't apply to individuals,
you might have a point.
But the ACLU states, on their own
web page that they do not believe the 2nd amendment applies to
you and I.
I would have no problem with the ACLU if they were neutrally silent
on a citizen's right to bear arms, but they are not. On their
website, they openly conflate nuclear warheads and rocket launchers
with handguns and rifles, and then go on to (I can only assume
deliberately) misrepresent the 1934 case of US vs. Miller.
A neutral stance on guns I could deal with. But that isn't what the
ACLU has. They have the audacity to piss on my leg and tell me it's
raining.
|8.6.06 @ 3:45PM|#
The ACLU's mischaracterization
"The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the
Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled
that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to
guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In
the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use
of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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," the Court said. "
the full text is available here:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm
You can judge for yourself whether the ACLU is
mischaracterizing.
|8.6.06 @ 3:51PM|#
I've a pending civil suit against the Kansas City, MO Police
Dept., stemming from an incident in June 2001 in which I was
arrested for advising fellow Amtrak passengers that they had a
right to decline warrantless searches.
The Obstucting an Officer count against me was dismissed when the
arresting officers failed to appear for the 2nd time with trial
scheduled.
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/06/30/0606300341.php
|8.6.06 @ 3:55PM|#
The ACLU position on the 2nd
"The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not
confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other
weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun
ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We
believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable
regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars,
we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment
certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas,
missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and
even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership,
but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the
Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."
|8.6.06 @ 4:00PM|#
Ben looks like a hero in
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/06/30/0606300341.php
Congratulations to us all. I want you in my civics class.
|8.6.06 @ 4:01PM|#
Note to Mediageek
I am just providing the ACLU argument for consideration.
Do not accuse me of trying to take away the licensed and registered
gun you keep hidden under your shirt.
|8.6.06 @ 4:20PM|#
I hate to say it, but a cop friend of mine opines that you have
to be very careful about turning it into a confrontation. Remember,
the cop stopped you already. He has a couple of options:
1) He lets you off with a warning.
2) He takes you to the extent of the law.
3) He agrees that he had no cause to ask you that question or stop
you in the first place and opens himself up to harrassment.
If you turn lawyer on him, the reflex is to take 1 off the table
because he is automatically thinking of everything he did to cover
probable cause and he is already preparing for a court visit.
I'm not saying this is all bad advice, but I am saying that you'd
better be clearly in the right.
|8.6.06 @ 4:29PM|#
MSM:
The counter reading of the Miller decision is that it accounted the
regulation of a sawed off shotgun precisely because it was not a
weapon of the sort a militia would use. It was a narrow ruling on
that weapon restriction only and for reasons not at all desirable
for weapon regulators.
Larry A|8.6.06 @ 6:41PM|#
Crimethink: Yeah, but it's a little tougher when you don't
have power locks. Somehow I don't think "it's just a habit" is
going to fly if you're going around to each door and making sure
it's locked.
You drive around with all your doors unlocked? Do you leave them
unlocked when you park, or go around locking?
I do lock my car every time I get out, even to pump gas. Not
because there are cops everywhere, but because there
aren't.
Also, I love how the narrator tells you to use the
"all-important peep hole" in the house search scene, since a lot of
houses don't have them, especially on back doors, where police
often like to show up in those situations.
So hit Leows, buy a couple of peepholes, and install them. Safety
101. There are people out there you want to keep out of your house
a lot more than you do the police.
D.A. Ridgely|8.6.06 @ 8:48PM|#
If you turn lawyer on him, the reflex is to take [letting
you off with a warning] off the table because he is automatically
thinking of everything he did to cover probable cause and he is
already preparing for a court visit.
I'm not saying this is all bad advice, but I am saying that you'd
better be clearly in the right.
Well, it depends. Sure, some cops pull over cars on fishing
expeditions, but most have a valid, if pretextual reason for the
stop. If you know that the worst valid offense you could be charges
with was, say, speeding 5 or 10 mph over the limit, it might well
be in your best interests to go along with the policeman, even
including waiving your rights in the process, hoping to avoid the
ticket.
However, if as you are guilty of far more serious possible charges
as in the video (and let's assume here that the kid at the bus stop
really was the graffiti artist), you are more likely to harm than
to help your situation by such cooperation. Assert your rights,
accept the ticket politely and be thankful for the damage
control.
On the other hand (golly, three hands!), to the extent you know
already that you're guilty of the putative reason for the stop and
innocent of any other charge, you might consider on, um, patriotic
grounds asserting your rights precisely because (1) sure, you'll
get the ticket, but (2) you'll be discouraging improper police
behavior.
Note I say "improper," not "illegal." It isn't per se illegal to
trick people into confessing or giving evidence of crimes, but it
isn't the police's job to go around tricking people, either.
D.A. Ridgely|8.6.06 @ 8:52PM|#
Um, second paragraph of my post should be in italics, too, as part of Mr. Ligon's comments and not mine.
|8.6.06 @ 10:23PM|#
I fucking hate cops.
Love the video.
I don't agree...if a cop was using the same sort of tricks to catch
a murder or armed robber I would not mind so much.
|8.6.06 @ 11:06PM|#
Jason-
I understand what you're saying. If I'm not doing anything else
wrong (other than speeding), then certainly a little bit of
cooperation seems like a safe course of action, and it might even
pay off in a warning rather than a ticket (and the consequent
increased insurance premiums).
Leaving aside matters of principle, there are two things that
concern me about consenting to a search even though I'm sure that I
have no drugs or other obvious contraband:
1) There are lots of obscure laws and technicalities out there.
It's been said that if they really want to get you for something
then they'll get you for something. Frequently that something might
not be in the car, but rather on the tax return or whatever, but
why give them the chance to look for it in my car?
2) I'm sure these are rare anecdotes, but I've heard of innocent
people having their cars basically dismantled during a lawful drug
search. If that's one of the risks of consenting to a search, then
I'm reluctant to consent. And if they're going to do it anyway,
then I want to be on record as not consenting, to strengthen my
position if I sue them over it.
Of course, I realize that not playing ball may increase the odds of
an irate cop doing something extreme and vindictive. It seems to me
that the only way to go is to assert my rights as politely as
possible. It isn't a guarantee, but it seems to be the safest
course.
|8.6.06 @ 11:17PM|#
thoreau:
I'm more concerned about the approach than anything. I just have
visions of some of the locals getting all Jesse Jackson when they
were looking at a speeding ticket and winding up much worse
off.
Agree with polite assertion of rights and I agree with DA as
well.
Sandy|8.7.06 @ 12:57AM|#
D.A.,
The third hand is "on the gripping
hand."
Ugh. Sometimes I want to kick sand in my own face.
|8.7.06 @ 1:49AM|#
D.A. Ridgely,
I am aware of the effect of the 14th Amendment as SCOTUS began
after its passage to selectively incorporate constitutional
protections and limitations on state government that had previously
been assumed to apply only to the relationship between federal
government and its citizens. But it is that very selective process
together with the Court's expansive "interpretations" of the
meaning of, e.g., due process beyond the plain meaning of the
constitutional text that trouble me and many legal scholars
irrespective of whether we like the effect of the Court's
rulings.
None of this addresses my point about the privileges and immunities
clause of the 14th Amendment. See, there are three main clauses in
the first article of the 14th amendment: the privileges and
immunities clause, the equal protection clause and the due process
clause. I mentioned the privileges and immunities clause for a
reason; that it provides plenty of protection against state action.
Indeed, it would probablyu provide broader protection (as Professor
Barnett has noted) than the "Footnote Four Plus" system we have
today and wouldn't suffer this selectivity problem.
|8.7.06 @ 3:56AM|#
Re: ACLU
Of course, some libertarians would probably be upset that they
pick and choose among the different aspects of liberty, and refuse
to join. (To which I would reply that nobody gets upset if a gun
rights organization sticks to the second amendment.)
I don't mind if a gun rights organization sticks to, well, gun
rights. I distrust picking and choosing by a general
civil-liberties group, especially when they try to undercut the
civil liberties they ignore, like the ACLU when it comes to gun
rights.
Not that I really have much in the way of better suggestions than
the ACLU.
|8.7.06 @ 9:31AM|#
Although the NRA is the better investment for protecting our rights, I'd like to thank the ACLU for forcing my girl's school to back off plans for gender segregated classes this year. Now, if they could only call off the uniform nazis. Then again, nothing makes me prouder than when my girl gets a uniform violation. She's probably going to need the video pretty soon.
|8.7.06 @ 10:23AM|#
As an alternative to the ACLU, how about the Institute for Justice? See http://www.ij.org/
|8.7.06 @ 10:39AM|#
I mentioned the privileges and immunities clause for a
reason; that it provides plenty of protection against state
action.
I think you meant the privileges or immunities clause. The
P&I clause is found in article IV of the original constitution;
the P or I clause (on which you'd rely) is in the 14th
amendment.
Of course, it's not clear that either of them will carry the
freight you'd load on them. After all, the meaning of neither "the
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states" nor of
"the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" is
intutitively obvious. I suppose you could regard them as empty
vessels into which the judiciary could pour whatever their civil
libertarian sensibilities finds appropriate, but that doesn't seem
to be an improvement on what they're already doing with the Due
Process Clause.
|8.7.06 @ 12:25PM|#
Jason,
I am aware of the possibility of reading Miller as narrow... but
the language in the decision doesn't really support that reading,
from my perspective. But like all rulings, there is room for
debate.
For example:
"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress
power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service
of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.'
U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the
continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces
the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were
made."
And here is the important line...
"It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
This supports the ACLU position regarding the intent and scope of
the 2nd. They didn't make it up whole cloth.
Later the court agrees with the ACLU position that there is
ambiguity in the scope of the right.
"Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the
right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed
in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions
concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem
to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the
court below."
This ambiguity is why the ACLU stays neutral on gun control.
I don't have a problem with the NRA and others disagreeing with the
ACLU position, but it is dishonest rhetoric to accuse them of being
disingenuous regarding their interpretation of the issue. It is
also dishonest to claim that they are misrepresenting the decision
just because they disagree.
The ACLU has made a reasoned, strategic decision on this issue, not
a dishonest one.
|8.7.06 @ 12:28PM|#
Seamus,
Yes, thanks for the correction.
I suppose you could regard them as empty vessels into which the
judiciary could pour whatever their civil libertarian sensibilities
finds appropriate, but that doesn't seem to be an improvement on
what they're already doing with the Due Process Clause.
Well, first the DP clause was never meant to act as the P or I
clause. What has happened is that the DP clause has taken on much
of the intended effect of the P or I clause. As to what those terms
meant re: 1868, they were broader in scope than the current
selection of "fundamental rights" and the like the Court recognizes
today.
|8.7.06 @ 2:00PM|#
"Not that I really have much in the way of better
suggestions than the ACLU."
And it really is a shame. :(
uncle sam|8.7.06 @ 3:16PM|#
Society being an aggregate of individuals, I'd address the
harm that in-toxic-ants cause the user, harm revealed in the word
itself. Drug use also deprives others of gifts withheld by
drug-users' clouded consciousness.
What this has to do with legal policy, I don't know.
The question was: WHICH IS THE GREATER HARM?
Another question is: what do individuals owe to society? (society
being a ficiton of convenience)
If a person pulls his own wieght, I say he owes nothing more to
society. The same thing could be said about any recreational
activity. How does mountain climbing serve society (when
occasionally mountain climbers require bailing out at great
expense)? Must every activity an individual engages in be of some
benefit to the great fiction of "society"?
|8.7.06 @ 6:54PM|#
Uncle, it doesn't have to do with legal policy; it has to do
with cultural practices. My claim is that it is worth persuading
people, especially young people, to avoid doing destructive things.
If educational institutions don't influence behavior through
persuasion, government institutions are likely to form to influence
behavior by force, to which free spirits like you and I object.
Analogy: If an individual or a community does not acquire through
upbringing a preference for respecting others' property, the police
will instill obedience through force; well-brought-up people don't
vandalize, hence they offer no behavior to be policed by the
anti-vandal-police. T I believe the video, intended to serve as an
educational tool, fails to serve its audience and those affected by
their actions.
How would you feel about an instructional video that instructed
young vandals to avoid arrest while it remained tacit about the
value of vandalism? If I were a wall-owner, I would call it
irresponsible, as I did. Vandalism is only one example; I invite
you to extend the principle to other instances of the "initiation
of force or fraud."
I addressed your question about whether tyranny or self-destruction
is worse by saying I'm glad we don?t have to choose between the
two.
We agree about the fictitious nature of the construct "society,"
hence my first sentence that you quoted. (I don't think anyone
pulls his own weight, btw, but that's another issue.)
Mountain-climbers benefit other individuals in myriad ways,
beginning with their being happier, more interesting people than if
their mountain-climbing urges were gratuitously frustrated. Climb
every mountain!
|8.7.06 @ 7:55PM|#
RightWingKev
"so I guess that HCN has to be read the same way as one would read
Reason. It is a publication with a point of view."
I would hope you use that same critical approach to everything you
read. The point of providing the link was to give you a chance at
seeing what some who have a different point of view think about the
subject. I never claimed to support their point of view.
So, why do you assume that I hold the same point of view as the
author's of the HCN article, or even UTNE? It can't be based on
your knowledge of my position on the issue for a simple reason. I
don't recall stating my position on the issue at any point in any
thread on H&R or otherwise.
uncle sam|8.8.06 @ 1:34AM|#
My claim is that it is worth persuading people, especially
young people, to avoid doing destructive things.
As obvious as the urge to survive. However, vandalism is a direct
violation of someone else's property. Getting high recreationally
does not involve such violation.
I have also noted that it canbe quite difficult to dissuade people
from making their own mistakes.
Perhaps attempting to prevent them from making mistakes thwarts
their own growth.
Mountain-climbers benefit other individuals in myriad ways,
beginning with their being happier, more interesting people than if
their mountain-climbing urges were gratuitously
frustrated.
As George Carlin pointed out in one of his comedy routines, when
marijuana swept the nation in the '60s, some of his classmates went
from making zip guns to making hash pipes. Perhaps some people are
able to be mellower when they have access to opium derivative or
marijuana.
I don't think anyone pulls his own weight
If no one does, then how is continued life possible?
|8.8.06 @ 2:21AM|#
Uncle writes:
vandalism is a direct violation of someone else's property.
Getting high recreationally does not involve such
violation.
If you were doing something self-destructive without full awareness
of the long-term consequences (eg, reaching for a can of lighter
fluid in the mistaken belief that it was a wholesome beverage),
wouldn't you appreciate it later if someone had to tried to warn
you of the danger? Before and after shots of drug-users would have
made a good complement to Mr. Glasser's Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card
is all I'm saying.
I have also noted that it canbe quite difficult to dissuade
people from making their own mistakes.
Aristotle: "Beautiful things are difficult."
Perhaps attempting to prevent them from making mistakes thwarts
their own growth.
And neglecting to warn them about serious mistakes can contribute
to terminating their growth. I say "persuade" and "inform," and you
hear "prevent." Why is that? Additionally, we're talking about
teenagers, who depend on an adult world to offer them guidance. Do
you object to Mr. Glasser's attempt to prevent his audience from
making such mistakes as consenting to police searches?
Perhaps some people are able to be mellower when they have
access to opium derivative or marijuana.
The question is whether they are able not to be "mellower"
[read: chemically compelled to be more passive] when inebriated, ie
(is it really a question?) whether intoxication enables or disables
autonomy. Even if a libertarian would not prohibit a person from
exercising the right to become a slave, does that mean it is
inadvisable to persuade another person, eg a young person,
that slavery is a bad state to be in? Is that not that persuading
the purpose of every libertarian forum and conversation?
>I don't think anyone pulls his own weight another person, eg a
young person, that slavery is a bad state to be in? Is that not
that persuading the purpose of every libertarian forum and
conversation?
>I don't think anyone pulls his own weight<<br /> If no
one does, then how is continued life possible?
By people pulling one another's weight. Ask a mountain-climber what
those ropes are for.
uncle sam|8.8.06 @ 10:28AM|#
The question is whether they are able not to be "mellower"
[read: chemically compelled to be more passive] when inebriated, ie
(is it really a question?) whether intoxication enables or disables
autonomy.
Presumig that everyone is OK straight out of the bottle. It is held
officially that there are many people who are more productive or
less of a danger to themselves and other when they take certain
medications.
I do not think much of people who render themselves incapacitated,
either chemically or by other means. Nor do I hold that other owe
me their full capacity thoughout every moment of their waking
hours.
The purpose of the original video was to inform people of their
legal rights vis a vis interactions with policemen. There are
plenty of sources for them to learn about the mistakes people make
and how to avoid them. That is the reason most people support
prohibition of various drugs. But somehow that has made the
problems of society worse.
That said, I don't see that much societal danger from occaisonal
chemically enhanced recreatiion. Yes, it would be nice to live in a
world where people could have fun without such enhancement, but we
don't live there.
Many entertainments are now proscribed due to legal issues. (We
used to have a lot of fun visiting a swim hole in a creek, bet
that's of limits now.)
Government schools are boring and many kids are being medicated
there to keep them from being too figity with their boredom.
|8.8.06 @ 1:10PM|#
M wrote:
The question is whether they are able not to be "mellower"
[read: chemically compelled to be more passive] when inebriated, ie
(is it really a question?) whether intoxication enables or disables
autonomy.
To which Uncle wrote:
Presumig that everyone is OK straight out of the
bottle.
Sorry, I don't know what that means.
It is held officially that there are many people who are more
productive or less of a danger to themselves and other when they
take certain medications.
So we seem to agree that the practice of medicine should not be
prohibited.
Nor do I hold that other owe me
There you go again, mistranslating my recommendation into the
imposition of an obligation. I don't think I'm going to be much
further use in this exchange.
their full capacity thoughout every moment of their waking
hours.
The purpose of the original video was to inform people of their
legal rights vis a vis interactions with policemen. There are
plenty of sources for them to learn about the mistakes people make
and how to avoid them.
And few of them are as seductive as the omissions of a video
produced by the prestigious ACLU, which seems shamefully reluctant
to alienate any part of its young audience by depicting a balanced
picture of the consequneces of their favorite foolish
behaviors.
Yes, it would be nice to live in a world where people could have
fun without such enhancement, but we don't live there.
Whaddaya mean we, White Man?
Many entertainments are now proscribed due to legal issues. (We
used to have a lot of fun visiting a swim hole in a creek, bet
that's of limits now.)
We lament together. And if you drive and drink, or jive and sink,
I'll toss you a rope. But expect a lecture when I pull you
out.
Government schools are boring and many kids are being medicated
there to keep them from being too figity with their boredom.
A damn pity, for which more drugs are not the solution. Free
associations of rope-wielding mountain-climbers are.
uncle sam|8.8.06 @ 11:07PM|#
To clarify:
Yes, it would be nice to live in a world where EVERYONE could have
fun without such enhancement, but we don't live there.
Presuming that everyone is OK straight out of the bottle.
Emotionally balanced.
A damn pity, for which more drugs are not the
solution.
Of course, but we don't get to decide how others deal with their
situations.
Help yourself
Want me to tell you about my nephew and crack?
uncle sam|8.8.06 @ 11:45PM|#
And few of them are as seductive as the omissions of a video
produced by the prestigious ACLU, which seems shamefully reluctant
to alienate any part of its young audience by depicting a balanced
picture of the consequneces of their favorite foolish
behaviors.
For the video to illustrate why people need to assert their rights,
there must be some negative consequence for not doing so. For
people who aren't "law breakers" what is the perceived negative
consequence of not asserting their rights? If they aren't doing
anything wrong, then they'll see no reason not to cooperate with
the requests of officers. Hence no need for instruction in
asserting their rights.
For those who are "law breakers", they already know that what they
are doing is illegal (in most cases) and viewed negatively by
police and most "law abiding citizens".
So this video should expand it's length by some amount to expound
on why people shouldn't ingest drugs? Hello, the government has
spent tens of millions of dollars doing just that, (in case you
haven't seen and heard ads from the Partnership for a drug free
America).
|8.9.06 @ 11:19AM|#
Uncle writes:
Want me to tell you about my nephew and crack?
Just seeing those two words together makes me sad. So please cheer
me up, tell me the story.
For people who aren't "law breakers" what is the perceived
negative consequence of not asserting their rights?
Having their private affairs involuntarily publicized to
investigating officials and those with whom those officials choose
to share their findings. As I already wrote above, >An
additional threat against which the Bill of Rights guards is the
public humiliation that would discourage social progress that
depends on individuals' being left alone long enough to articulate
and coordinate a dissent from the status quo.
So this video should expand it's length by some amount to
expound on why people shouldn't ingest drugs?
The film could use a slightly quicker pace anyway; I got fidgety
and starting reaching for my Ritalin. Conveniently, it could dwell
a little less lovingly on the glories of poisons without
sacrificing the viewer's interest in staying out of jail.
Hello, the government has spent tens of millions of dollars
doing just that, (in case you haven't seen and heard ads from the
Partnership for a drug free America).
Hello, a minor exposed to conventional anti-smoking messages is one
thing; the same minor hearing them from a lawyer who is coaching
him on how to avoid arrest for illegally purchasing cigarettes is
another. And having that lawyer coach him on how to avoid arrest,
while depicting how much fun and how cool smoking is, is still
another, and is analogous to what we see in the video. That's why a
civics teacher to whom I showed the film regrets being unable to
show it to his high-school sophomores, though he would have loved
to do so were it not for the appalling lack of judgment I complain
about.
|8.9.06 @ 11:27AM|#
Uncle writes:
Want me to tell you about my nephew and crack?
Just seeing those two words together makes me sad. So please cheer
me up, tell me the story.
For people who aren't "law breakers" what is the perceived
negative consequence of not asserting their rights?
Having their private affairs involuntarily publicized to
investigating officials and those with whom those officials choose
to share their findings. As I wrote above, >An additional threat
against which the Bill of Rights guards is the public humiliation
that would discourage social progress that depends on individuals'
being left alone long enough to articulate and coordinate a dissent
from the status quo.
So this video should expand it's length by some amount to
expound on why people shouldn't ingest drugs?
The film could use a slightly quicker pace anyway; I got fidgety
and starting reaching for my Ritalin. Conveniently, it could dwell
a little less lovingly on the glories of injesting poisons, without
sacrificing the viewer's interest in staying out of jail.
Hello, the government has spent tens of millions of dollars
doing just that, (in case you haven't seen and heard ads from the
Partnership for a drug free America).
Hello, a minor exposed to conventional anti-smoking messages is one
thing; the same minor hearing them from a lawyer who is coaching
him on how to avoid arrest for illegally purchasing cigarettes is
another. And having that lawyer coach him on how to avoid arrest,
while depicting how much fun and how cool smoking is, is still
another, and is analogous to what we see in the video. And that's
why a civics teacher to whom I showed the film regrets being unable
wisely to show it to his high-school sophomores, though he would
have loved to do so were it not for the appalling lack of judgment
I complain about.
|8.9.06 @ 1:25PM|#
Whoops again for the repeat. Must be the drugs. Must be the
drugs.
May as well be complete, not to say compulsive, and address an
outstanding warrant:
I'd written:
>A damn pity, for which more drugs are not the solution.
To which Uncle responded:
Of course, but we don't get to decide how others deal with
their situations.
Not decide how, try to influence how. As Mr. Glasser, you, and I,
in our several ways, try to influence how others deal with their
situations.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245