My response to WI editorial

[MicroBalrog]

I just read this thread

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=400515

and got really p d off, so I wrote this:

Dear Mrs. Ettenhoffer!

I'm an Israeli, and I maintain a robust interest in the gun debate, both in the US and other countries. Despite common rumours to the contrary, guns are almost totally inavailable here, and that is unlikely to change in the near future. Thus, my interest in the gun debate is purely academical. I have read with great interest your editorial entitled, "No Need for Hidden Guns". I am sorry, but I have to take issue with the following statement:

"The protection against search and seizure, for instance, does not prevent officers of the law from arresting criminals and confiscating stolen goods. Freedom of religion protections do not extend to allowing the practice of bigamy. Freedom of speech safeguards do not permit one individual to libel another. In every case, rights are constrained by common sense. "

Let's look at it case-by-case. There is no such thing as a protection against search and seizure. There is protection against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. According to the law (the framework of the law on this issue is set forth by the U.S. Constitution, in particular, its 4th amendment, which I have taken the liberty to quote fully:

"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."

Today, it means that a police officer may only arrest or search a person when he has an arrest warrant or when he has probably cause to believe the person arrested is currently committing or has just been committing a crime (for example, running away from a crime scene is often considered sufficient probable cause to detain a person). The courts limit the officers' ability to arrest and search heavily, often in ways that would have been seen too strict by other countries - but in exact accordance with the wording of the constitution, protecting against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. Arguably, the right to be protected to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure only protects against such searches and seizures, as are indeed unreasonable. Most of the Bill of Rights does not mention any such differentiation. In particular, the Second Amendment does not. So this analogy is obviously incorrect.

Now, to bigamy. If I recall correctly, the courts agree that the right to freedom of religion does not protect bigamy for one reason: it is only marginally related to to the freedom of religion. No common-sense test was applied. In fact, as far as I know, SCOTUS never uses the "common-sense" test in application to freedom of speech and religion. The Second Amenment analogue of this would be if I wanted to carry around, say, an old computer monitor for bashing attackers on the head with. If carrying such monitors became illegal and I filed a Second Amendment lawsuit, the courts would probably rule that the Second Amendment does not protect my right to carry monitors, as these are not really arms (the fact I might want to use one as a weapon is neither here nor there). But concealed handguns are clearly arms, so this analogy is also incorrect.

Finally, you say, "Freedom of speech safeguards do not permit one individual to libel another." Correct, however, in this case, my right to freedom of speech is limited by the rights of another individual. It is limited not by the "common sense" of a public official, but by the undeniable rights of another person. The equivalent for the Second Amendment is using a weapon to threaten, harm, or kill another person. The act of carrying a concealed weapon does not, in itself, threaten any other person (as the weapon is concealed), nor does it, in itself, harm anyone. It makes an individual more capable of harm, perhaps, but it also makes him capable of defending himself. Does persecuting people for the mere ability to commit a crime make sense to you? If it does, let me continue your own libel analogy: you posessing a computer makes you more capable of producing libel and spreading it all over the Internet. Should we arrest you? Oh, I can hear you scream "But I'm not going to do that!". Well, all the Wisconsin citizens who wish to be enabled to carry concealed weapons say the same thing about Wisconsin's ban on concealed carry (the criminals don't care if it's illegal; actually, they like it that way).

Oh, the Constitution also guarantees a "Right to Life". Should that be subject to "reasonable limitations"? Today it's only legal to kill people if they are in the process of attacking someone else - for such an attacker obviously infringes on another persons right to life. Being that you believe in "reasonable limitations" on all rights, what reasonable limitations do you propose to have on that right?

SY,
Boris Karpa,
Bat-Yam, Israel
http://www.rkba.co.uk/sdn