One of the few advantages to being old and retired is having a lot of time to read. I read lots of stuff, some of it even worthwhile. Something I've come across several times is a couple of Latin phrases that lawyer-types use to describe actions that are against the law. 'Malum in se' and 'malum prohibitum.'
What are they? Well, 'malum in se' describes acts that are just plain bad. Murder, rape and robbery are 'malum in se.' 'Malum prohibitum' translates roughly to "it's bad 'cause I said so." The "I" in this case can be a legislative body or an agency with the power to make regulations the rest of us have to recognize.
Suppose you were driving across the desert on a straight, narrow 2-lane road and there were no other cars anywhere in sight. Suppose you decided to drive on the left side of the road for awhile and the highway patrol just happened to have a helicopter in the area and you were photographed taking your trip to the wild side. Suppose you then got a citation in the mail.
Who was harmed by driving on the left side of the road? No one, of course, but you could be convicted of a perfect example of 'malum prohibitum'.
While I too have some doubts about Mr. Ferro's intelligence in this case, he has clearly been victimized by a 'malum prohibitum' law. Why should anyone care if he has a gun? Or 900 guns? As long as he doesn't use them to harm or threaten other people, he could have a couple of Bradleys and a main battle tank in his garage--- fully loaded!
But of course the simple possession of guns does threaten someone, doesn't it? It's a direct threat to all those who believe they can think for us far better than we. The ones who want to rule us while stealing our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. The Ray Nagins and Barbara Boxers of the world can never feel safe as long as there are people 'out there' who still believe they have a right to chart their own course and the tools to defend their positions.
A little over four and one-half years ago America was awakened to the fact that a large part of the world wants us dead. The clamor is still going on about how we were attacked so suddenly. Well, if we hadn't all been so intent on making a direct visual inspection of our own intestinal polyps we'd have known that this new "war" had been going on for twenty-five years, beginning on the 'Andrea Doria' and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer. They started the war, we decided not to play until 9-11.
So, when did the government's 'war on guns' start? The first big battle came in 1934 and we lost. There were a few minor skirmishes over the next three decades but we lost nearly all of them too. We did come out somewhat ahead on "Miller" but we didn't realize it and so lost much of whatever advantage we might have gained.
Then came 1968 and some of us finally realized what was happening but the tide was against us and we watched the Brady Act, the Lautenberg Amendment and a dozen other little nibble-and-bite bills that further reduced our right to own guns. Tossed into the mix were things like Ruby Ridge and Waco. How many brave keyboard commandos took their "sniper rifles" and tried to outflank the feds on either of those disasters or were we too busy checking our lower intestines?
I don't know about the rest of you but when I hear of someone the government wants to deny gun ownership to, I -- nearly reflexively-- want him to have every gun he can handle. When an agency like the ATF can write regulations, interpret them and then enforce them too we are living in a police state. Just because we have beer, television and state-sanctioned concealed carry doesn't change the fact that we are playing their game with their ball, their bat, on their field and using their rules.
Sorry for the rant.
