Re: federal jurisdiction on criminal matters
Topics: Rights, Democracy
02 May 1995
From: "DG Ervan Darnell"
Stephen Michael Patterson wrote
> Dan wrote:
>> The nation's top cop thinks domestic tranquility can be assured by throwing
>> down enough useless laws that "everyone is actionable for something".
>> She would like to see that an end run around illegal search and siezure
>> is always at hand in her "toolbox". With that shortcut, the Feds need only
>> pull the trigger once they wish to get you. . .
>
>I am not sure that this is the intent of the gun-free zone.
The intent is irrelevant. The intent of AA is peace, love, harmony, and
happiness. The effect is quotas, hatred, and more racial strife.
The effect of allowing the gun-free-zone law is further erosion of
constitutional limits and the problems Dan already mentioned. The effect on
schools is probably zip. Reno is saying only that she understands and
desires the former effect.
>While it is
>true that the state can make this a crime, in my book I'd rather have it
>be a violation of federal law.
No, never for this sort of thing. Federal law should be restricted only to
those things that necessarily are federal in impact (like treason and
certain sorts of inter-state crime). One state says guns in school zones
merits 10 years and another state says 20. The feds count votes from the
NRA minus votes from the fear mongers and come up with 30 years, or 5, or
death, or $50, who knows. Why are the feds right and the states wrong?
They are not. Why should control be further removed from the place which
has the most knowledge about the relative trade-offs (prison space, cost of
enforcement, second-order efforts of skewed penalties, etc.)?
There is nothing in any of this that keeps states from enacting the same
laws and penalities as the feds did in this case. Before you say federal
control is better, you need to show, among many other things, that state
control has somehow produced a worse set of laws. If the fed statute is so
good, why haven't states enacted it before? The federal statute is, at
best, senseless and useless legislation based on fear mongering. At worst,
it is deliberate attempt to bring more control to the federal government for
its nefarious games of blackmailing one state (or group of persons) against
another.
>> All these laws must surely lead to capricous enforcement
>I cannot agree that just because a law such as the gun-free zone is based
>on a stretch (maybe even a large stretch) that that necessarily implies
>that the law will not be effective. For example, how does this law have
>a worse effect than letting the guilty go unpunished?
You have entirely missed the point. Whether the law keeps guns away from
schools is a separate issue. If it does, then have states pass similar
laws. That aspect of it can now be ignored. The question is rather 'what
are the effects of federaling it?' The scope of this is far greater than
the minor matter of jiggling the penalties that the law itself does. The
impact is that it moves us closer to the federal government saying 'We do
not believe in the Constitution. We will do whatever we want. There is no
covenent, no restriction. There are no limits to abuse. We will pass
sufficient laws that everyone is guilty of something and with that pretext
abuse people for whatever reason comes along.'
>Perhaps another way to look at the spread of the decision is just that
>this is a damn good law that sounds like it happens to be based on a
>legal shoestring. I, frankly, don't care. I want my schools to be a
>gun-free, knife-free, and for that matter, scum-free zone. I don't care
>whose civil rights get violated in the process. Don't go near my schools.
Blech. This is an error too profound to begin address here.
>Can anyone argue that there is any room for guns anywhere near our schools?
Entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Home