OK, I'm back (for what that's worth)--had a few days worth of family obligations that made stepping away from blogging for a few days the easiest course. So, back to our scheduled programming . . .
War on Guns has been, to my knowledge, pretty well leading the charge in exposing the outrages of the prosecutions persecutions of Wayne Fincher and David Olofson. I've followed along, but am not really in a position to argue with anyone who might assert that I am, at best, bringing up the rear.
Anyway, there are some in the gun rights advocacy movement who take a different view. They point out that in both cases, the defendants were doomed for certain defeat (I should add that this was being pointed out before the verdict was reached--I'm not trying to imply that they were pointing out the doomed nature of the defense only after gaining the benefit of hindsight). That's a difficult position with which to disagree--it was pretty clear in both cases that the defense had very steep hills to climb.
What bothers me is the position that since these were "bad" cases, gun rights advocates (and advocacy groups) should not publicly get behind them, because to do so "makes us look bad." I don't know, maybe it comes from being the kind of guy who in my youth was forced seek out "blind dates," because blind girls were about the only ones with whom I had a chance--but "looking bad" is something I've learned to live with.
While it may be true that from a perspective of pure gun rights advocacy, it makes sense to put as much distance as possible between us and the Finchers and Olofsons of the world, I think that misses the point that grave, outrageous injustice is being done to these men and their families. In other words, the point of clamoring for justice for Fincher and Olofson isn't to advance gun rights, but to right some of the horrid wrong of their imprisonment.
Frankly, I'd feel a bit selfish if I were unwilling to take a minute or two out of my time spent arguing for my right to own a fully-automatic firearm, and spend it on arguing for the right of these men to breathe free air with their families.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
A question of goals
Stumble it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The "bad" cases i believe are the ones most worth fighting for if you argument is "frredom and liberty." The greatest sign of liberty is to allow someone who is doing something you personally oppose wityh all of your heart, and holding back on infrineing them that action. Defense of an undefedable action is right and just, something our "justice department" forgets from time to time.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that the main issue I find with "bad" cases is that it's hard to figure out what really happened. I spend a good deal of time fighting for gun rights already. I find it hard to divert some of that energy towards a cause where the person standing trial might actually be in the wrong.
I'm not saying that either of those men deserve to be in jail. I'm saying that I could never get enough of a grasp on what really happened to believe in them enough to fight for them.
Perhaps I can clear things up. Neither Fincher nor Olofson:
* attempted to murder anyone
* attempted to injure any person
* conspired to violate the rights and liberties of anyone
* attempted to steal from anyone
* did harm to anyone through negligence
* damaged property owned by anyone
Thanks, TJH--you beat me to it.
Laughingdog, by " . . . might actually be in the wrong," do you mean that either Fincher or Olofson may have been planning to commit murder, bank robbery, terrorism, etc.? I think it's pretty clear that neither of them were.
Or by " . . . in the wrong," do you mean in knowing defiance of the NFA of '34, and/or the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of '86? If that's "wrong," than Fincher is probably guilty. In Olofson's case, I couldn't vote to convict even for that.
In any case, being "guilty" of no "crime" (with no victim) other than the exercise of one's Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms would only lead to imprisonment in a nation in which the Constitution of the United States of America is not the law of the land.
Fincher had a much higher hill to climb because, even though he was exercising his real rights under the consitution he knowingly and purposely violated an illegal law.
Olafson's case should have been a slam-dunk for acquittal.
The convictions were only possible due to the complicity of the courts in railroading both these men and not allowing a jury to hear the facts of the law, the consitution or even the cases.
Treason was committed by both judges. It is as simple as that.
Ain't that right,Jimm Larry?
Shh, SA--we're not supposed to say "treason" ;-)!
I think I'm on your side on this one ... Illegal is not necessarily "wrong" in the Contitutional sense.
Therefore some cases deserve support, like Heller vs DC.
Sure, given the facts and circumstances, there are positions that are 'safer' on certain cases, but "enfringement" is in the "shall not" category.
Violating good laws is bad.
But violating bad law? A different scenario, perhaps worthy of contest and not automatic withdrawal of support - and certainly no reason to discourage others from voicing their opinions.
Just my $.02.
The point is, their imprisonment is wrong. "Bad" case, or maybe being "Wrong" about backing and supporting them is crap.
It's like waiting to see who is ahead in the horse race before placing your bet.
It's all about individual choice. Make one and stand by it, no matter what. It's ok to be wrong,we're human. And as this blogger was told once...
Who cares what others think of your choices. If you're comfortable with yourself and others around you,it really doesn't matter!
Our opponents have advanced their agenda for over half a century on the backs of our "bad cases." US v. Miller was a bad case; a convicted felon moonshiner with a sawed-off shotgun who disappeared by the time his appeal reached the Supreme Court. And it was the last Supreme Court case we got for 70 years.
Bad cases set precedent (in the legal sense, or just in terms of what the ATF can get away with) whether our side wins or loses. That should be reason enough for us to fight them out.
DC v. Heller was an anomaly, a solicited case by an indepedently funded legal strategist who recruited half a dozen sympathetic plaintiffs and ended with only one who had standing. We're entering a new phase of operations with Heller-based lawsuits, which we should exploit, but that's still no reason to concede the other battlefield.
Post a Comment