This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_34692d9a_6a5b5f7e$12a19533 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_66fac2d0_6a5b5f7e$12a19533"
------=_NextPart_001_66fac2d0_6a5b5f7e$12a19533 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Well, Joe, I seem to recall that Mike [Lorrey] has (already!) *CONCEDED* (in one of his responses to one of my interjections) that (correct me if I'm mistaken here, Mike) criminals convicted of violent crimes may be legitimately denied access to guns (and other weapons) not only while incarcerated, but also while on parole, probation, ankle-braceletted house-confignment, or whatever. It's after they've COMPLETELY served their time, and are fully FREE(D) that the gray area(s) begin(s) (for me and Mike, anyway, though perhaps not for you, Joe). A FORMER convict presumptively has at least MOST if not, indeed, ALL his natural/constitutional rights FULLY restored (or at least many libertarians would argue that s/he SHOULD so have, anyway). Yet, this implies that s/he does, now once and yet again, have the right to "keep and bear arms." Now I myself am genuinely ambivalent on this particular point, because I sympathize with BOTH sides of the issue to a fairly great extent. On the one hand, if the person, having completely served their time, etc., etc., notwithstanding, is not sufficiently rehabilitated/civilized, then there is a (way the hell NON-ZERO!!) probability that they'll (eventually) resort to (aggressive) violence again. And when I put on my consequentialist jurisprudence hat, so to speak, then I'm very tempted to say, IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT, that PRE-EMPTIVE, preclusionary law is needed to see to it that this (kind of) fellow doesn't gain (legal, rightful) access to firearms. But there are several caveats/problems here: (1) Arguably, from a META-constitutional perspective, what I propose might very well require some sort of constiutional amendment or it would not be legitimate. (This question ALONE is, from a libertarian/eudaimonist (meta)jurisprudential perspective, rather a hornet's nest!! I.E., e.g., how to tailor such a law as to (non)vagness and (to avoid) overbreadth, etc. And this is really just the TIP of the (meta)constitutional/(meta)jurisprudential iceberg!!) I think Mike would concur that some sort of constitutional amendment-type solution might very well be required here for full legitimacy. (2) How do you determine whether a person is ("sufficiently") rehabilitated before according them full (constitutional) rights? I sympathize with YOU (Joe) about the problem of (in effect) PRESUMING that a violent-crime(s) ex-con is sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant full re-instatement of his/her rights (incl. 2nd amend. rights). But any practical alternative (at least with *1st-offenders*) would seem much too likely to slippery-slope (slip by [perhaps small, incremental] slip) into rather draconian, more-or-less fascist laws and implementation thereof (i.e., e.g. you could eventually have a close parallel to the "Sacharov atrocity," wherein someone who nonetheless IS genuinely rehabilitated, etc., is denied 2nd amend. rights (and/or other rights) simply because they are out-of-favor with the de facto (jurisprudential) power structure/elite). Now admittedly, in a good (though not perfect) Tannahill/Barnett, "polycentric" jurisprudential setting, this might be less likely to happen, BUT Cf. the dialog (a few volumes/years ago ['96 or '97, I think] in the journal ECONOMICS & PHILOSOPHY between Tyler Cowen and Dave Friedman on the viability of full-fledged ANARCHIST jurisprudence. Bottom line: how do you (PRE-EMPTIVELY[?!?!]) "weed out" the "baddies" with a high (closely approaching ONE) probability of committing violence (with or without firearms) again, without endangering/infringing-the-hell-out-of the (reasonable and legitimate, I should think) rights of the truly rehabilitated?!
(3) With *Nth-time* offenders, however, I have much less of a problem (and I would think that Mike, and others herein, might feel similarly). If a guy/gal has a multiple frickin' track record of violence (especially with deadly weapons, but perhaps not specifically necessarily), then it should be all the more (meta)jurisprudentially permissible to (permanently??) deny the hell of his 2nd amend. right(s). But here again, it is argueable that this might still require a constitutional amend. to pass muster. And it would still have to pass the (NON)vaguness and (NON)overbreadth requirements, as well as carefully attend to the (possible potential toward) "Sacharov atrocity"-type crap as in (2)above.
Would WELCOME Joe's, Mike's, *et al* feedback here!
In closing, though, Joe, please be assured that I do indeed sympathize with your stuff, and always look forward to your postings (and this goes for just about everyone else, too; but especially to Mike, Brian (Williams), and Mark@unicorn on the "gun stuff." And to Gina the Nanogirl, Anders, hal, and Emlyn (among others): thanks for all your stuff. Hotmail is perpetually after me, 'cause I try to keep most of the postings here for as long as I can!
Very best regards to all!
MCP BEYOND EUTOPIA--TOWARD (META)COSMIC HORIZONS! _______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
------=_NextPart_001_66fac2d0_6a5b5f7e$12a19533 Content-type: text/html
Well, Joe, I seem to recall that Mike [Lorrey] has (already!) *CONCEDED* (in one of his responses to one of my interjections) that (correct me if I'm mistaken here, Mike) criminals convicted of violent crimes may be legitimately denied access to guns (and other weapons) not only while incarcerated, but also while on parole, probation, ankle-braceletted house-confignment, or whatever. It's after they've COMPLETELY served their time, and are fully FREE(D) that the gray area(s) begin(s) (for me and Mike, anyway, though perhaps not for you, Joe). A FORMER convict presumptively has at least MOST if not, indeed, ALL his natural/constitutional rights FULLY restored (or at least many libertarians would argue that s/he SHOULD so have, anyway). Yet, this implies that s/he does, now once and yet again, have the right to "keep and bear arms." Now I myself am genuinely ambivalent on this particular point, because I sympathize with BOTH sides of the issue to a fairly great extent. On the one hand, if the person, having completely served their time, etc., etc., notwithstanding, is not sufficiently rehabilitated/civilized, then there is a (way the hell NON-ZERO!!) probability that they'll (eventually) resort to (aggressive) violence again. And when I put on my consequentialist jurisprudence hat, so to speak, then I'm very tempted to say, IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT, that PRE-EMPTIVE, preclusionary law is needed to see to it that this (kind of) fellow doesn't gain (legal, rightful) access to firearms. But there are several caveats/problems here: (1) Arguably, from a META-constitutional perspective, what I propose might very well require some sort of constiutional amendment or it would not be legitimate. (This question ALONE is, from a libertarian/eudaimonist (meta)jurisprudential perspective, rather a hornet's nest!! I.E., e.g., how to tailor such a law as to (non)vagness and (to avoid) overbreadth, etc. And this is really just the TIP of the (meta)constitutional/(meta)jurisprudential iceberg!!) I think Mike would concur that some sort of constitutional amendment-type solution might very well be required here for full legitimacy.
(2) How do you determine whether a person is ("sufficiently") rehabilitated before according them full (constitutional) rights? I sympathize with YOU (Joe) about the problem of (in effect) PRESUMING that a violent-crime(s) ex-con is sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant full re-instatement of his/her rights (incl. 2nd amend. rights). But any practical alternative (at least with *1st-offenders*) would seem much too likely to slippery-slope (slip by [perhaps small, incremental] slip) into rather draconian, more-or-less fascist laws and implementation thereof (i.e., e.g. you could eventually have a close parallel to the "Sacharov atrocity," wherein someone who nonetheless IS genuinely rehabilitated, etc., is denied 2nd amend. rights (and/or other rights) simply because they are out-of-favor with the de facto (jurisprudential) power structure/elite). Now admittedly, in a good (though not perfect) Tannahill/Barnett, "polycentric" jurisprudential setting, this might be less likely to happen, BUT Cf. the dialog (a few volumes/years ago ['96 or '97, I think] in the journal ECONOMICS & PHILOSOPHY between Tyler Cowen and Dave Friedman on the viability of full-fledged ANARCHIST jurisprudence. Bottom line: how do you (PRE-EMPTIVELY[?!?!]) "weed out" the "baddies" with a high (closely approaching ONE) probability of committing violence (with or without firearms) again, without endangering/infringing-the-hell-out-of the (reasonable and legitimate, I should think) rights of the truly rehabilitated?! (3) With *Nth-time* offenders, however, I have much less of a problem (and I would think that Mike, and others herein, might feel similarly). If a guy/gal has a multiple frickin' track record of violence (especially with deadly weapons, but perhaps not specifically necessarily), then it should be all the more (meta)jurisprudentially permissible to (permanently??) deny the hell of his 2nd amend. right(s). But here again, it is argueable that this might still require a constitutional amend. to pass muster. And it would still have to pass the (NON)vaguness and (NON)overbreadth requirements, as well as carefully attend to the (possible potential toward) "Sacharov atrocity"-type crap as in (2)above. Would WELCOME Joe's, Mike's, *et al* feedback here! In closing, though, Joe, please be assured that I do indeed sympathize with your stuff, and always look forward to your postings (and this goes for just about everyone else, too; but especially to Mike, Brian (Williams), and Mark@unicorn on the "gun stuff." And to Gina the Nanogirl, Anders, hal, and Emlyn (among others): thanks for all your stuff. Hotmail is perpetually after me, 'cause I try to keep most of the postings here for as long as I can! Very best regards to all! MCP BEYOND EUTOPIA--TOWARD (META)COSMIC HORIZONS! |