From: Mark Phillips (clay8@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 14 1999 - 16:53:29 MDT
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:10 MST