March 9, 2011

Loughner arraigned on new charges

Filed under: law & crime by Victoria Liberty @ 11:19 pm

Jared Loughner USMS

Jared Lee Loughner, the defendant in the shooting of 19 people in Tucson, Arizona, is now facing 49 federal charges, which he pled not guilty to today. The new charges are related to the fact that the shooting took place at a “federally provided activity.” As CNN reports…

“A federal judge Wednesday entered “not guilty” pleas on behalf of Jared Lee Loughner, the Arizona man accused of fatally shooting six people and wounding 13 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Judge Larry Burns also scheduled a May 25 competency hearing for Loughner, and attorneys on both sides will be allowed to hire their own experts to evaluate Loughner’s competency to stand trial.

Prosecutors sought the competency hearing, saying that Loughner had believed the FBI was bugging him, had extreme animosity toward the government, and was even hearing voices.

Loughner’s public defenders didn’t want such a hearing, saying it would be premature and could interfere with their ability to develop a relationship with Loughner.”

Fox and MSNBC have more details of today’s arraignment.

January 14, 2011

Tucson shootings: stupid laws alert

Filed under: personal liberty by Victoria Liberty @ 11:13 am

As happens with most tragedies, many people are scrambling, in the wake of the Tucson shooting, to pass laws that violate everyone’s rights with the aim of preventing a similar tragedy from ever happening again.

Here’s a rundown of some of the stupid, wrong laws that people are trying to pass (or already have):

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is planning to introduce a bill banning anyone from carrying a gun within 1000 feet of the president, vice-president, Congressmen, or federal judges. Hopefully the real Republicans in the newly Republican-dominated Congress will dispose of this bill as it deserves.

Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA) will introduce a bill banning people from using “language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.” This would include Sarah Palin’s graphic “targeting” the districts of 20 members of Congress to focus on in the election. Ken Paulson of the First Amendment Center explains why this is wrong (not that it needs any explanation).

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) are trying to ban high-capacity ammo clips.

Arizona’s state legislature passed, and Governor Jan Brewer singed, a bill banning protests within 300 feet of a funeral. This, of course, was a response to the Westboro Baptist’s Church plan to protest at the funeral of 9-year-old shooting victim Christina Green. Although this law isn’t as wrong as the previous three, and I am no fan of the WBC, I think that people should have the legal right to protest no matter how wrong their opinions are.

But there is one good bill that has been drafted as a result of the shootings. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is working to allow members of Congress to carry guns in the Capitol and on the House floor. I am completely in favor of this. Since having a gun, in itself, does not hurt anyone or violate anyone’s rights, people, including Congressmen, should be allowed to have guns wherever they want.

January 13, 2011

Gun control and the Tucson shootings

Filed under: personal liberty by Victoria Liberty @ 8:05 am

Flingues-p1030097
Not surprisingly, many people have been calling for increased gun restrictions since Jared Lee Loughner allegedly used a Glock to kill 6 people and attempt to kill Representative Gabby Giffords on Saturday. Sadly, lots of people seem to have the philosophy that whenever something bad happens, everything whose existence enabled the bad thing to happen should subsequently be banned. I completely disagree with this philosophy, and I will address some of its proponents point by point.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

Harold Evans at the Daily Beast calls this a “routine bromide…chanted by ditto heads” and “a cowardly way of evading responsibility.” He claims that “Guns kill people. A single gun can kill a lot of them in seconds.”

Really, Mr. Evans? Have you ever seen a gun get up and decide to kill someone?

Evans writes that if Loughner had not been able to acquire a gun and a large magazine, he would not have been able to kill 6 people and wound 13. Gail Collins at the New York Times criticizes Arizona for allowing people to carry guns in a holster under their armpit and points out that if Loughner had had a pistol and not a Glock, he may have shot Rep. Giffords but not so many bystanders. And Drew Western at the Huffington Post calls it “surreal and shameful” that people are allowed to have guns near elected officials (and calls such people “gun-toting bullies”).

I’ll admit, for the purpose of this argument, that if guns were banned (or Glocks, or high-capacity clips, or guns near elected officials), shootings like Saturday’s would be less likely to occur. But that is no reason to ban guns (or Glocks, or high-capacity clips, or guns near elected officials). It is simply wrong to claim that if a tragedy wouldn’t have happened but for X, then X should be banned. What should be banned are all and only the things that violate people’s rights. Carrying a gun under your armpit doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. Neither does owning a Glock or a high-capacity clip or bringing a gun near a public official. Shooting innocent people, however, does violate their rights. And that is rightfully banned.

In an editorial, the New York Times writes that high-capacity clips “serve absolutely no legitimate purpose outside of military or law enforcement use.”  And Sam Stein at HuffPo begins his article with the question, “Is there a good reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun?”

This mentality is simply wrong. People should not have to provide a good reason in order to be able to do something. As I’ve written numerous times, people have a right to do anything that does not violate the rights of others, no matter how pointless it may seem. The government should have to provide a good reason to ban something, not the other way around.

“Having won a Supreme Court ruling establishing a right to keep a firearm in the home,” writes the Times, “the gun lobby is striving for new heights of lunacy, waging a campaign to legalize the possession of a gun in schools, bars, parks, offices, and churches, even by teenagers.”

Allowing people to do things that, in themselves, hurt no one and violate no one’s rights - what lunacy!

And a final point: Evans thinks that politicians have refrained from banning assault weapons merely because they are “scared of the NRA.” Collins writes that Congress “did not have the guts” and are “afraid of the NRA.” And Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) is quoted as saying, “Everybody is petrified of the NRA.”

Notice a theme here? Please do not assume that people who disagree with you are motivated solely by fear. You might disagree with Congress’s failure to ban assault weapons, but at least admit the possibility that they just might, well, think that assault weapons shouldn’t be banned.

Harold Evans dares his opponents to “tell the Arizona shooting victims that guns don’t kill.” Well, to Rep. Giffords and the other 12 people who were wounded, and to the souls of Judge John Roll, Christina Green, Gabe Zimmerman, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwin Stoddard, and Dorothy Morris, I say, guns don’t kill. People have a fundamental right to purchase any kind of gun or ammunition they want, and carry it anywhere they want. It was unjust and tragic that you were wounded or lost your life. The blame for that rests solely on the person who decided to shoot you. The answer to this tragedy is to punish that person, not to punish everyone by taking our freedom away.

January 8, 2011

On the shooting of Rep. Giffords

Filed under: politics by Victoria Liberty @ 5:44 pm

Gabrielle Giffords working at desk crop
In the wake of the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, there are two things I want to say:

First: I am amazed at Giffords and her determination to keep fighting for her life. A doctor said in a news conference that he is “very optimistic about her recovery.” Here are some cool things you may or may not have known about Rep. Giffords:

  • Her husband is an astronaut, making her the only person in Congress with a spouse who currently serves in the military.
  • She is a big supporter of cutting Congress’s pay.
  • She supports tightening border security to fight illegal immigration.
  • She is a gun owner and a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.
  • She voted against Nancy Pelosi for minority leader.
  • She is the youngest woman ever elected to the Arizona state senate (in 2002).

Second: It is my belief that the shooting was by no means the fault of Sarah Palin, Andrew Breitbart, or the Tea Party movement, and it is despicable that so many people have so vehemently suggested otherwise.

The amount of such tweets, blog posts, comments, and such is overwhelming. Immediately after the shooting, I went to Twitter, and its home page was filled with tweets making the following argument: Sarah Palin’s website had a map with targets on the districts of representatives to defeat in the election. Therefore, it is her fault that Rep. Giffords was shot. *

In this post, someone named Land of Enchantment at the Daily Kos makes basically the following argument: Giffords’s opponent, Republican and Tea Party supporter Jesse Kelly, likes guns and has many pictures of himself with various guns. Therefore, it is his fault that Rep. Giffords was shot.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

* It is apparently irrelevant that the Daily Kos, one of the leading proponents of this view, made a list highlighting Giffords as one of the “Democrats who sold out the Constitution” and has “a bull’s eye on [her] district.”

Edited to add: MSNBC has a good profile of Rep. Giffords. I am sending all my best thoughts to this awesome lady and pray that she makes a full recovery.

August 6, 2010

Proposition 8 and the Arizona immigration law

Filed under: culture & social issues by Victoria Liberty @ 8:08 am

 

The recent court decisions about S.B. 1070, Arizona’s immigration law, and Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning gay marriage in California, have something in common. They both involve people calling certain laws unconstitutional.

Last Wednesday, Federal Judge Susan Bolton ordered an injunction against some parts of Arizona’s immigration law in response to a lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice, which claims the law is unconstitutional because the federal government, not the states, should have the power to regulate immigration. This Wednesday, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, calling it unconstitutional.

I have a question for judges, lawyers, the Department of Justice, and America as a whole: if you’re going to be calling laws unconstitutional, aren’t there better laws to call unconstitutional than these?

I am opposed to one part of the Arizona law – the part that makes illegal “the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers.” Simply existing, legally, in this country but without registration papers does not hurt anyone or violate anyone’s rights. But the rest of the law isn’t bad. Illegal immigration is a serious problem, and I applaud Arizona’s attempt to deal with it.

I don’t think that Proposition 8 violates anyone’s rights at all, because I don’t think that marriage is a right, per se. If the government cared about equality, they would stop granting government recognition to marriages entirely and leave this to individuals and private organizations. Rewarding people for committing to a relationship, whether gay or straight, sends the unfair, false message that couples are superior to single people.

Now for some laws that are really unconstitutional and severely violate people’s rights:

  • The Durham-Humphrey Amendment: Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the power to ban people from taking medications without a doctor’s permission. Has this law ever been challenged in court? Not to my knowledge.
  • The TSA’s use of full-body scanners as a primary method of airport security screening: To perform highly invasive searches on millions of people who aren’t even suspected of any crimes blatantly violates the Fourth Amendment.
  • The individual health insurance mandate: The power to regulate interstate commerce does not mean the power to force people to engage in commerce.

I understand that obviously, the particular judges who made the rulings in Arizona and California have never, to my knowledge, had the opportunity to address these other laws…so the individual judges are not being hypocritical. But it says something about America as a whole that the government calls two mostly good laws unconstitutional while at least three horribly anti-liberty laws are currently considered perfectly constitutional. Hopefully liberty’s brave friends at EPIC and in Virginia will change this.

Further reading:

Court Order about Arizona law (PDF)

Photo credits: Prop 8 rally by 1FlatWorld (CC ASA 2.0); immigration law protest by Fibonacci Blue (CC ASA 2.0)

April 28, 2010

The Arizona immigration bill

Filed under: culture & social issues by Victoria Liberty @ 10:20 pm

As you know by now if you haven’t been living under a rock, the state of Arizona passed an illegal immigration crackdown bill, which criminalizes illegal immigration and transporting illegal immigrants under state law and allows police, if there is reasonable suspicion, to question people about their immigration status and arrest them if they cannot prove they are legal residents.

Does this bill violate people’s civil rights as its opponents claim? Well, making illegal immigration a crime is a no brainer – that’s why it’s called illegal immigration. Cracking down on illegal immigration is something America needs right now. It’s never a good thing to have people benefitting from government services without paying taxes, and that is what most illegal immigrants do. I’m also not immensely worried that the bill will cause racial profiling, as it specifies that race or ethnicity is not sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion.

However, I don’t like the idea of a law requiring people to prove their innocence instead of the state having to prove their guilt. The presumption of innocence is a central part of the American legal system, and it should stay that way. People should not have to carry papers around to prove to police that they are not illegal immigrants; the police should have to prove that they are.

If there is one rule that everyone, especially the government, should follow, it is this: Don’t punish innocent people. You can ban something without requiring everyone who is suspected of it to prove that they are innocent. Murder is illegal, but the government has to prove people’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This same should be true of illegal immigration. I strongly support cracking down on illegal immigrants, but requiring people to prove their innocence is not the way to do it.

October 11, 2007

The TSA has gone too far

Filed under: privacy & security by Victoria Liberty @ 9:32 pm

Remember when the TSA installed those machines at Phoenix airport that create images of people’s naked bodies? Now they’re trying to defend the machines, saying that “privacy is ensured through the anonymity of the image.” So being seen naked doesn’t violate your privacy at all, as long as the people who see you naked don’t know who you are? The TSA is dead wrong. Now, I don’t always agree with the ACLU, but this time I like what they had to say:

“First, this technology produces strikingly graphic images of passengers’ bodies. Those images reveal not only our private body parts, but also intimate medical details like colostomy bags. That degree of examination amounts to a significant — and for some people humiliating — assault on the essential dignity of passengers that citizens in a free nation should not have to tolerate…They say that they are obscuring faces, but that is just a software fix that can be undone as easily as it is applied. And obscuring faces does not hide the fact that rest of the body will be vividly displayed.”

Right on!

I must mention that these invasive scans are only done on passengers selected for secondary security checks. But still, everyone who can afford a plane ticket has a right to fly on a plane. Performing humiliating security procedures on innocent people is never justified.

Source: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202401630

P.S. I added a new link to the sidebar. It’s the site of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a great organization dedicated to (among other things) fighting oppressive copyright laws. Check it out!