When I read shit like this, it truly makes me fear for the path our country has taken
I think it's worth acknowledging the primary functions of the law as it's used by prosecutors in DC: the gun ban is both a preventive detention statute and an intelligence-gathering tool. At one time when I was a prosecutor, we were prohibited from extending a plea offer in gun cases unless the defendant agreed to come into the office (with his attorney, of course) and be "debriefed" about his knowledge of criminal activity in the city. The statute was also a mechanism for locking up individuals perceived as violent, but against whom other cases could not be brought for whatever reason. It's pretty simple to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual was in possession of a gun without a license and a lot tougher to prove that he committed a violent crime. These functions may not be relevant to the question whether the statute is constitutional, but it's worth acknowledging that invalidating the gun ban will surely have a tremendous impact on crime-fighting in the District.
Got that? Here's a former prosecutor who (a) doesn't care if it's constitutional or not (b) knows that the gun ban does nothing to decrease gun crime but makes a nifty tool to imprison people for (c) HAVING A PERCEPTION OF BEING VIOLENT.
And no shit it will have an impact on crime fighting. When it's a crime for a person to be simply "perceived as violent" or a crime for a person to protect themselves, then there's a lot more criminals to help prosecutors justify their salaries. That's one of my major beefs with Government - I want the government to catch and prosecute criminals. What I fear is that Uncle Sam keeps broadening the definition of criminal to make it impossible to not be one.
And here's something else, I don't give a leaping f*&% if it makes crime fighting harder because otherwise, we make tyranny easier and the chances of crime affecting me are less than that of an oppressive government.
rolled out on
Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:11 PM