http://www.newsweek.com/id/234185/page/1

Quote:When the constitutional accountability Center launched in 2008, it looked like just another liberal legal-advocacy group, dedicated to "fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution's text and history." The causes it has backed run the standard liberal gamut: among other things, the group supports California's efforts to regulate carbon emissions and pushes for "robust due-process protections for immigrant criminal defendants." So if you were told that the CAC had filed an amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago, a case about gun control to be argued before the Supreme Court this week, you might think it was siding with Chicago, whose restrictions on gun ownership are being challenged.

You would be wrong. For decades, liberals have opposed gun rights on the grounds that the Second Amendment is limited to the establishment of state militias. But some liberal dissenters from this view now say that is too narrow a reading of the Constitution. They contend that it fails to take into account the historical record and contradicts liberals' own reading of the Constitution's protection of individual rights.

The CAC has joined forces with staunch conservatives, including Steven G. Calabresi, cofounder of the Federalist Society, to support expanding individual rights, including gun rights, in the states—inviting the possibility that Chicago's virtual ban on handguns might be overturned. "There is a deeply progressive historical basis for some individual right to bear arms," says Douglas Kendall, the CAC's founder.

[...]

At the heart of the left-leaning dissenters' argument is a plea for consistency. For decades, liberals have insisted that the Constitution assumes—even if it does not explicitly spell out—a right to bodily autonomy. This right, long disputed by conservatives, is a basis for arguments in favor of abortion rights and gay rights. Liberals who support gun rights find a similar implied right to own weapons: after all, they say, what is the right to bear arms but the ability to protect your body from criminals as well as the government? "The right to bear arms gives you a mechanism to protect your bodily autonomy from attack," says Winkler.

Despite the thread title, I dislike the use of labels like "liberal" and "conservative" within American politics. Reducing everything to a binary issue results in some awfully dishonest and clumsy arguments made from two sides engaged in the rhetorical equivalent of trench warfare.

I consider myself a socially liberal and pro-gun rights person, and this article seems to articulate that reasoning well. The right to bodily autonomy is definitely the ethical justification for a lot of rights in the liberal political platform here in the US.

For American liberals whose support of gun rights is less enthusiastic, the ethical justification is usually technocratic; i.e. needless deaths are bad; a gun-free society would have fewer needless deaths; ergo guns should be illegal in an effort to make a gun-free society. Given that it is impossible at this point to make a gun-free United States, people usually revert to a Gandhian, "be the change you wish to see in the world" position, where it is more noble to attempt to make a gun-free society than to simply deal with the realities of their presence. Founded in noble ideals, but dreadfully unrealistic in practice, and an ethical nightmare.

To clarify on what I mean by "gun rights", I don't have a problem with laws that aren't intrusive or authoritarian. For example, requiring that federally-licensed firearms dealers perform a NICS check before transferring a firearm to a buyer to ensure they don't fall under the "prohibited persons" portion of the 1968 Gun Control Act is a good thing. When states require that their citizens attend a class on the state's self-defense and firearms laws before being issued a concealed carry handgun permit (as is the case in MA and NC, but not in CA - I've carried in all three states) effectively ensures people at least have a chance to learn the things that any responsible gun owner will educate themselves about anyway. The laws I have a problem with are bans on specific firearms or types of firearms, as they are generally ill-advised and misinformed, or draconian federal laws I wish more people saw a problem with, which target exactly the types of weapons the 2nd Amendment is supposed to protect (machine guns, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, suppressors, etc.)

Anyway, while there are always going to be discrete issues up for debate, I think this article is a good context to look at everything in. In a liberal state, a law that can't pass a test of the harm principle should be automatically suspect.

Last week, in a town about 10 miles away from me, a man who had been robbed shot at the getaway car. The thieves survived, but the one year old infant in the car didn't.

http://www.kfsm.com/news/kfsm-news-rv-ba...2194.story

The DA is deciding whether to press charges.

But hey, it's Oklahoma, so I doubt the shooter (whom I would not charge with "murder" but would absolutely charge with either manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide) will face any charges. Accidents happen in a gun-owning society, and our entire country pays the price.

Rest in peace, baby Elaine.

Maryanne,
I think you misunderstood the article.

It's likely that the DA is deciding whether to press charges against the robbers. This would be considered felony murder in most jurisdictions. When a death occurs as a direct result of the commission of a felony, the people committing the felony can be charged in that death.

If there had been no robbery/assault, the baby would still be alive.

The family of the robbery victim is concerned that he might be charged, but the article says:

Quote:Prosecutors have the case file, and could decide whether additional charges should be filed in the next few days.

That suggests to me that they're considering additional charges against the people already charged with robbery and assault rather than against the man who fired at them. Your interpretation may be the correct one in this case, but I suspect not.

(03-06-2010 11:42 AM)jgibson2 Wrote:  Maryanne,
I think you misunderstood the article.

It's likely that the DA is deciding whether to press charges against the robbers. This would be considered felony murder in most jurisdictions. When a death occurs as a direct result of the commission of a felony, the people committing the felony can be charged in that death.

If there had been no robbery/assault, the baby would still be alive.

The family of the robbery victim is concerned that he might be charged, but the article says:

Quote:Prosecutors have the case file, and could decide whether additional charges should be filed in the next few days.

That suggests to me that they're considering additional charges against the people already charged with robbery and assault rather than against the man who fired at them. Your interpretation may be the correct one in this case, but I suspect not.

---

It sounds like you know more about Oklahoma than I do, Judy, even though I live only 5 or 6 miles from its border...

When, oh, when will we retire and move back to civilization again?

I love my job at the Benedictine monastery, a little oasis, a peaceable kingdom in this frontier justice town...but that's only 66 acres

Well, charges were filed today.

The two robbers who had the one year-old in their getaway car were charged with first degree murder, robbery, burglary and child neglect.

The victim, who shot at the fleeing car, was charged with second degree murder and shooting with intent to kill, and I think that is very appropriate. Certainly it is normal to be angry when you are beaten and robbed, but his actions were not anywhere near proportionate to the crime that was committed against him, particularly since the perpetrators were fleeing and he was no longer in danger.

http://www.kfsm.com/news/kfsm-news-rolan...0972.story

Thank goodness the Sequoyah County prosecutor recognized the difference between using a gun in self-defense and vigilantism, although nothing will ever bring the little one year-old girl back.

That sounds about right. There isn't any state in the country where Jeremiah's actions would be permissible under the laws governing use of deadly force. Not even Texas.

But this has little to do with the OP, so I'm at a loss concerning what value the story has in that context. A more relevant article would have been one that pertained to a self-defense scenario where a firearm was used to preserve someone's right to bodily autonomy. Many of those can be found here.