Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (18923)	8/5/2002 9:48:55 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

Guns and Ideology Monday, August 5, 2002; Page A14 ON JUNE 2 D.C. police were called to the 400 block of K Street NW, where shots had been heard. Police found four men in a parking lot, frisked them and allegedly recovered a loaded 9mm handgun from a man named Bashaun Pearson. Mr. Pearson appeared to be on drugs and later allegedly tested positive for PCP. Carrying a handgun in Washington is illegal under almost all circumstances, so his case should have been a routine gun prosecution. But thanks to Attorney General John Ashcroft, it isn't. In fact, Mr. Pearson has a compelling argument -- now before the D.C. Court of Appeals -- that the Justice Department has no business charging him at all. Mr. Pearson's gun was licensed in Maryland, and he has no prior convictions or other pending charges. He is charged, in other words, with nothing more than having a gun -- which, according to the attorney general, is a constitutional right. Mr. Ashcroft has insisted that he will defend this country's gun laws, even as he has contended that the Second Amendment to the Constitution creates an individual right to own a gun -- subject only to reasonable regulation to keep guns from criminals. But cases such as Mr. Pearson's demonstrate that the circle cannot be squared. Some gun laws -- Washington's notably among them -- sweep more broadly than any individual right can reasonably be read to permit. The Justice Department has, so far, gotten around this problem by playing legal games. The D.C. Court of Appeals, it has argued in several cases, has held that there is no individual right to own a gun. And while the attorney general may disagree with this holding, it is binding law in Washington; hence, gun prosecutions here may proceed. But it is hard to see why the government should be locking people up for conduct it has plainly said -- before the U.S. Supreme Court, no less -- is constitutionally protected. The Justice Department's answer is that the D.C. statute is constitutional as applied to Mr. Pearson because he was "visibly under the influence of drugs" and because it is "well settled that the individual right to bear arms is . . . not violated by statutes that . . . prohibit the possession of firearms by those who are intoxicated." In fact, nothing about the limits of the purported individual right to bear arms is well established. And Mr. Pearson, in any event, is not charged with drug offenses. So how could his alleged drug use limit his exercise of a right the Constitution would otherwise protect? Our point is not that Mr. Pearson's behavior -- assuming it can be proven -- should go unprosecuted. We believe in strong gun laws. Our point is simply that the government cannot both embrace an individual rights view of the Second Amendment and prosecute people for wielding guns. The attorney general is complicating efforts to prosecute people such as Mr. Pearson by adopting arguments better left to the fringes of the defense bar. Unless Mr. Ashcroft backs off, his efforts to align himself with the gun lobby will only play into the hands of more criminal suspects. © 2002 The Washington Post Company