2nd Amendment Ruled Individual Right, DC Ban Unconstitutional
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 6/27/08 @ 2:20 am - Filed Under Featured, National Politics
The Constitution scored a rare victory today when the Supreme Court upheld the “individual right” view of the 2nd amendment and declared the Washington DC ban on handguns unconstitutional. The court however did leave many loose ends involving what constitutes legal regulation which will undoubtedly keep lawyers busy for a generation.
I think I’ll celebrate this historic day by going to the rifle range this weekend. But first I’ll read through the Supreme Court’s majority opinion and post what I think are the most relevant parts:
It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
The court did hold that other regulation may apply but essentially a complete ban is unconstitutional.
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause…We start therefore with a strong presumption that the
Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
The court has finally put the kibosh on the collective rights nonsense.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Those poor musket lobbyists.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”
An important distinction here that everyone needs to understand. The Bill of Rights does not enumerate rights granted by the government - it enumerates unalienable rights that the government cannot take away.
Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
This paragraph alone will keep lawyers busy for years to come trying to determine what the legal boundaries are for restricting gun ownership. And thankfully the court chimes in on the Miller case - the one that anti-gun advocates have distorted time and again to say the we have 70 years of “precedent” for the collective rights view. I’ve wrote before that this interpretation is flat out wrong. The Miller case actually held the individual right interpretation. The Supreme Court agreed:
It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bearing arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.
Finally I can stop listening to people misinterpret the Miller case and perpetuate the fallacy that it has provided for the “collective right” interpretation. Despite this strong wording by the majority you will certainly read several articles claiming the court “struck down precedent”. It simply isn’t so.
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Well, I suppose this will give Paul Helmke something to spin into a “victory”.
Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid. We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
How was this law even enforceable? Was the state going to illegally search your home to make sure your firearms were disassembled?
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
Indeed…
Comments
36 Responses to “2nd Amendment Ruled Individual Right, DC Ban Unconstitutional”
Leave a Reply
What is frightening to me is that the Supreme Court ruling was 5 - 4. The ruling should have been 9 - 0.
The four very liberal members of the Supreme Court voted to uphold the DC gun ban…
Mike Sylvester
Fianlly, a court decides to side with the constitution. Mike has it right, should have been 9-0. To think, we were one vote away from having the Supreme Court rule that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was unconstitutional.
The vote tally on this decision is probably more significant than the decision itself. As Gary said, “we were one vote away from having the Supreme Court rule that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was unconstitutional.” This underscores the importance of who occupies the Oval Office. The next president very well could be appointing another S. C. justice or more in his first term.
Obama has tried to ride the fence on this S. C. decision in an attempt to appease everybody. That can’t be done. McCain has expressed his support of the decision. Who do YOU want appointing federal judges?? Hmmm??
@ Steve Gordon. The recent court decision on Guantanamo Bay went 5-4 as well, and should have been 9-0. McCain’s reaction to this case that enforced International Human Rights: “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” One of the worst ever, really? Was it worse than Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott? I hardly think so. Federal judges need to uphold the law, not make decisions based on ideology.
Well I have a feeling if we were talking about the 4th amendment then the vote would be 5-4 as well with the parties reversed. I’ll take Obama…
The use of the word “liberal” to frighten gets really old. How about looking at the composition of the Court?
The 5-4 decision was made as follows:
In the majority:
Antonin Scalia - Reagan (Republican)
John Roberts - Bush II (Republican)
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan (Republican)
Clarence Thomas - Bush I (Republican)
Samuel Alito - Bush II (Republican)
In the minority: (dissent)
John Paul Stevens - Ford (Republican)
David Souter - Bush I (Republican)
Steven Breyer - Clinton (Democrat)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton (Democrat)
Anthony Kennedy has become the swing vote since Sandra Day O’Conner left. So had he taken the other side, the vote would have been 5-4 upholding the ban.
It looks to me like - based purely on the ideologies of those who did the nominating - that the vote should have been 7-2. Justices change over the years, and Earl Warren (Eisenhower appointee) was a perfect example of that.
Many of the Court’s recent decisions have been 5-4, which doesn’t bode well for the issues decided. It shows a definite split and leaves those who look to the Court for guidance in an uncomfortable state knowing very well that should the issue come up again in front of a Court with a different composition (and in a different time period), the previous decision could be overruled.
Examples - Plessy v. Ferguson overruled by Brown v. Board; Betts v. Brady overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright; Buck v. Bell overruled by Skinner v. Oklahoma.
The next president will probably get to nominate at least one replacement, if not more. Justice Stevens is 88 years old.
I absolutely prefer Obama be the one to appoint the new justice or justices. Looks to me like the Republicans already have an edge - 7 to 2 - in party affiliation. Some justices moderate over the years - that happens and will continue to happen.
Justin:
I am not sure how old you are, so this isn’t meant to be negative. But the primary criteria for a president selecting a nominee for the Supreme Court is ideology.
Ideologies are simply collections of ideas and ways of looking at things. A president will want someone who views the political, economic, and social landscapes in the same way that he does.
The only thing that controls the extremes of the views of a potential Supreme Court appointee is the ability of the Senate to reject the nominee by giving its “advice and consent.”
This forces a president to find someone who will have the same ideology but will also be tempered enough to make it through the Senate confirmation process.
Robert Bork was a controversial nominee selected by Ronald Reagan. His contentious confirmation process led to his last name being turned into a verb “borked.” He was considered too controversial in his views of civil rights, etc., and he was ultimately rejected.
So, while justices should apply the law, they will do so through the prism of the presidents who selected them. And that means ideologies will come into play.
Justin:
I forgot to add - you are right, there are other decisions that are much more devastating than the recent Gitmo decision. You mentioned two, and I include the Korematzu decision addressing FDR’s Executive Order 9066.
And what about Buck v. Bell where Justice Holmes made his infamous statement that “three generations of imbeciles is enough”, thus approving forced sterilization of those who are mentally handicapped.
Charlotte,
Why is the word “liberal” meant to scare someone. If you are “liberal” or “Proressive” embrace it, don’t try to run from it. Obama embrasses the fact he is a progressive. I don’t pretend I am something other than socially conservative and do not run from it. If someone calls me conservative, I do not think they are using scare tactics. And while I am socially conservative, I may be more liberal in my outlook fiscal issues.
When you try say “liberal” is a scare tactic, it makes it sound like you are trying to hide he fact you are. It isn’t a dirty word, that is unless you think it is.
So when it comes to who I prefer on the Supreme Court, I would choose McCain, simply because I prefer Justices like Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. With that being said, Obama is more in line with my economic issues.
Jeff:
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The above quote is followed by a discussion which
leaves open the door to limiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” The Court discusses those weapons available in the time period of the passage of the second amendment and how that impacts the types of weapons available today.
In reading the follow-up passage, I got the feeling that the Court isn’t quite sure how today’s weapons fit in with the prefatory clause.
This is interesting in the sense that if the Court has just found that the prefatory clause is no longer relevant in a discussion of the individual right to bear arms, why would they be concerned about the types of weapons now available?
You also notice that the majority opinion spends an inordinate amount of time addressing Justice Stevens’ dissent. Justice Scalia mentions Justice Stevens roughly 25 times in trying to counter the dissent.
I have read a lot of opinions, and I have not seen a dissent garner this much effort to debunk the underlying pinnings of the dissent.
What this says to me - and this is just my opinion - is that the majority understands that the 5-4 decision may very well be revisited in the event the composition of the Court changes.
I am not quite sure how it would change. I am still reading and digesting the decision.
Gary:
The reason I made the comment about using liberal as a scare tactic is that it usually is used to refer negatively to those who are liberal.
Ask yourself why Mike worded his comment to include the phrase “the four very liberal members” in his post. He could have foregone that phrase and listed the four members, but, instead, he chose to use a term that has a certain negative connotation when people hear it or see it.
Most people don’t bother to take the time to understand liberal, conservative, moderate, etc. It is similar to attempts to label programs, ideas, etc., as socialist. It sends a shiver of fear through those who do not understand economic and social systems.
I am proud to be a liberal because I have done enough reading and thinking to understand what it means. I am also a pacifist, but before I chose to “label” myself in this way, I needed to understand what it meant to be a pacifist. And it isn’t the same thing as being a conscientious objector.
I do think Obama will start moving away from seeing himself as a progressive and liberal. From what I have been reading, he is already moving to the center, which is an attempt to counter his past labeling as the most liberal senator in the Senate.
Charlotte:
You have illustrated the point that Republican Presidents have appointed liberals to the Supreme Court in some cases.
I agree with that.
Mike Sylvester
Mike:
Here are a number of definitions for liberal. I fail to see anything in the list that is negative.
I guess my question would be were those justices “liberal” when they were appointed? I don’t imagine that, based on the following definitions, the Republican-appointed justices were liberal.
Now it could be that over the years, they changed their views. But to state that “Republican presidents have appointed liberals” at the onset of their Supreme Court careers, I believe is inaccurate especially given the fact they were appointed by Republican presidents.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
Charlotte,
Giving us a Webster’s definition is fine, but for better or worse, there are certain issues, whether they meet your definition or not, are defined as “liberal” issues. If those “liberal” issues, as defined by society, scare people, then by all means, say we are using scare tactics, but in truth, they are still “liberal” issues.
As a social conservative, I do not believe in the “liberal” social issues you hold true but do find myself subscribing to some “liberal” issues on fiscal matters. Right now, I find social conservative issues guiding my vote for President and am currently undecided for Governor.
Charlotte,
I am more conservative than liberal; however, I do not feel liberal is a dirty word.
I tend to want the Supreme Court to make judicial decision that are conservative; however, that is not always the case.
For example I sided with the liberal judges when it came to Oregon’s assisted suicide law.
That being said liberals tend to believe in gun control; and I think I have a right to kill anyone that breaks into my house and threatens my family!
Mike Sylvester
This a Win-Win for all.
Our 2nd Amendmant is now a Fact and up-holded in law.
The folks in Washington D.C.and Chicago watch out the constition is on us good people upholding the law.
Go after the bad guys, do not bust law abiding citizens.
Well, here is to all the legal hunters across the nation. A special heads-up to hunt and fire arms at my family homestead in Montana.
Granted all…still have to apply for a License, Permit and Registration to hunt
even on private land.
We…Love our democracy and freedom…when it’s independantly owned.
We need to get the government out of all of our businesses.
Posted by: Bobett Kelley | May 17, 2008 at 09:09 PM
Go Mitch…Mr. Harper:
Protect our 2nd Amendment rights!
We all need the right to hunt game & food, protect ourselves & others. I would be furious if our right to own a gun was against the law.
Posted by: Bobett Kelley | May 17, 2008 at 09:24 PM
I am a former hunter and believe honest people owning certain types of firearms.
I have often wondered about what the REAL intent of the founding fathers where thinking on many issues that we today try to frame around their written words.
No one will ever get me to believe they had any concept to the world we live in today.
As for close votes coming out of the Supreme Court I believe close votes indicate the very issues they should be reviewing.
This entire gun issue is not about law bidding people owning guns. It is some last ditch effort some believe will take the guns out of hands of those who break the law. Often these people have records that would stop them from ever owning a gun under current law.
What troubles me is the general public never hears where the weapons come from that are used in murders. I wonder due the police/FBI track the weapon trail backwards with factual information?
Sorry I have gotten off subject.
As I said on my own blog, I must have given people the wrong idea about where I stand on guns. I do not advocate taking away gun ownership.
I see nothing wrong, however, with restrictions and regulations being placed on gun acquisition and gun ownership.
Here’s my question to all gun owners, why should the right to own a firearm be any different than any other right contained in the Bill of Rights subject to limits? And keep in mind, saying so won’t make it so.
No right listed is an absolute right, and it should be no different for the right to “bear arms.” The Supreme Court has actually done us all a favor by finding that the right to bear arms is an individual constitutional right because those rights found in the Bill of Rights are subject to restriction and are not absolute.
The Court even states that it is not holding that the right is absolute and that gun ownership can be subject to regulation. Now the task will begin to determine which regulations will be upheld and which won’t.
If those who support gun rights now try to argue that this right is absolute and should be free from any controls, then the right to bear arms would be placed at a higher level than any other right in the Bill of Rights.
The right to bear arms was placed in the Second Amendment, not the First Amendment. Indiana’s Constitution places it in the 32nd article of the 37 it contains in our state Bill of Rights. And Indiana even goes farther by stating specifically that the right to bear arms covers both personal defense and defense of state.
The authors of the Bill of Rights could have easily included that language, but they didn’t.
The bottom line is this: The Supreme Court has now found that the right to bear arms is an individual right and can be subject to regulation. The right will not be and should not be an absolute right.
To those who wanted this - you now have it, and you will also have to accept the fact that it is not an absolute right. It is no different than other rights contained in the Bill of Rights subject to restrictions. Look through the Bill of Rights and tell me if you see an absolute right.
I have no problems with gun ownership. I do have problems with those who believe it should be unrestricted and absolute. That position would elevate gun ownership to a status that no other right enjoys.
Mike:
You state:
“That being said liberals tend to believe in gun control; and I think I have a right to kill anyone that breaks into my house and threatens my family!”
Does this mean that you - as more a conservative than not - do not think there should be any controls on gun ownership? See my post above. Now that the Supreme Court has found that it is an individual right, it will be subject to constitutional limitations, just like the other rights.
Frankly, I am not sure how those who want the right to bear arms think their right should be any different than the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights which are subject to limits.
The “individual” right to bear arms now stands alongside those other rights contained in the Bill of Rights - warts and all.
And you do have the right to protect yourself in your own home. Indiana does not restrict that. I could have bought a gun after my experience with the burglar. I didn’t.
Gary:
You state:
“If those “liberal” issues, as defined by society, scare people, then by all means, say we are using scare tactics….”
I did say exactly that in my post way at the top. Here is my statement:
“The use of the word “liberal” to frighten gets really old.”
By the way, just curious, who is “we?” :)
Charlotte,
You ask good questions.
I have no problem with reasonable rights on gun owners. For example I am ok with having a 15 day waiting period to purchase a handgun. I am ok with preventing convicted felons and illegal aliens from owning guns.
I am against unreasonable restrictions on gun ownershiplike the handgun laws of Washington DC that were overturned. I also oppose the gun laws in New York City and Chicago.
Mike Sylvester
Charlotte,
You describe yourself as a pacifist. Are you opposed to all violence, or do you make certain exceptions? For example, should the government be allowed to use violence to enforce gun control regulations?
Robert:
Before I ever went to the dictionary for definitions, I knew how I felt about war and violence. Given that the words pacifist and pacifism are subject to various interpretations, here is my view. But, in trying to figure out how I felt about war and violence, I went to the dictionary to see what the words meant.
The following is the definition to which I relate most closely and to which I can most closely align my views:
1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2. a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
First, let me say that pacifism can be on a personal level (self-defense) or a global level. However, most definitions and most discussions focus on a global view of pacifism as impacted by personal beliefs.
In that sense, I am opposed to violence and war as a means of settling global disputes. In my mind, violence and war should be a last resort in resolving issues.
Of course, that triggers the question, what is a “last resort?” How long do we wait or what would the conditions need to be to classify whether it is time for a last resort to violence or war?
In my mind, very few wars are justified. They all boil down to battles over ideologies, religions, and/or territories or all three at one time since many times they are interrelated.
I graduated in 1966 from high school. Had I been subject to the draft, I would have not gone. If I could not have claimed under conscientious objector status, then I would have sat in jail rather than go to Vietnam to kill people I did not know and with whom I had no quarrel.
They were not threatening us, and the entire debacle - which claimed over 58,000 American military personnel and probably millions of Vietnamese - was born out of fear of the “domino theory” of the spread of communism.
I know the response is that it is easy for me to say that now. But I opposed the Vietnam War from the start, and it was not easy doing so living in a small, rural, conservative, white community where the war was so supported that the valedictory address the year I graduated was about “kicking a..” in Vietnam.
It reminds now of the macho quote by Bush about “bring it on.” Wars are not video games or shoot-outs at the OK corral. These are human beings we are dealing with, many of them innocent victims in these wars.
The invasion of Iraq was not justified, and neither will an invasion or an attack against Iran be justified. These countries are being used as pawns in a game to control the future of the Middle East.
For me to support a war, it would have to be one that is an imminent threat to our own shores and not one contrived through some convoluted explanation that some day it may be a threat.
On a personal level - which I consider an issue of self-defense or defense of others rather than pacifism - instead of buying a gun after my encounter with the burglar two years ago, I chose to use other means of protecting myself in my home.
I had a security system installed recently. I could have abandoned how I felt about guns and bought one after what was a terribly frightening experience.
I would not approve of a government using violence to enforce gun control legislation. I assume you may be referring to Ruby Ridge? If not, that incident comes to my mind as the original charge was illegally sawed-off shotguns, which would fall under the question you pose above. Or the Waco incident? Just as aside (not related to guns but to government in general), I do not support the government invading the religious complex in Texas to remove over 400 children.
The right to bear arms has now been settled as an individual right, and we will be seeing court cases on the validity of many different regulations that exist throughout the country.
Finally, I would have to say I would allow certain exceptions. I would try my best to protect my sons and grandchildren, if it became necessary. I see that issue as somewhat different since it involves self-defense rather than pacifism, in general. Self-defense is a last resort, so, yes, I would see that as an exception to my overall views of war and violence.
My views are not perfect, but I try to reconcile how I view the world with how I feel personally.
And, just as a final thought, here are a couple of sayings I used to have up on my walls at work until I was told I had to take them down:
War - what is it good for - absolutely nothing (Edwin Starr)
In the struggle of good against evil, it’s always the people who get killed (unknown)
I know my explanation will probably get picked apart, but I have attempted to explain my views in response to your questions.
John Q.
Most good poilce investigators make every attempt to “track back to manufacture” firearms used in crimes. The down fall of this is…
1. There are fewer and fewer “good” investigators.
2. The NRA seems bent on doing all it can to prevent an investigator from tracking a firearm.
As an example, at on point, not to long ago, the NRA lobby wanted to prevent the use of computers by law enforcement, to track firearms. I believe the claim was “for the preventing of government abuse”. Go Figure!
Charlotte,
I doubt I would qualify as a pacifist but I do agree with a portion of what you state. Specifically I do not trust our government to make decisions or to tell the truth on matters of war. Thus I would never agree to fight on their terms.
However, if the enemy - whoever that is - comes rolling over the Ohio border towards my neighborhood then I will gladly grab my rifle and fight. Until then I’ll just mind my own damn business…
Charlotte,
All laws are backed up by the threat of violence. Whether the law is just or not, if a person violates a law, a government employee with a badge and a gun will either issue a ticket or attempt to arrest that person. Failing to pay the fine or appear in court can result in arrest all the same.
Forcibly confining a person is a form of violence. So any law that I think should be on the books is a law that I think should be backed up with violence. Any government program I support is a program that I think people should be jailed for if they refuse to pay for it. So this is why I think there should be fewer laws and fewer government programs.
Robert:
Here is what you asked:
“Should the government be allowed to use violence to enforce gun control regulations?”
You did not ask me if they should be able to use the “threat of violence.” I see a tremendous difference in your choice of wording, and I answered accordingly.
If you ask whether they should be able to use the threat of violence, then I understand the difference. When an officer stops an individual, the chance exists that the situation may turn violent - even in the most benign situations.
Here is the definition of violence:
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.
And, yes, I do rely on the dictionary to clarify wording for me.
I answered based on the typical understanding of violence - not the threat of violence.
Also, could you explain the following statement you made above a little more?
“Any government program I support is a program that I think people should be jailed for if they refuse to pay for it.”
Are you talking about social programs, bridge programs, poor relief programs, etc.?
I probably should rephrase that. A person should not be allowed to use services that she or he refuses to pay for. If you don’t want to pay the registration fee for your car, then you shouldn’t be allowed to drive on public roads. If you refuse to pay for a government run health care plan, you shouldn’t benefit from it. As things stand now, people are required to pay for services that they do not want.
Should a person have the option of not paying and not receiving police protection? I would argue that a person who chooses to forgo police protection is legally insane and therefore not compentent to make such a decision. Therefore, all people who choose to live in a given jurisdiction should be required to pay for local police services.
Charlotte, I am not takinhg issue with your personal choice on this matter, just interjecting a philosophical point to consider.
In my opinion, the threat of force is coterminous with the use of force: Certainly every threat will probably not result in action, but eventually the proposition will be tested. And when this point comes, if the person/organization does not follow through, then the threat becomes meaningless. So, in my opinion, it does not make sense for a person to say they support the threat of force, but not it’s actual application.
Robert makes an excellent point that can be examined further. Many laws carry with them the threat of imprisonment. If you fight this imprisonment, you will have the threat of force made against you. If you ignore this threat, you will have force applied against you. Therefore, supporting laws which result in the threat or application of force against those who break them is tantamount to supporting the use of force.
I don’t think you can be considered a true pacifist if you support any laws which result in the threat or application of force. This is like a person eating a hamburger and claiming they are a vegetarian simply because they didn’t slaughter the cow themselves. The fact that they paid someone to do it for them puts the full moral responsibility for it upon them.
Personally, I think that the only way to really bring about a peaceful society is to shoot or imprison all the violent people. As for me though, I too am a pacifist and I’m willing to fight anyone who says differently!
Something else to consider. I had a professor onc who loved to tell stories about his experiences in Vietnam. He claimed that he served with a man who was a cntientous objector. He did not object to taking risks, just to killing other people. He would go on patrol without a gun, and if someone fell he was the one who ran out to pull them in.
So a question arises here. Can this person be considered a true pacifist? He has to know that many of the guys he saves will go back to kill more of the enemy. Is this the same as loading the rifle and handing it to the person shooting, knowing full well what is going to happen?
Some people do have a healthy aversion to violence, though I wouldn’t consider it healthy if you are serving in a war zone. They quite understandably could not bring themselves to hurt anyone, but will vote for candidates who are perfectly willing to send troops into combat. Every president elected in our lifetimes has sent men into battle. It is possible to acknowledge violence as justified or necessary, but refuse to participate on the grounds that it simply isn’t your cup of tea.
Phil:
First, let me separate your comments.
I answered Robert’s question in the context he asked and that was about the use of violence not the threat of the use of violence. While I understand that the threat of violence is backed up with the potential that it may turn into actual violence at some point, as you noted, not all encounters result in the use of violence.
The threat of violence is not coterminous with violence; it is separate and distinct. The two cannot co-exist in the same action. The threat of violence and the actual use of violence can be seen as analogous to attempts at certain crimes and the completed crimes. For instance, an assault is creating reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact.
When the contact has been completed, the assault merges into the completed crime of battery. In Indiana, the assault is called “attempted battery” and the completed action is the “battery.” Although generally attempts merge into the completed action, exceptions do exist. For instance, in Johnston v. State, 578 N.E.2d 656 (1991), the Indiana Supreme Court found that there was sufficient time between the two attempts before the murder was actually committed to allow the defendant to be convicted of two attempts and the murder of Victor Cooley (a Fort Wayne case, by the way).
Legally, assault and battery are different just as, to me, are the “threat” of the use of violence and the actual “use” of violence. Either you threaten the use of violence or you use violence – you cannot do both at the same time.
Those who follow pacifism fall along a spectrum of belief which includes those who do not support violence of any sort used against individuals domestically or internationally.
The definitions again that most closely match my views are:
1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2. a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
As I noted, pacifism most generally is brought into discussions in relation to violence between nations. The definitions reflect that focus.
If you wish to include in a discussion of pacifism whether or not I believe and support the rule of law - such that has been put in place by the federal government and the state governments - then I support the use of imprisonment, the threat of the use of violence, and the use of violence to curtail or deal with violations of law.
If I did not support the rule of law, would I not be supporting some form of anarchy? As you and Robert both noted, laws don’t have much force if the use of violence or its threat are not attendant with their imposition.
As to your analogy to vegetarianism, it is not accurate. Vegetarians have one absolute – not eating meat. Some eat eggs and/or dairy products, but a true vegetarian does not eat meat. The very act of eating meat – no matter who kills the animal – removes the individual from the realm of vegetarianism.
However, the support of some forms of force to enforce laws does not remove a person from belief in pacifism since a range of pacifistic views exists.
Phil:
On the professor issue, it would seem that someone who is a pacifist would not want to be in a war zone, but I don’t know that they had a choice in the past.
Pacifism is a belief, but the choice to be a conscientious objector flowing from that belief is one that had consequences.
I believe during the Vietnam War, that some conscientious objectors were sent to Vietnam in noncombatant roles. Being a conscientious objector did not get the person off the hook as to service.
I would think that in the all-volunteer military that the same issues would not arise that existed during the Vietnam era.
Robert:
I doubt we will ever have the opportunity to elect someone to the presidency who will not send troops into battle or a conflict situation.
I guess I am a realist in the sense that while I may not believe war is the answer, I know that to hope that we will settle disputes peacefully is an idealistic belief. Maybe that is why “Imagine” is one of my favorite songs.