Above the Law

3

January 25, 2013 by Julia

I shared my opinion a while ago that Meet the Press’ David Gregory should be arrested and convicted of violating D.C. gun laws, and then we should all support his appeal.  This opinion was based on 1. the necessity of maintaining the rule of law and 2. the fact that D.C. gun laws are blatantly unconstitutional.  Well, since then, David Gregory was not charged with breaking a law that he undeniably broke (because “[p]rosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia, nor serve the best interests of the people,” which pretty much admits that the law itself does not promote public safety or serve the best interests of the people), much to my frustration.

Now, a new member of our elite liberal ruling class has blatantly violated the same D.C. gun laws, and will also apparently not be charged.  Why?  Apparently Senator Feinstein’s office got permission to display and brandish the weapons.  Seriously.  You can apparently get permission to violate laws.  This isn’t one of those “you can’t hold a parade without a permit”-style laws; as far as I could find, there is no permitting process in the unconstitutional D.C. gun laws.  You cannot apply to violate them, so any violation is necessarily illegal and prosecutable.  But wait!  If you’re a liberal Congresswoman, you apparently have access to a super special awesome permit that allows you to violate laws at will, as long as you cajole threaten ask nicely first.

Is this super special awesome permit available to the public at large?  Well, Gregory reportedly tried to get permission, and was denied–and if the media elite cannot get the permit, I think it’s a safe assumption that members of the public cannot, either.  Therefore, we have a law with no written permitting clause, which apparently has a secret permitting clause available only to (liberal?) members of Congress.

This is not the rule of law, folks.  We have a huge problem when any law has secret, unwritten sections that apply only to certain people at the discretion of the authorities.  The law must apply equally to everyone, period, end of story.  But then again, I’m just lawful good, so what do I know?  I’m not totally heroic chaotic evil neutral good like our Democrat betters.

3 thoughts on “Above the Law

  1. Stuart the Viking says:

    Selective enforcement of the law is one of the first signs of tyranny. I fear that it will only get worse from here.

    s

  2. Jake says:

    So, how would a court challenge of the law work? Say you got hauled in for having a “high-cap” magazine. No weapon to go along with it, but the law just bans the magazine itself, not whatever intention might be behind it. Could you challenge the law on the grounds that it is being predjudicially enforced, since you faced penalties but Gregory didn’t so much as get cited?

    • Julia says:

      I would love to say that’s a violation of equal protection rights, but I don’t think the Supreme Court would agree with me. The standard to prove selective enforcement is very high: the procesution must be “directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons . . . with a mind so unequal and oppressive” that the law clearly does not apply equally to everyone. (United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996)). The police/prosecutors cannot decide to arrest someone or press charges using “an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification” (Armstrong). I think it would be difficult to define the classes here; you would have to argue that the oppressed class is “everyone but media personalities and Congressmen,” which is not really a class (it’s everyone who isn’t in either of those two classes). I think the only way to even build this case would be to look at the categories for every person suspected or arrested under the magazine ban, and analyze who was prosecuted and who wasn’t, but that would be a huge project for which data may not even be available (i.e. there really won’t be many public records of people accused of crimes but not prosecuted, and there may be not records at all of people stopped on the street who were let off with a warning).

      Now, could someone make the argument? Absolutely. I’m just not sure that the law is applied oppressively often enough to count. I think it’s just as, if not more, likely that there is a racial divide in prosecution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Ministry of Nerds

We're nerds . . . who talk politics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: