In the wake of the Tucson massacre, you would have thought we could have a dialogue about extended magazine clips, which were illegal until George Bush let the assault weapons law expire in 2004. There is no reason any non-law enforcement would need such a weapon.
Here we are again, and we can’t even review the “Stand Your Ground” law, which was misapplied by the Sanford Police Department. If the police work under the misconception that the law means you can shoot anyone and claim self-defense and they can’t arrest you, can’t we admit that we have a problem?
What will it take?
There is no tragedy big enough to push back against the NRA. What’s to stop another tragedy like this? What comfort can citizens take when the police misapply the law or have been misled
about its intentions and nuances?
The co-sponsor of the law said that it does not prohibit the police from arresting George Zimmerman, but he derided the notion that it needed to be reviewed.
This law fell down in its writing, passage, and implementation. It is misused and was written poorly to allow such misuse, but we can’t get a review of it.
Of course, there will be the usual screams about the second amendment, as if that were the only right granted to us and as if it were the only sacred amendment.
What about Trayvon Martin, Gabby Giffords, Christina Taylor Green, and many more? What about their rights? Are we going to swallow that the second amendment is so precious that we can’t discuss reviewing a gun law?
It is not so sacred that it should never be weighed against the other rights of citizens. Furthermore, gun rights do not grant the right to be a vigilante. No one has that right; and to argue so is to stand against the rule of law.
If someone is against the rule of law, they can hardly take honest refuge in the second amendment.
Via Politicus USA.