Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
So if any act by this new office subjects anyone in America of a deprivation of their Second Amendment rights, it's a minor felony. If police are used and it results in injury, a major felony. If anyone dies as a result of the police action to deprive them of their rights under color of law, a capital crime. The Supreme Court has clarified recently that the Second Amendment is "not a second-class right," so it is entitled to these protections just as much as voting rights, civil rights, or any other rights.
The next President inclined to supporting the Second Amendment should immediately impound all their records, and send everyone who was involved in any such activity to prison. Candidates for that office ought to make clear that they intend to do so, as a prophylactic against misbehavior by those assuming these positions.
8 comments:
My move as that next President would take a different tack (possibly along with yours): I'd replace all of the incumbents with 2nd Amendment supporters, have them take serious action to mitigate gun violence, and then, at the end of my time in office, disband the OGVP with the same mechanism Biden used to create it--some strokes of my pen.
Eric Hines
The whole concept of GUN violence prevention seems odd to me. Do these people not care about those who are stabbed, bludgeoned, deliberately run over with vehicles, strangled, etc?
Clearly the real problem is violence, especially murder, rather than any particular method of same.
Clearly their real problem isn't violence, since as you say that isn't what they're interested in addressing. They're concerned specifically about guns, not violence per se, which says a lot.
A gun makes it possible to kill a lot of people very quickly. It can be used from a distance which puts the killer at less risk of being harmed himself or stopped than if he were using other methods of violence.
I do not agree with the gun control measures proposed by the Biden Administration but I can see why gun violence is perceived differently than other, more targeted and/or up-close forms of violence.
I have often thought, based on my experience in Iraq, that the United States is blessed in a way by the fact that its very bad people can turn to guns. Guns may allow for 'killing a lot of people quickly' compared to sticks or knives, but not compared to bombs (or trucks, as in the Nice, France massacre). In Iraq it seemed like every schoolchild could be pressed into manufacturing 'homemade explosive' out of fuel oil and fertilizer and so forth; lots of common household chemicals are very deadly in easy combination. A bomb can kill hundreds, certainly dozens, in an instant.
Making guns harder to acquire, were it successful, could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory. As long as they can pick up a gun they won't learn how to build an explosive or a chemical weapon, which they could do with a little research and a trip to the hardware store.
Back when *Inspire* magazine was still going, they had the article about how to make bombs with pressure cookers and other household goods. The Tsarnaev brothers put those to use in Boston. While a gun will kill people quickly, true, that sort of device causes more pain and mayhem, as well as killing a lot of people.
Firearms, in some ways, are symbols that are associated (in a positive sense) with a cultural group that the governmental elites strongly disapprove of. They assume that without the firearms, the culture will wither and die, leaving the "proper sort" of the moment. I suspect their hope would prove to be futile, based on observations over the past 40 years or so.
LittleRed1
I agree about bombs but in this country we do not see a lot of bombings. You are right that that might change if guns were outlawed.
I worked forensic units and knew about twenty murderers. None of them shot their victims. Arson, strangling, drowning - just about anything you can think of, except no shootings.
Post a Comment