LTE as published by SF Examiner 12/25/03

Discussion
1

It looks like they chopped off about 60 percent of my letter (see original below), however I can't really blame them for leaving out what they did in this case. The omitted section was promoting a book and various websites and talking about writing the letter on Bill of Rights Day, which was long past by the time they published it.

  The reason it had all that material in it is that I began this as a letter to the reporter who wrote the story. I'll often try to communicate directly with reporters in order to educate them on libertarian issues. After sending it to her, I just made a couple very minor alterations to what I'd written and resent it as a letter to the editor. Thus it has a bit more of a personal tone and is probably a bit more disjointed than would have been the case if I'd started out writing a letter to the editor from the get-go.

  I note that they did not contact me to confirm authorship. By the way, I hope you all had a merry Christmas, if you celebrate that holiday (hell, even if you don't), or solstice, or whatever else you may celebrate... I'd hate to leave anyone out, but I also dislike the blandness of "happy holidays," and don't really like reciting the list of Xmas, Hanukkah, Solistice, and Kwanzaa either. Another modern dilemma. Anyway, best wishes to all of you who are fighting for freedom in these interesting times.

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

Letter as published:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/templates/story.cfm?displaystory=1&storyname=122503op_letters
Keep gun shows

THE EXAMINER recently reported that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors is trying to stop gun sales at the Cow Palace ("Cow Palace gun shows under fire," Dec. 12).

This would be a tragic and senseless move, because guns save lives. Shutting down gun shows and forcing legitimate gun dealers out of business has the effect of preventing ordinary people (especially poor people living in dangerous neighborhoods) from having access to the means to protect themselves.

It has been shown that there is a correlation between strict gun control laws and high rates of violent crime. Criminals are more likely to think twice about attacking someone if they know the person may be armed.

You certainly can't count on the police to be there when you need them. In some cases, the police may even be the problem.

That's what led the Black Panthers to carry guns during the 1960s. And gun control has been notoriously unsuccessful at keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

Starchild

San Francisco

2

Dear Starchild;

The sentiments of guns to protect your life when your home is invaded is true. The battle
about the gunshow was brought about by the two Muni bus shooting incidents between rival teenage gangs. The one incident left wounded passengers and the other left a dead innocent teenager. The dead teenager was not even a member of either gang.

I don't know the answer to these questions but here are the questions. How do you make it possible for RESPONSIBLE ADULTS to buy and own guns for their home protection yet keep those same guns out of the hands of teenagers? How do you stop criminals from buying and owning guns?

I am a gun owner with a 12 gauge shot gun loaded with 00 buckshot. Anyone who invades my home is in for a world of hurt. I also do not have to worry about pinpoint aiming. Just point the barrell in the general direction of the perp and goodbye home invader. Unlike a 9mm or .45 cal. pistol round going through several apartment walls and half way across town. Also the unmistakeable KERCHINK sound of a shotgun round being loaded is enough to get a home invader running in the opposite direction.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

P.S Peace and good wishes for all for a New Year without any speedbumps in your road.

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
It looks like they chopped off about 60 percent of my letter (see
original below), however I can't really blame them for leaving out what
they did in this case. The omitted section was promoting a book and
various websites and talking about writing the letter on Bill of Rights
Day, which was long past by the time they published it.

The reason it had all that material in it is that I began this as a
letter to the reporter who wrote the story. I'll often try to
communicate directly with reporters in order to educate them on
libertarian issues. After sending it to her, I just made a couple very
minor alterations to what I'd written and resent it as a letter to the
editor. Thus it has a bit more of a personal tone and is probably a bit
more disjointed than would have been the case if I'd started out
writing a letter to the editor from the get-go.

I note that they did not contact me to confirm authorship. By the way,
I hope you all had a merry Christmas, if you celebrate that holiday
(hell, even if you don't), or solstice, or whatever else you may
celebrate... I'd hate to leave anyone out, but I also dislike the
blandness of "happy holidays," and don't really like reciting the list
of Xmas, Hanukkah, Solistice, and Kwanzaa either. Another modern
dilemma. Anyway, best wishes to all of you who are fighting for freedom
in these interesting times.

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

Letter as published:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/templates/
story.cfm?displaystory=1&storyname=122503op_letters
Keep gun shows

THE EXAMINER recently reported that the San Mateo County Board of
Supervisors is trying to stop gun sales at the Cow Palace ("Cow Palace
gun shows under fire," Dec. 12).

This would be a tragic and senseless move, because guns save lives.
Shutting down gun shows and forcing legitimate gun dealers out of
business has the effect of preventing ordinary people (especially poor
people living in dangerous neighborhoods) from having access to the
means to protect themselves.

It has been shown that there is a correlation between strict gun
control laws and high rates of violent crime. Criminals are more likely
to think twice about attacking someone if they know the person may be
armed.

You certainly can't count on the police to be there when you need them.
In some cases, the police may even be the problem.

That's what led the Black Panthers to carry guns during the 1960s. And
gun control has been notoriously unsuccessful at keeping guns out of
the hands of violent criminals.

Starchild

San Francisco

3

I don't know the answer to these questions but here are the questions. How do you make it possible for RESPONSIBLE ADULTS to buy and own guns for their home protection yet keep those same guns out of the hands of teenagers? How do you stop criminals from buying and owning guns?

I'm guessing the answer is "it can't be done". I'll happily settle for that responsible adults may ALSO be able to get guns.

Dear Everyone;

There they go again. The Supremes have made another decision which
will give the police additional unwarranted liberties to arrest
innocent victims. The rational of guilty by association behind this
new decision is extremely suspect and a case in point involves the

DEA.

This one seems pretty reasonable to me. Aside from the drug legality issue of course. But let's say you find a dead body in the trunk and all occupants deny knowledge of it. Do you (a) let everyone go, (b) arrest the driver only, or (c) arrest everyone in the car?

Remember that being arrested does not mean you are guilty. All arrested people are considered innocent until convicted of a crime.

4

Dear Lars;

In part Lars said; Remember that being arrested does not mean you are guilty. All arrested people are considered innocent until convicted of a crime.

Not necassirly so. There is the teenage gang law passed by California voters that makes a teenager guilty by association with a teenage gang. And liable to be tried as an adult.

As far as being considered as guilty until proven innocent. Please explain the property seizure laws enacted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court which allow the seizure of property if drugs are supposedly involved. This is seizure by suppostiion without a trial. If you can prove at trial that the seized property was not involved with drugs you may eventually get the property back. As in fat chance.

Any law or step designed to take away any facit of any civil liberty in the name of the war on crime or the war on drugs is a loss of civil liberties and who knows where that will stop?

Ron Getty

SF Libertarian

Lars Petrus <lars@...> wrote:

I don't know the answer to these questions but here are the
questions. How do you make it possible for RESPONSIBLE ADULTS to buy
and own guns for their home protection yet keep those same guns out
of the hands of teenagers? How do you stop criminals from buying
and owning guns?

I'm guessing the answer is "it can't be done". I'll happily settle
for that responsible adults may ALSO be able to get guns.

Dear Everyone;

There they go again. The Supremes have made another decision which
will give the police additional unwarranted liberties to arrest
innocent victims. The rational of guilty by association behind this
new decision is extremely suspect and a case in point involves the

DEA.

This one seems pretty reasonable to me. Aside from the drug legality
issue of course. But let's say you find a dead body in the trunk and
all occupants deny knowledge of it. Do you (a) let everyone go, (b)
arrest the driver only, or (c) arrest everyone in the car?

Remember that being arrested does not mean you are guilty. All
arrested people are considered innocent until convicted of a crime.

5

Any law or step designed to take away any facit of
any civil liberty in the name of the war on crime
or the war on drugs is a loss of civil liberties and
who knows where that will stop?

Ron Getty

Ron - As a former victim of police brutality and
wrongful arrest (I was driving in the 'wrong'
neigborhood at 3am, 3 blocks from my home), I can
certainly relate to this issue.

On the other hand, I don't see what is so earth
shattering about this ruling. As it stands now,
probable cause is so subjective on behalf of the
arresting officer, one can be arrested for not wearing
a seatbelt, jaywalking or a litany of other minor
offensives we all commit every day.

I think the real answer here is to repeal drug laws,
not to expect police to witness someone holding a
smoking gun before they can make an arrest.

David

6

Dear David;

I also agree Drug Laws should be repealed. However, the likelihood of that happening is zero. What you get are the police in their War on Drugs producing statistics like the following from the FBI crime reports. Some 720,000 marijuana arrests for simple possession. Some 650,000 arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

Radically skewed and twisted figures created by the War on Drugs and the federal tax dollars being sent to the states and local comunities to enforce the War on Drugs.

The smoking gun should apply to those who directly possess not passengers who were in the wrong car at the wrong time. Police should not be making arrests because they believe someone in the car could maybe, possibly, probably, potentially could be a drug dealer or possession for probable drug dealing. Then apply that to everyone in the car. They do need to be just a little bit more specific in why they are doing what they are doing and not just based on probabilities.

The ruling may be another arrow in the quiver of law enforcment but it is also another arrow in the heart of everyones civil liberties.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Any law or step designed to take away any facit of
any civil liberty in the name of the war on crime
or the war on drugs is a loss of civil liberties and
who knows where that will stop?

Ron Getty

Ron - As a former victim of police brutality and
wrongful arrest (I was driving in the 'wrong'
neigborhood at 3am, 3 blocks from my home), I can
certainly relate to this issue.

On the other hand, I don't see what is so earth
shattering about this ruling. As it stands now,
probable cause is so subjective on behalf of the
arresting officer, one can be arrested for not wearing
a seatbelt, jaywalking or a litany of other minor
offensives we all commit every day.

I think the real answer here is to repeal drug laws,
not to expect police to witness someone holding a
smoking gun before they can make an arrest.

David

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

7

Ron - I'm not sure what you arguing here. Are you
blaming the police for the war on drugs? Or are you
saying they have a duty to not uphold current drug
laws, immoral as they may be? I'm the last one here to
support their frequent dubious tactics, but at least
we can sue them for wrongful arrest and defamation -
unlike a misguided congress and court system.

So taking drugs crimes out of the equation, how do you
see a criminal justice system working without probable
cause? I assume you are not suggesting we put cameras
everywhere so that police can actually eyewitness all
crimes.

And why be so defeatist on repealing drug laws? This
has actually been a great year for the anti-anti-drug
war. I would put the likelihood of drug laws being
repealed in our lifetime much higher than the amending
of the 4th amendment to disallow probable cause based
arrests..

--- Ronald Getty <tradergroupe@...> wrote:

8

David,

  I agree that the real answer is to repeal drug laws (and all the other laws against victimless "crimes"). An arrest *should* mean that you are not considered guilty, but in practice the police treat arrestees as if they *are* guilty.

  Until these things are changed, I am in favor of limiting the power of the police as much as possible. Even if it means effectively tying their hands behind their backs (which I don't think a different ruling in this case would have done).

  As long as they can arrest people for all sorts of phony reasons, and routinely deny due process to those arrested, it is in our interest for it to be as difficult as possible to make an arrest that will hold up in court. Yes, this will mean some people who should be arrested won't be, but better that than the reverse.

  The more obvious it becomes that the police are ineffectual in stopping violent crime or getting violent criminals off the streets, the more people will be motivated to take responsibility for their own protection, and that will do much more to reduce real crime than empowering the police at the expense of our constitutional rights ever will.

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

9

Dear David;

Nope not blaming the polizei for War on Drugs or their being
compelled to arrest the drug dealers. It is the unbalanced use of
those police powers.

Look at the property seizures allowed under the drug laws and upheld
by the courts. The laws when enacted were purportedly designed to go
after major drug dealers. Yet who are the ones most often nailed?
The small time street corner type of drug dealer because they are
easier to nail. The result is still seizure of property without a
trial to show innocent until proven guilty.

Look what happens when a drug dealer is caught and rolls over on
their pushers or other small time street corner habitues. The drug
dealer is out in a couple of years the small timer is doing hard
time.

On the matter of probable cause the 4th Amendment clearly states in
its entirety:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, in their
houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.

This Amendment has been vastly stretched beyond what the Framers of
the US Constitution ever thought could possibly happen. With the
acquiesence of the courts. The uses of probable cause have gone
beyond getting a Warrant first then going after the perp.

Yes the Drug Wars has taken a couple of hits lately. The latest
court ruling confirming what a physician can now tell a patient
about medical marijuana is a good example.

But complete repeal is not likely anytime soon. Decriminalization of
some aspects of the Drug Laws is more likely.

It is like the battle in Congress when physicians wanted to get
authorization for using more extreme pain killing drugs for patients
with terminal cancer to prescribe "drug cocktails ". Congress failed
to act because no member of Congress wanted to appear weak on drugs
when they would be running for re-election. Too bad about the
patients dying from cancer sacrificed for a bid for re-election.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, David Rhodes <dfrhodes@y...>
wrote:

10

Starchild - I find your post interesting for several
reasons...

First of all, I'm a Libertarian and not an anarchist,
so there's probably not any point in going into
whether the role of criminal justice is a legitimate
function of government or not.

Secondly, whether or not internal policing is a public
or private, I'm not sure how that impacts the concept
of probable cause. For instance, if I make a citizen's
arrest of you because I suspect - beyond a shadow of
a my doubt - that you committed a crime, at the end of
the day it will be based on my subjective judgment.
Once we get into the courtroom, a judge or jury would
decide actual findings of fact at that point. They may
even decide my prior judgment for the arrest was
unwarranted, which would open me up to potential
litigation from you. The real question is - is there a
way around this problem in ANY known political system?
Pre-cogs.. ala Minority Report ? I'd really be
interested in any ideas that address this. Everything
is always so crystal clear in hindsight. Maybe I will
re-read some Nozick and Bastiat...

Additionally, I don't prescribe to the philosophy of
"Since the current solution to issue X is impractical,
non-functional or failing in practice we need to
invoke forceful government counter-measures to make up
for it". This was essentially the same reason I argued
against legalizing gay (government)marriage and I
suspect prescribing to this philosophy is an
underlining characteristic of a left-libertarian. For
the record, which I think is important now that I am
running for office on behalf of the LPSF, I see myself
as an incrementalist, center-libertarian. In short, I
believe in incrementally downgrading the level of
force used by government in a utilitarian fashion. I
don't prescribe to countering government force per
instance, in an affirmative action sort of way (or
fighting fire with fire) or removing existing invalid
government functions all in one day.

Lastly, although I may be accused of the same
negativity that I accused of Ron G., I personally
don't think people will decide to take security
matters into their own hands when government security
has failed. In fact, they appear to do the opposite.
For example, Ashcroft has essentially enjoyed
unfettered increases in power since 9/11, not because
he took more power but because congress and their
constituents gave it it to him out of capitulation and
desperation. Even after it was clear that the CIA and
FBI had sufficient prior evidence of the attacks with
their existing level of empowerment, it was not
sufficient to stop the Patriot Act. Oddly enough, when
I lived in Texas I believed in personal responsibility
of security, which is the common texan mindset, but
now that I've been around I see how obscure this
mentality is in the rest of the world.

cheers,

David
--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

11

Ron - I don't think I disagree with any this. But if
property seizure laws are the problem, let's go after
changing them specifically..

--- tradergroupe <tradergroupe@...> wrote:

Dear David;

Nope not blaming the polizei for War on Drugs or
their being
compelled to arrest the drug dealers. It is the
unbalanced use of
those police powers.

Look at the property seizures allowed under the drug
laws and upheld
by the courts. The laws when enacted were
purportedly designed to go
after major drug dealers. Yet who are the ones most
often nailed?
The small time street corner type of drug dealer
because they are
easier to nail. The result is still seizure of
property without a
trial to show innocent until proven guilty.

Look what happens when a drug dealer is caught and
rolls over on
their pushers or other small time street corner
habitues. The drug
dealer is out in a couple of years the small timer
is doing hard
time.

On the matter of probable cause the 4th Amendment
clearly states in
its entirety:

The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, in their
houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable
searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or
things to be seized.

This Amendment has been vastly stretched beyond what
the Framers of
the US Constitution ever thought could possibly
happen. With the
acquiesence of the courts. The uses of probable
cause have gone
beyond getting a Warrant first then going after the
perp.

Yes the Drug Wars has taken a couple of hits lately.
The latest
court ruling confirming what a physician can now
tell a patient
about medical marijuana is a good example.

But complete repeal is not likely anytime soon.
Decriminalization of
some aspects of the Drug Laws is more likely.

It is like the battle in Congress when physicians
wanted to get
authorization for using more extreme pain killing
drugs for patients
with terminal cancer to prescribe "drug cocktails ".
Congress failed
to act because no member of Congress wanted to
appear weak on drugs
when they would be running for re-election. Too bad
about the
patients dying from cancer sacrificed for a bid for
re-election.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

<snip>

12

I haven't been following this thread, but the above caught my eye.
The real problem is freakin' people seizures. So long as people
are rotting in prison for drugs, related property seizures are a
very minor nuisance. Let's go after the laws that brutalize people
specifically!

13

David,

  Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm not an anarchist either. Like you, I believe criminal justice as a legitimate function of government. Therefore seeking to make it more difficult for the police to arrest actual criminals is not my ideal solution. I see it as a pragmatic approach which acknowledges the reality that giving police the tools to go after violent criminals at a time when they are abusing the rights of innocent people will result in more crime (when rights violations by government are counted as crimes, which they ought to be), not less.

  I have yet to see "Minority Report," but I think I see what you are getting at -- the difficulty (impossibility?) of avoiding the initiation of force by arresting innocent people poses a high hurdle for proponents of anarchy.

  I agree with you about the inadequacy of the philosophy of "Since the current solution to issue X is impractical, non-functional or failing in practice we need to invoke forceful government counter-measures to make up for it," but I don't understand how this is a "left-libertarian" philosophy. For example, I might consider myself in some senses a left-libertarian, but I wouldn't say that the government's failure to curb violent crime means we need to invoke forceful government counter-measures such as subjecting everyone in a vehicle to arrest based on the actions or possessions of a single occupant.

  You're correct in guessing that I'd see your conclusion on security as overly pessimistic. The Patriot Act was rammed through; it never had true popular support, and I think it will face an uphill battle for reauthorization by Congress when it expires. In the wake of government's failure to provide security on September 11, many Americans did take steps to improve their own security. Admittedly some of these steps were foolish, like sealing their homes with duct tape -- though no more foolish than some of the things government did in response such as confiscating nail clippers at airports -- but I understand that firearms sales were also up, people were buying more books on how to protect themselves from terrorism, etc.

Yours in liberty,
              <<< Starchild >>>