What due process of law?
Football players carry permit revoked over allegations of a fracas.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 8th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Remember they are Anti-Freedom, not Anti-Gun.
December 8th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Remember it’s the NRA goons who demand CCW-permit systems and give cover to milquetoast pols who stand against free exercise of Natural rights.
December 8th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Now, wait a moment.
There WAS due process of law here. We may not like it, but the entire process is legit.
If I’m reading the story right, this happened in Alabama, right? Alabama is legally a “May Issue” state, and the Sheriff of the county has the authority to issue a permit or not at his discretion. Likewise, he can yank a permit at his discretion for any reason whatsoever. The Alabama legislature delegated this discretionary authority to the county sheriff.
We may not like it, but the Sheriff is well within his authority to do as he did.
I’m all for Constitutional Carry, but Alabama ain’t one of those states. Until the law changes, this guy got due process exactly as established by the People’s representatives in the legislature.
I’d say this might be a good time to move forward to an Alabama Shall Issue campaign, on the way to Constitutional Carry.
December 8th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Ignoring the problem I have with requiring a permit in the first place, it’s actually pretty standard to revoke or suspend someone’s permit if they have assault charges pending. If he’s not convicted (or is convicted/pleads to a non-disqualifying charge) he can re-apply and get a new permit. Virginia does the same thing, and it’s actually written into the CHP statute (Va. Code §18.2-308(J2)), though that’s just a suspension, not a revocation. Like in this case, you can get it back if you’re not convicted.
December 8th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Mike is correct; “due process” means the process due by law – not whatever process we’d prefer.
It isn’t yet so that concealed carry is legally protected at the Federal level (no matter what Bug demands, or how nice it’d be if it was) and thus there’s no due process violation in a may-issue state with that revocation mechanism using it.
It’s stupid and should be changed, but “due process” is a legal discussion, and the legal term means what it means, not what we want it to mean.
(Also, between arrest and conviction, one can be in jail, or released on bail with requirements about not leaving the area; this is not a due process violation either, despite “freedom of movement” being a legally protected right, and “natural law” as well.
Jake’s explanation covers that handily; I don’t know that it’s an ideal solution, but it can’t be a due process violation to pull his permit if putting him in jail pending trial or restricting his movements isn’t…)
(Per Bug’s claims, remember that “natural law” would equally be satisfied by open carry.
“Natural law” will get you “meaningful self defense”, and no more – you can’t derive your particular favored mode from it.
You can make moral and prudential arguments for it, but just saying “natural law!” is not going to work, even with people who – like me – think that every peaceable man should be able to carry a concealed machinegun at will.
And of course, the problem with a natural law argument is explaining why a repeat violent felon with no signs of reform can’t be armed – or, if you think natural law demands he have arms, getting anyone to respect your claims. If natural law leads to the latter, people will simply reject natural law arguments.)
December 8th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
If a college shooter parties too hard, they revoke his football permit. So, you know, fair’s fair.
December 8th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
INcorrect. The constitution does not say “shall not be infringed- unless some jerkoff with a badge says otherwise”