Like you and me, only better
A while back, I mentioned the case of three Illinois police officers and a doctor who were busted for illegal possession of machine guns. Well, here’s the latest:
Ten years in prison would be excessive punishment for three state police officers accused on weapons charges, according to a letter issued Tuesday by top police officials and two state senators.
The letter was signed by 10 current police chiefs, two county sheriffs, the two senators and a retired police chief. The three troopers were charged last month with violating federal firearms regulations by having illegal submachine guns at their homes.
“We do not see how the citizens are made safer by placing these troopers in jail,” the letter states. “Discipline may absolutely be in order; however, to federally prosecute them and with a possible jail term is not the answer.”
If you break the law, you break the law. Even if it’s a law I don’t happen to like. That said, no special treatment should be given to them. Also, this article doesn’t mention the doctor. I wonder if he received a nice little letter like that?
February 9th, 2006 at 12:55 am
Maybe they could just ditch the federal law altogether for you me and them, that way they’d get the cops off the hook and all of us poor civies ta-boot.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:11 am
Yes; the law is the law. But when a law violates a higher law it should not have the respect that a legitimate law would. The NFA is perhaps the easiest of federal firearms laws to show conflicts with the 2nd amendment. Hell, it’s a regulatory measure passed under the guise of taxation & it directly limits the militia’s ability to own & possess suitable arms for their intended purpose.
But I’m not saying these cops should be let off, I’m saying these cops, Mark Lancaster, an elderly french immigrant with more courage than the entire NRA B.O.D. & the thousands of others in jail for daring to hold a piece of metal too short, too quiet or that fired too effectively per each trigger pull should not only be released but apologized to by every government jerk off from the arresting cop to Bush for having their civil rights violated under the pretense of law.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Hey, what about if these guys get found guilty, then appeal.
If it goes all the way to the USSC, perhaps the 1986 NFA would be declared unconstitutional!
That would be a sweet, ironic victory, no?
(heh – to have cops be the ones that initiated the removal of that law – how funny.)
February 9th, 2006 at 11:54 am
The letter was signed by 10 current police chiefs, two county sheriffs, the two senators and a retired police chief. The three troopers were charged last month with violating federal firearms regulations by having illegal submachine guns at their homes.
Those same people would have been condemning someone like Mark Lancaster because he’s merely a civilian…yet the same “laws” were broken.
This post is definitely deserving of the “like you and me only better” title.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
“Yes; the law is the law.”
True, unless it is not the law; having the appearance and form of a law is not sufficient — it must also not conflict with the Constitution. Failing to abide by such non-laws may have unpleasant consequences when thugs such as the BATFE exercise raw power without authority but that does not impose a moral obligation on ANYBODY to comply — just a pragmatic one.
Aside from pragmatic issues, I will defer to the writings of judges from a time when the u.S. Constitution carried a little more weight:
* 16AmJur 2nd, Sec. 177: “An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but wholly null and ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute, and no courts are bound to enforce it.
* 16AmJur 2nd, Sec. 178: “Constitutional law. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. An unconstitutional law is void. It imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. An unconstitutional law cannot repeal or supersede any existing valid law. An unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing valid one. The general principles stated above apply to the Constitution as well as to the laws of the several States. Moreover, the construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with the Constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had been enacted in conflict therewith.”
February 9th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
No, since police are already exempt from such laws as speed limits (as long as they stay within about 10-15 mph of the posted maximum), illegal fireworks possession and use (it was always a great 4th of July if you went to a friend’s house if his dad was a cop who had been out confiscating from other kids), and spousal abuse (if you believe watch you see on TV) then there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be cut some slack on this.
Besides, they’re the only ones professional enough to be trusted with guns.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
August 31st, 2006 at 8:41 am
[…] Constitutional rights are apparently tricky and complex, if the defendent is a police officer. A while back, I noted a case where some Illinois police officers were charged with illegal possession of machine guns. Here’s the latest: Charges that an Illinois State Police sergeant illegally possessed a machine gun were dismissed Wednesday by a federal judge, who ruled that the law was “unconstitutionally vague” as applied to him. […]