In a delectable twist on the Second Amendment, George Grier was recently arrested for shooting into the grass on his own lawn with an AK-47. Best of all, Mr. Grier did so in an effort to dissuade twenty or so aggressive and potentially violent young men to leave his property. Needless to say, he had not just concluded a tea party with them; they were there uninvited and illegally.
The lawyers (casuists) have already analyzed this one and suggested that a law regulating the defense of one’s own property in New York may apply here. In summary, the law is that you may only use physical force of the invader uses physical force. So if Hannibal Lecter is sitting in a chair looking at child pornography next to your playpen and two-year-old son, you’re to be very, very eloquent with him. I’m inclined to think that this sort of b—s— has exposed a law violating the Fifth Amendment as well as the Second.
It’s easy, of course, to rant in this haven’t-we-lost-all-common-sense kind of way, and so to make things difficult, I must acknowledge the counter-argument, which is more difficult to make, but actually even more common sense. To wit, as a society advances in technology, wealth, and “enlightened” (i.e. humanistic) values, it increasingly deprecates the use of force and the virile virtues – courage, independence, economy – in favor of other values – cooperativeness, social facility, wealth. This is natural, inevitable, and perhaps not even wrong. And so in a case like this, yes, it is expected that a good citizen will not create a ruckus by firing his gun, but rather wait for the police to arrive and resolve the situation. It’s almost an example of specialization of labor, that hallmark of advancement.
So what is it that we really object to, really find repugnant about this situation? It’s that a society preaches the manly virtues, enshrines them in its most sacred text, and tells its citizens that they have certain rights. Then, when in an extreme situation, when a citizen resorts to his rights in desperation, the burden falls on him to explain his reactions to a society that has arrested him on what are almost by definition trumped-up charges. It doesn’t matter whether George Grier is found guilty of reckless endangerment. For some years to come, he’ll be footing the bills for the lawyers that are necessary to defend one’s actions through the arcana and ritual that protect our lawmakers from their citizens – unless the heroic pillars of the First or Second Amendments stands up. My guess is that the ACLU will not be particularly interested in this man’s civil rights.
Wow. Those scummy liberals, weak-kneed, Second-amendment-hating, criminal-loving saps have really got you scared. How do they do it? How do the sissy liberals make all the gun-toting testosterone-overdosed he-men of the NRA pee in their pants? It’s a mystery. Especially when a righteous citizen like Grier decides to handle a problem by threatening suspected bad guys with a semi-automatic rifle. Oh wait! It’s OK to threaten people if you personally feel threatened. That is, it’s OK to threaten people when you don’t feel like waiting for the police, and when you’ve got that mean looking AK in the hall closet, all ammoed up and begging to help you defend your property against some obnoxious people who might be gang members. It’s OK to threaten when threatening is the stupidest thing to do at the time because you are heavily armed and sure to be convicted of at least manslaughter because instead decreasing the tension you are escalating it.
Gah. There is so much wrong with this piece I could fill volumes. And by the way, if it were a question of Mr. Grier’s civil liberties being violated, you can bet the ACLU would back him up. Unfortunately for him it seems more like he made a series of very bad decisions, probably prompted by that second-amendment cannon he keeps, undoubtedly for his militia duties.
Well, it’s funny that you should find so much wrong with the piece. I thought your response was perfect; the only tiny little flaw is… under what conditions could a citizen’s Second Amendment civil rights possibly be violated? In your world, capital punishment for anyone who even dared to think about guns would be just an additional guarantee of public safety, and the actual function of the Second Amendment would be reduced to similar status with the Queen of England or armpit hair.
Grier’s second amendment rights were in no way violated. You among others have conflated the right to keep and bear arms with a spurious right to threaten anyone you want to with those arms. No one suggests Grier has to give up his rifle. What they take issue with is his decision to use potentially deadly force to resolve a problem on his own. If he had loosed his attack dogs on the group the result would have been the same. If he had got into his car and driven at them it would be the same. He has no right to threaten people with deadly force unless he is being threatened. You have, and the NRA always has, chosen to make this kind of situation a second amendment issue when it is not.
I addressed this issue in the second paragraph.
Not so. You specifically mentioned the second amendment as having been violated. And I fail to see how the fifth was abrogated.
In your own words you mention that the state of NY can regulate the use of force in self defense. Regulate. It’s a judgment call. Whether the law was violated in this case is an issue for the courts to decide. Perhaps the publicity will cause the local police to be more responsive to the public. If not they can vote for a new administration with a get tough on crime policy. By a series of successive approximations the community may reach that state of nirvana where all the criminals are in prison and the gun-totin’ law-abidin’ citerzens o’ this here proud land can live in peace.
Seriously, do you trust every heavily armed stressed-out citizen to make reasonable judgments at all times? Are we all judges and if necessary, executioners?
[...] I realize that this turns some of my previous arguments in defense of the right to keep and bear arms on their head. The ignorant raving of this bunch of [...]