Posts
Chapter 8 -- pps 168-170
Author's note: Kennedy and Newfoundland join the USA in 2016.
The quintessential example of the “framers intent”
that we were able to implement first in Kennedy and Newfoundland (two new US states) was in the
area of gun control. I do not in any way
shape or form disagree that the Second amendment gives the right to bear
arms. We, however, took a much more
rational rather than historical or patriotic approach to reinterpret this right
to exclude concealed weapons and all assault weapons.
Handguns and shot guns were allowed, but only under
license and permit and certainly under overall guidelines on how they should be
maintained and when they could be utilized.
Of course, in 2016 the usual rhetoric started about the rights and
freedoms of Americans but with the support of our new American citizens in
Kennedy and Newfoundland, who did not want guns in their states, we were able to
frame an argument to continue gun regulation that would not have been possible
at any other time. The initial trial
period and success of the efforts in Kennedy and Newfoundland eventually led
most of the other states to implement similar laws. Today in 2043, only Texas and Alaska have not
implemented some form of gun control.
I have been accused on occasion of not defending the
Constitution fully, but I disagree with this assessment as the Constitution was
always part of any and all discussions.
Our argument was based once again on the intent of the founding
fathers. It is pretty clear that the
right to bear arms is matched with a desire to keep unwanted military personnel
out of one’s personal premises. This was
of course the result of three guiding objectives in the 1700s. One, the British were to be fought at all
costs, two, the right to own property and the subsequent right to protect your
private property was something worth fighting for and three, the freedom to be
left alone. Of these three, I clearly
think that the second point was the one that the founding fathers were trying
to protect at the time. Let`s face it,
it was the mid-1700s and property was scarce so the point was that a homeowner
who had taken the time to develop and build a property had ever right to know
that the property could not just be taken away from them and that the use of
personal force against any usurper was appropriate. Keep in mind that the new Americans in the
1700s were trying to establish the concept of private property since they did
not have ownership rights while they had been in Europe. Also, home owners did not have to acquiesce
to any type of governmental expropriation of property. This too was a substantial structural change
by Americans who were unable to resist against the land owning classes and, in
fact, their goods and possessions as well as their private persons were
ultimately owned by their superiors while in Europe. These rights would have to be defended by force
whenever necessary by the new Americans.
Utilizing this rationale, the case was made that the use
of firearms to protect private property was universally justified but limited
to handguns. Hunting of course was a prominent
part of the culture in Kennedy and Newfoundland and that was not going to
change, so shotguns were perfectly acceptable as well. What were not welcome were concealed weapons
and assault weapons, both of which were banned and considered illegal from day
one of Kennedy’s and Newfoundland’s founding.
Personal protection on the streets was not considered a valid reason to
carry a gun.
-------------------
Three items made this approach possible.
The first, as mentioned earlier was the willingness of
our new US citizens to go along with this approach, and as I mentioned it was
actually a mandate of the new Americans joining the USA. Second, was the harsh punishments handed out
by the courts towards anyone found with a gun of any sort in their possession
without a license or hunting permit. As
well, not having your gun secured properly at home or within mobility situations,
for example, driving to a campsite, were met with exceptionally large
fines. For example, all guns during
transportation had to be unloaded, in a hard-shell gun case, in a locked
position and never in an unlocked part of the vehicle except for loading and
unloading.
The third thing was that no costs were attributed to
licensing or registering of guns. All
guns had to be registered and it was a very easy and non-bureaucratic
process. You provided your name, your
address, the gun make and model as well as the registration number on the
gun. Ammunition did not have to be
registered. If you were found with a gun
anywhere on your possession or on your property that was unregistered it was an
automatic jail sentence and then a probationary period.
If someone used a gun in the commitment of a
crime against another then the automatic jail time period was a minimum of two
years. Discharging a weapon in the
commitment of a crime carried with it a minimum sentence of ten years and if an
injury was incurred then it went to twenty years. Murder with a gun became an automatic death
penalty regardless of what the motive was determined to be. If a husband killed his wife he received a death
sentence, if someone killed an innocent bystander they received a death
sentence. Guns were not to be tolerated
under any circumstances in the execution of violent crime.
Some people at the time, considered the automatic death
penalty as particularly harsh and inhumane.
Considering of course that the death penalty did not even exist in
Canada prior to joining the US it was also a bit of a surprise. The new citizens of Kennedy and Newfoundland
though were adamant that the violence that is associated with certain parts of
US culture would not come to their states.
The new Americans associated the American violent streak in relation
mostly to the prevalence and acceptance of guns by the community at large in
the United States. They felt that harsh
deterrents were the best way to combat any infiltration of this poor part of own
US culture.
As previously mentioned, one significant problem with
the US legal system in the early twenty-first century was that all deterrence
had been removed from the system. Now, as
we know, forgiveness is a big part of the American way but as I have mentioned
many times throughout these pages, personal responsibility had to become more
of a hall mark of being an American.
This was especially so in the world of violent crime. For too long, perpetrators of violent crime
were too often able to escape appropriate justice due to a number of excuses
such as over-crowding of prisons, bureaucracy, inept legal representation,
access to superior legal representation and a myriad of other rules that were
designed to protect their right.
Being considered innocent rather than guilty was a
fine moral principle and one that I support fanatically as everyone knows. But once guilt has been established,
especially in this instance where we were referring to gun usage, punishment
needed to become very severe. The main
thing that citizens came to understand that if guns were utilized in an
appropriate manner and in the proper way then absolutely no retribution would
ever come to that person. However, when
guns because utilized in criminal enterprises then there would be zero
tolerance. It only took six months of
harsh punishments before the issues surrounding guns virtually vanished over
night in the new states. In Kennedy
there were only eight murders in the entire calendar year of 2020 and only one involved
a gun. In Newfoundland there were no
murders and only two people even got shot.
Let`s face it, the fear of actual and real punishment is really the only
option you have against a criminal as they have already demonstrated the they
are not committed to societal norms and expectations.
Also, as I mentioned earlier I am not opposed to more
harsh sentences for people under-taking wrong-doing, especially in relation to
violent crime. The lack of personal
accountability and the ridiculous tone of the legal profession made prosecution
of violent offenders almost impossible in the early part of the century. I felt very strongly that this had to change
and I fully supported the desire of Kennedy and Newfoundland to not only impose
the death penalty but to utilize it.
No comments:
Post a Comment