Re: Trump: An Emerging Dictatorship?
by Neri on March 5th, 2018, 6:01 pm
BIV,
The length of time between the arrest or other non-adversary governmental action and the trial or hearing varies.
Where an indictment is based upon the presentment of a grand jury, the trial typically occurs at least six months after indictment, during which time the defense is allowed full discovery of the government’s case.
Where the prosecution, based upon information provided by the police, draws up the charges, a preliminary hearing is usually had within a few weeks after the filing of the charges.
Such a hearing is not intended to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant but rather to determine only if there is sufficient evidence to refer the matter for trial. However, the preliminary hearing is an adversary one in which the defendant is represented by counsel who has the right to cross-examine all witnesses presented by the state.
If the court finds in favor of the prosecution at the preliminary hearing, the trial is usually had within six months after drawing up of the formal charges.
In the case of a protection from abuse order, the adversary hearing is held within days after the husband is evicted from the marital residence. The same would be the case where guns are confiscated under a Red Flag Law.
You are right: The willingness of the president to face down the NRA is yet another example of the fact that he is a populist and not the raging reactionary that many imagine him to be.
As you know, the president has offered a plan far more favorable to immigrants covered by DACA than anything put forward by the Democrats and has been very protective of the rights of workers and those on Social Security. Yet, the blind hatred of those on the hard left continues unabated. This comes close to madness.
President Trump often expresses himself with insufficient precision, yet his meaning should be clear enough to any reasonable person who takes his comments in context. He certainly has his sexual failings as we all do but certainly no more than those found in Democrat presidents.
No one is perfect, yet, taking the good with the bad, President Trump has the potential to be a great president. Even a liberal like Dianne Finestein has conceded this. Of course, she has been punished for it by the mindless haters in her own party.
On the question of gun control, we are bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Court has decided that, based upon the right of self defense, there is a personal right to possess a firearm that does not depend on a person being a member of a state militia. However, the Court also held that this right is subject to reasonable limitations.
Because there is presently no real possibility that the Second Amendment will be abolished, we are left with the question of what is a reasonable limitation of the right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court made its decision in a case where the District of Columbia by local ordinance prohibited anyone from possessing a firearm in his home. This, they held, was an unreasonable restriction of the personal right to bear arms for self-defense.
Most state have enacted the Uniform Firearm Act, which allows the possession of a firearm in one’s home or place of business but forbids all convicted felons from possessing a firearm.
The Act allows a person to possess a firearm in an automobile or concealed on his person only if he has a license therefor as required by local law. The trouble is, some rural ordinances provide such a license to almost any non-felon--whereas, typically, it is very difficult—I would say almost impossible—to acquire such a license in large cities.
It seems likely that the Supreme Court will uphold the provisions of the Uniform Firearms Act as reasonable restrictions on the possession of firearms.
The gun extremists in the NRA have basically taken the position that they will oppose even reasonable restrictions on firearms possession on the groundless theory that this places the Second Amendment on the “slippery slope” to repeal.
A particularly egregious example of this is the NRA’s opposition to the proposal that guns be denied to suspected terrorists on the no-fly list. One can hardly imagine a more reasonable restriction on the right to possess a firearm. Yet, the NRA takes the preposterous position that a person too dangerous to be allowed to fly on an airplane should nonetheless be allowed to possess a firearm.
A closer question concerns the possession of so-called assault rifles. These weapons when used in war typically can be fired fully automatically (like a machine gun) and for this reason have a large-capacity magazine. They also have a shorter barrel but use cartridges no more powerful than those found in the typical hunting rifle.
A commercial form of this weapon is sold on the civilian market. However, in this case, the weapon cannot be fired fully automatically. That is, only one bullet at a time can be fired. It is not at all easy to convert such a gun to fire automatically. However, such a firearm retains the large magazine capacity and the shorter barrel length.
The self-defense argument in favor of the civilian possession of such a weapon runs basically as follows:
If, during times of riot, a large number of persons bent on looting, arson and deadly assaults enters a home or place of business, the persons lawfully present therein have the right to defend themselves by the most efficient means. Because they are greatly outnumbered, they will require a large capacity magazine to effectively defend themselves.
This, it is argued, was evident in the oriental quarters of Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots. For apparently political reasons, the police did not prevent the rioters from attempting to destroy oriental businesses and attempting to beat or kill their owners. However, these businessmen possessed assault rifles with which they were able to keep the rioters at bay and, as a consequence, suffered less loss of life and destruction of property than business owners in other parts of Los Angeles.
The counter argument is essentially this:
Assault rifles, because of their large magazine capacity, have the ability to kill a large number of innocent people. This makes them the weapon of choice for terrorists and the mentally deranged. Therefore, if such weapons were banned, there would be a sharp decline in the number of the mass killings that have become endemic in the United States.
Because of the Supreme Court’s decision on the right to bear arms, this is a close question that will eventually have to be decided by that court.
However, every reasonable person would agree that the provisions of the Brady Act and other laws restricting the possession of firearms should apply whether a gun is purchased at a gun show or at the shop of a licensed gun dealer.
Further, a so-called instant background check is not sufficient to make an intelligent determination of whether a particular person is qualified under law to possess a firearm. A three-day waiting period has been suggested, and this is more than reasonable.
Likewise, it is eminently reasonable to prohibit the sale of firearms to persons under the age of 21 years. Similarly, the Red Flag laws impose a clearly reasonable restriction on the possession of firearms.
The possibility that congress will actually enact such laws has been greatly enhanced with Donald Trump as president. He has said that, although he has received the support of the NRA in the recent election, he is not afraid to disagree with them where the good of the nation is concerned and has exhorted congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, not to be terrified of the NRA and to do what is best for the people.
Because the NRA knows that Trump will never agree to the emasculation of the Second Amendment, they will in all likelihood be more comfortable in agreeing with plainly reasonable limitations on the possession of firearms.
I think the NRA realize that the people are with Trump on this one and that they will likely be left out in the cold if they do not temper their position. However only time will tell.
