I recently had a discussion with a friend and former colleague, a retired police officer. I am planning on retiring at the end of June, 2001, and we often meet and discuss life after police work. In our latest discussion, he said something that struck me. He commented on a recent Oregon court ruling (Gatti) in which all undercover operations in Oregon have been either drastically scaled back, or stopped outright. He said; "Criminals have become a protected class in Oregon."
In "Gatti," an attorney posed as a doctor and telephoned the other party in a civil law suit. The court not only ruled that was improper, the court also said any attorneys who practice to deceive, may be dis-barred. The ruling has sent shock waves through the Oregon legal profession. Prosecutors can no longer give advise on deceptive activities of police officers, for fear of dis-barment. Since it would be foolish to begin a major undercover investigation without the advise of a prosecutor, many investigations have simply stopped. I have one such case assigned to me, where an AIDS patient is meeting kids in chat rooms and later meeting them for sex. Normally I would work with the FBI to covertly contact the suspect, pretending to be a kid and arranging for a meeting for the purpose of sex and remove this vermin from the street. Because most (if not all) FBI Special Agents are also attorneys, they too fall under "Gatti". The criminal society in Oregon is having a field day.
What has this got to do with the Second Amendment?
"Gatti" is a prime example of the courts exceeding their authority and legislating from the bench. Instead of chastising one attorney for his mischief, he imposed his pro-defense leanings statewide. It is one more example of activist judges sanctioning criminal behavior and eroding the safety of our society.
Because of such judges legislating from the bench, the rights of victims have been further eroded, in favor of the rights of criminals. I can not pretend there is anything remotely close to justice any longer. It is all about attorneys making money, and political activism. My attitude lately is becoming; Just work the case, push the paper, collect my wages and keep my nose clean for 7 more months.
I am no longer counseling victims that there is any hope the guilty will be punished. A criminal getting off on a technicality was once the exception, now it is becoming the rule.
I (we) can no longer tell victims that acts of revenge are rare. In today's drug & gang infected society, acts of revenge are commonplace. I (we) have to look them in the eyes and tell them they are on their own for protection. Our culture has so stigmatized firearms, when I suggest they arm themselves, I am met with horrified disbelief. They have been so corrupted by our media, all guns are now thought to be bad. They can not believe a police detective would actually suggest the police can not protect them.
As I write this, we still do not know who our next president will be. One thing is clear, however. If Al Gore is sworn in, he will waste no time in working toward the disarming of private citizens. Oh sure, during the campaign he said "hunters and sportsmen" do not need to worry about losing their guns. He said all he wants to do is have "common sense" registration and licensing. (I could go on at length about that, but for the sake of brevity, I will not.)
Mr. Gore, nowhere in the Constitution are "hunters & sportsmen" mentioned. The Second Amendment is not about hunting! Using his own words, there is "No controlling legal authority" to support his claim about sportsmen being protected. Some in the anti-gun movement have declared any bolt action rifle with a scope, is a "sniper rifle." Still think your deer rifle is safe?
Maybe I'm just now catching up with reality and maybe I've been blind all these years, but I used to believe in the concept of justice. No longer. It is up to individual citizens to defend themselves, because the state is failing to protect them, by not punishing the guilty. That may not be an option much longer, as the state slowly takes away the means for self defense, one step at a time, under the guise of "common sense gun safety laws." One need look no further than England to see the effects of total gun control and "common sense gun safety laws." Britain was once hailed as the epitome of civilized society, where even the police officer on the beat need not be armed. Not so any longer. Many beat cops in large cities in Britain are now being issued firearms. Gun crime has sky rocketed since the last major piece of "common sense gun safety laws." The crime rate in the UK has now surpassed that of the USA. In Britain, if a citizen uses a firearm for self defense, no matter how well justified, he is guilty of a crime.
As my retirement looms ever larger, and I continue aging, I feel certain that in my lifetime I will not lose my guns. Under Oregon law retired officers are "allowed" to carry concealed. So far anyway. If a certain kind of firearm is declared "bad," as in California, or all concealed carry is outlawed, then I will most likely become a criminal, and my 34 years of public service will have been for naught. I will, by civil disobedience if necessary, keep my guns. As Mr. Heston often declares, "From my cold dead hands!" My fear is that my children and grandchildren, will not know what their rights are, because of the dumbing down of our schools and mass media propaganda.
Rights are not something given by the state. Rights are given only by God. The state may try to legislate against gun ownership, but the rights will remain intact. God is not subject to state law.
BACK
