Hard Cases Do Make Bad Law

Sunday, December 23, 2012

It was May 18, 1927. Thirty-eight children died in an elementary school mass murder in Bath Township, Mich. There was no Internet. The nuclear family was not yet broken. Mikhail Kalashnikov, the father of the practical assault rifle, was only 7 years old.

But there was depraved narcissism. It was the same evil found in Newtown, Conn., a week-and-a- half ago, and at both Virginia Tech and Columbine before that. For almost a century, politicians have failed to find a solution.

When evil strikes, many of us default to the government. In fact, when any issue comes before the public, we all ask our president, our members of Congress and our local politicos, "What are you going to do about it?"

Our plight is similar to that of a parent taking his child to the doctor for what the doctor truly believes to be a mild viral infection.

"My child is sick. I need some medicine to make him better," the parent laments to an overworked physician.

So the doctor prescribes an antibiotic. The pill will not make the child better, because the antibiotic will not work against a virus. Indeed, the antibiotic may be harmful because the child may develop antibiotic resistance. But it shuts up the parent, and the doctor can move on to the next patient. The medicine is prescribed.

In the midst of the virus that infected the mind of the Newtown shooter, we are that parent demanding President Obama's antibiotic. Indeed, he will prescribe it. But it will not have any more impact on the problem that created the Newtown tragedy than does an antibiotic chasing a virus.

Politicians always have an agenda mostly aimed at our freedom, our fears, and their re-election. And when we are most scared, we are most vulnerable to quick-fix schemes designed to capitalize on those fears.

After the Gulf of Tonkin "attack," a scared nation gave unlimited war powers to a president who proceeded to jump into a quagmire called Vietnam.

And, most recently, the tragedy of 911 goaded us into creating a security apparatus so invasive that it could not have been imagined by George Orwell.

Even today, the fear of falling over something Congress created called the "fiscal cliff" is giving the government an excuse to abandon what little fiscal discipline remains in our federal government in favor of a policy that raises taxes, fails to curtail spending, and prints devalued currency.

In fear over 911 terrorists, we gave up our cherished protections against unreasonable searches. Now we are asked to give up our right to keep and bear arms because a narcissist decided to become infamous.

Now, we cannot ignore the waste of innocent life in Newtown. But neither can we allow terrorists or sadistic mental defectives to define our freedoms.

"Hard cases make bad law." And responding to hard cases too quickly makes law even worse.

We cannot stop terrorism by treating law-abiding citizens as terrorists. Nor can we stop school shootings by disarming everyone in hopes that a murderer will be disarmed too. To allow a terrorist to determine how we organize air travel or to let a mass murderer determine how we conduct our schools is nothing less than surrendering our freedom to criminals.

The true job of government is to protect our liberties while neutralizing those, and only those, who abuse that liberty. And that will not be accomplished by an overnight flurry of legislation that could not have prevented tragedy anyway.

If Newtown has spurred us to any action, it should be a professional search for the root cause and cure for a worldwide public mental health problem where the strong use the weak as pawns to highlight their own narcissism.

It has been with us since 38 died at Bath, Mich., and since March 13, 1996, when 18 children were killed with 9 mm pistols in a school attack in the gun-controlled United Kingdom.

An assault weapons ban would not have helped the children then, and meaningless tokens of action will not help now.

If the lives of the children of Newtown are to have value beyond the sympathy of a nation, their experience must give us more than Orwellian laws that limit the liberty of law-abiding adults.

Robert M. Levy is chairman of the Moore County Republican Party. Contact him at Law52@prodigy.net.

More like this story

kzowens 5 months ago

Mr. Levy, you say, “Now we are asked to give up our [constitutional] right to keep and bear arms…” You know that is not true. The most that can ever happen is a return to a restriction on military assault weapons and magazine capacity. It is not an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that reasonable restrictions on firearms were consistent with the Constitution. You make such a statement purely to incite those that do not know the difference. What you say is no different from Senator Burr’s statement on his website explaining why he voted against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities treaty. He says it would have jeopardized U.S. sovereignty. He knew that was not true. No treaty can override U.S. laws. Senator Burr lies to his constituents to keep them ignorant so that he and the GOP (Grand Obstructionist Party) can more easily control them. If they could think for themselves, the indoctrinated flock would not nod in agreement with everything they say and do.

The_AnonymusProfit 5 months ago

Kzowens, I am on to take any author to task for what I perceive to be untruths, however you are the one who is not listening in this case, this is perhaps the best article my levy has written.

OldPilot 5 months ago

The Bath Township mass murder was not, repeat not accomplished with a firearm and the only comparison to the Sandy Hook mass firearm killing is that a bunch of kids, some teachers and the killers wife wound up dead. The killer secreted dynamite and pyrotol (an old fashioned incendiary/explosive made from recycled miliraty explosives) in his home, and in the school over a long period of time. He beat his wife to death, then set off the explosives at the school, then committed suicide with a rifle by shooting into a load of dynamite in ths truck. http;//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster Levy is, being charitable, mixing apples and oranges; if anyone tried to impliment such a scheme today it would be difficult if not impossible for so many reasons, not the least being the restrictions on the sale of explosives. That's why another mass killer had to build a fertilizer truck bomb used in Oklahoma City. Compare that to buying an AR-15 clone, a bunch of clips, ammo & a flack jacket, if purchased at a gun show the shooter is ready to kill, no preparation necessary. So while we are searching for a "mental health" solution and listening to NRA heel dragging "meaningful discussion" just get and keep the equiptment that makes possible fast mass firearm killings out of circulation.

kzowens 5 months ago

Mr. Profit, I have re-read Mr. Levy's column several times. I guess I'm hard of hearing, but I just do not hear what you are hearing. Would you mind giving me a hint about what you mean? Every time I re-read the column, I am more convinced that it is just another rambling column by Mr. Levy that makes me wonder why he wrote it.

skylinefirepest 5 months ago

KZ, have you read the many posts on the many articles in the Pilot website? If so, are you just continuing to argue gun control for fun? Because it's been tried and was a manifest failure. And please stop using "military weapons" in your arguments because what was used last Friday was a simple semi-automatic rifle...nothing magical and not suitable for military use. To say that it is tends to make you out either as firearms illiterate...or a liar. I don't believe you are a liar so I'm assuming you simply are not up on firearms. Banning a bunch of firearms because it's gonna make you feel good is not good politics. I'll vote against every one who votes for such legislation regardless of their party.

kzowens 5 months ago

SFP: No, I’m not up on firearms. Yes, I am a firearms illiterate, and please excuse me for using terminology that offends anyone who is at all passionate on the topic. I really don’t pay much attention to gun control. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with owning hand guns and rifles, but I don’t see any need to own assault rifles, glocks, and high capacity magazines. However, you miss my point. Mr. Levy used his column to incite his audience by telling them a lie. He says that “we are asked to give up our right to keep and bear arms.” And he knows it is a blatant lie. Congress will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER infringement on our 2nd amendment rights—although it is possible that Congress will restrict assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Keep in mind that Supreme Court has recently ruled that reasonable restrictions on firearms are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. And my point about Senator Burr is that he uses lies to mislead his constituents, not so much to incite them, but to keep them ignorant. And I think that is wrong.

Yukonjohn 5 months ago

kzowens, I could buy your argument except for one huge reason. If our military and police were reduced to owning the exact same mutions that the average citizen was allowed to own, maybe we could work something out. Well, that is never, nor should never, come to pass. We need a strong military. They need weapons of mass destruction. Having citizens owning assualt weapons almost levels the playing field. Have you recently read the founding documents? Have you read what the framers had written amongst themselves in this time? When they wrote these things, they were committing treason, punishable by death. That is how convinced they were about these issues. Please go back and re-read these documents. They are about US, overthrowing a govt. Maybe OUR govt. If you believe the Constitution, and the mindset at the time it was written....IMHO one can only see it one way. If you see it differently, by all means, get an Amendment to change it.

lpbrock 5 months ago

Once again, if you do not read the letter correctly you do not understand the point of Mr. Levy's message. He did not state the Bath massacre was done with an assault rifle, he stated it was a mass murder of elementary school children. If a person is mentally ill to the point of derangement, they will find a way to accomplish whatever evil they have created in their mind. There are many facts in the Connecticut mass shooting that need to be addressed, not the least of which is why a mother would take her son to the firing range to practice shooting a gun when she had at one point in her life requested that a neighbor babysitting her son, "never turn your back on him for a second". Where was the parental control in that situation? The other important point in this conversation is your comment that government will "never, never, never". They are doing their utmost to silence our rights due to us by the Constitution of the United States. The government is arguing every day the many elements of the Bill of Rights and how "they" feel they should interpret it. The government is in place to protect and serve the citizens of the country, not to demand what they think is best for us. There was a group of extremely intelligent and farsighted Americans who at one time in our history made the effort to protect their citizenry for centuries to come. It has worked through time, but is in extreme danger of collapsing by the acts of our current government. I am not a member of the NRA, but I do believe in the right to bear arms. Bearing arms by a God-loving American does not mean taking the innocent lives of babes, but rather to protect my home and family from an intruder that has no sense of right or wrong. Our faith, our values, our mental health, our ethics, and our responsibility to the right of every American to live their lives without fear are the basics of society that have been lost over the decades. These are the root of the problem with our society. By the end of this writing, I will have once again honored another of those rights given to us by our forefathers: the freedom of speech. May God bless the USA.

njc17 5 months ago

Here again some of you miss the point. Mr Levy is merely stating the obvious, that in times of national tragedy, a concerned citizenry will automatically turn to an overreacting and overreaching government for tourniquets or bandaids to solve a problem that is misdiagnosed. I think he made a solid and astute point wherein the diagnoses must lie with the state of the mental health of an overwrought nation facing a myriad of fiscal and social issues, which are not easily solved, and a government not responding with wisdom.

Devout_Heretic 5 months ago

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is so that citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government. As such, they need to have similar weapons to those that the government has. Witness the problems in Syria, whose citizens are massively outgunned by the current regime.

If we had the jet fighters, I'd feel more comfortable. I still want my large magazines.

The problem is what to do when crazies decide to seek publicity (and usually get it from the media, in spades). Is the problem with the gun, or is it with the crazy person.

I will put all my guns in the center of the table, and unless someone picks one up, they aren't going to hurt a soul. Try it.

kzowens 5 months ago

WDD: NO, NO, NO! A treaty does not become a U.S. LAW. A treaty does not over rule laws passed by our Congress, nor does it infringe upon our sovereignty of the United States.

Statements like yours are precisely why I get upset at our Senator Burr and the Chairman of the Moore County GOP for lying to the public. They would better serve the People by educating them instead of telling them lies. They know the truth but do not want you to know it because, if you did, you might not blindly follow.

dustyrhoades 5 months ago

For someone who claims to love the Constitution, wdd seems to know little about it.

Go read Article VI, Section 2, wdd, before you embarrass yourself further,

skylinefirepest 5 months ago

kz. we keep on talking about these nasty assault weapons...the military has them, law enforcement has them, ordinary citizens DO NOT. They are semi-automatic rifles, different from hunting rifles in power ( less power ) and looks only.

packwilleat 5 months ago

So how did we get to the Supremacy Clause? And how did we misinterpret what it says??............

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/december08/Article_267.php

Yukonjohn 5 months ago

DR, I have a question. This is not a "set up". I re-read Article 6 sec 2. How do you interpret the obvious conflict with the 10th Anemdment? As you know, the 10th affirms States Rights, but there is the supremecy clause in Article 6. Just curious what your opinion is on this.

Merry Christmas on this most beautiful night. Santa will be able to get down that way tonight after all. We thought it was possibly going to be too cold for him to make it. I had the butcher at the grocery store, a long-time Alaskan, as me...."what is the difference between a caribou and a reindeer?" I said "Well, you know that there is little difference between the two." He says "caribou cant fly". LOL Have a safe, beautiful Christmas eve.

Comments No Longer Accepted