Re: Police & military access

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 11:23 PM -0700 5/22/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Thu, May 22, 1997 at 09:04:15PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:

>> Do police have any civil rights not endowed to a individual citizen?
>
>No.  But on the job, doing their state assigned duties, they have
>access to instrumentalities not available to private citizens or
>off-duty police.  "On" and "off" duty may sometimes be a little fuzzy
>in practice, but the principle is clear.  It isn't a big deal, and
>it's not a matter of civil rights.  A license to practice medicine
>gives you the ability to prescribe morphine.  A certain class of
>drivers license lets you drive a school bus full of children.

There is a current case involving a cop who is on the verge of losing his
ability to be a cop because he pled "nolo contendre" to a domestic abuse
charge a decade or so ago. The local law says that anyone in this situation
may not have a gun, period. Thus, now that the law has caught up with him
(no details on how and why this was not known until recently) he may not
have a gun and thus may well lose his job.

This would seem to support Jim Choate's general position. (Though I have my
own skepticism that many jurisdictions think it is true.)

I have no problem with the notion that there is no weapon, no technology
which certain government officials or police may have but which civilians
are *not* allowed to have. I don't think the Founders envisioned any such
circumstances.

The usual cited case is of private ownership of nuclear weapons. For an
interesting treatment of this, see Vernor Vinge's "The Ungoverned." I'm not
persuaded that the extreme cases of nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers
have much to do with anything. I certainly think "assault weapons" are
perfectly fine for individuals to own...even machine guns, which friends of
mine have owned.

(The Founders didn't know about nuclear weapons and biological weapons, but
they surely knew about various other deadly compounds, including deadly
poisons and the like. And yet there is no mention in the Constitution or
related papers that some of these substances may be owned by the police but
not by citizens. "Forbidden knowledge" is the relevant concept here. Of
course, what do you expect from a system which outlaws gambling but then
has the State running gambling operations?)

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."