Who needs rights anyway?: So lawyers - prosecuting lawyers - don't care if a law is constitutional. They don't care if a law is just. It is just easier to lock up people they want to lock up with the law.
The subject is of course the DC gun rights case. And the police stater is a lawyer, Jennifer Collins. Not just any lawyer.
As a former assistant U.S. attorney in D.C., I've been following the case with interest.She liked the law. It let her roust people out without having to actually prove they did anything wrong. (Aside from having a gun - that little thing like the 2nd Amendment shouldn't stand in the way of a good police state.)
I think it's worth acknowledging the primary functions of the law as it's used by prosecutors in DC: the gun ban is both a preventive detention statute and an intelligence-gathering tool. ... These functions may not be relevant to the question whether the statute is constitutional, but it's worth acknowledging that invalidating the gun ban will surely have a tremendous impact on crime-fighting in the District.Yeah, if the gun ban is overthrown, crime fighters (so-called) will have to obey the Constitution. Or at least a part of it.
Or as Sharp as a Marble sums up:
Got that? Here's a former prosecutor who (a) doesn't care if it's constitutional or not (b) knows that the gun ban does nothing to decrease gun crime but makes a nifty tool to imprison people for (c) HAVING A PERCEPTION OF BEING VIOLENT.So you can be imprisoned for the government's perception of you - not anything they really have to prove. Like maybe they perceive you have radical views. Much easier to have a police state if little things like justice, and freedom and proof don't enter into it. Whatever is needed for Law Enforcement is the guiding principle. Sounds like a recipe for tyranny to me.