A guy in Massachusetts responded to Rep. Gifford’s being shot with a snide remark to the effect that that left 534 to go — something many people have said or heard in private conversation, and it probably isn’t unheard of on the Internet, though I haven’t seen any myself. Ho, hum, right?
Except that Travis J. I. Corcoran is a gun dealer owner, and Massachusetts and Fed cops descended on his store him, confiscated his stock guns, and got his ISP to “403 Forbidden” his Web site. Dustbury , Roberta X, and others around the blogosphere have taken notice, with the gun blogs in the lead (as might be expected), and it’s getting a little attention from the MSM.
Borepatch notes, inter alia:
It’s not like there isn’t a ton of case law on how the First Amendment applies to threats of political violence. Arlington will lose this, if it ever gets to trial. Post Heller and McDonald, they’ll lose even worse. Idiots.
The problem is — no, they won’t. Oh, I reckon Massachusetts and the Feds will lose the case, but neither the cops and agents who did all that nor the supervisors who sent them there will lose anything whatever. Massachusetts taxpayers, and likely general American taxpayers, will pay Corcoran some (probably large) amount of money, Corcoran’s lawyers will latch onto a goodish chunk of it, and the people who invaded an American citizen’s home and confiscated his possessions will get, at worst for them, a couple weeks suspension (with full pay) and chiding notes in their files, probably not even that — and life will go on. For them.
That’s wrong. It used to be, and ought to still be, that the people who did the damage pay the penalty. It’s still mostly true in criminal law, but civil law has been so distorted by the “deep pockets” concept that genuine tortfeasors (lawspeak for “bad guys”) who happen to be Government employees rarely lose a dime, or a minute’s sleep, over it. Employees of private businesses who lose on those grounds generally lose their jobs if the company thinks they really did the deed, but apparently Government employees can do no wrong — it’s the taxpayers who hired them (and who may be as outraged as anyone at their employees’ behavior) who end up paying. It seems to have started with Civil Rights suits in the Fifties and Sixties, but it’s metastasized.
Corcoran himself seems to be keeping his cool over the incident, suggesting that people donate to their Church instead of to him. I do have a suggestion for him, though:
Sue the bastards personally.
That is: get a list of the people who participated in the raid, whether on the ground or by ordering or supervising from the office. Sue them, each and severally, using John and Jane Doe for those the agencies won’t name, for a modest amount by court case standards — fifty grand or so, something that would be lost in the rounding errors for a Government agency but will hurt like Hell if a private individual loses it — plus a proportionate share of Court costs and lawyer fees, plus the totality of any and all amounts the individuals are compensated by their employers for their loss. Make them pay, rather than enjoying a windfall at taxpayer expense. If the agencies try to burden the taxpayers, take the money and enjoy it.
Is that possible? Damifino. I’m not a lawyer. But if it could be made to work, it would send up a red flag for cops and Government agencies everywhere — if your supervisor tells you to do something that’s unconstitutional or otherwise out of line, and you go ahead and follow the illegal order, you can be hurt, personally, in your own precious self and pocketbook, rather than getting a week’s vacation and a little praise with faint damns[1] and getting on with life as if nothing had happened.
As I said, I have no idea if it’s possible or could work. But something needs to be done to restrain the epidemic of police and Government intrusion on people’s private lives on little or no ground, and making the individuals involved personally responsible for their misbehavior would go a long way toward getting that started.
UPDATE: Commenter GuyS clarifies: Simple ownership of a firearm requires a license in Massachusetts, and Mr. Corcoran is a gun owner; the post has been edited to reflect actual conditions, with strikeouts for replaced text.
The excuse for armed intervention is that Corcoran’s tacky remarks call into question his qualifications to be a gun owner. IMAO the intervention itself calls into question the qualifications of any and all participants, direct or indirect, to participate in American citizenship, but that’s just me.
Read Can’t Hark My Cry’s comment, and weep.
[1]I am indebted to Spider Robinson for that phrase. I hope he didn’t copyright it.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
21 January 2011 at 7:43 pm
GuyS
First off, thanks for the link! Heaven knows my bit o fluff on the web, can always use a little “burma shave” on the interweb highway.
But your info above is a tad misleading. Travis was not a “gun dealer”, the license was his own personal license, required by the state of Ma, for him to be able to own firearms of his own. Something along the lines of my states direct attack on the second amendment, the FOID card (Firearms Owner Identification Card). Hope that clears things up. You might want to ask one of the Ma gun bloggers (JayG for one) the full story on that as they would be more intiment on that.
21 January 2011 at 8:32 pm
Can't hark my cry
Um. I am a lawyer, as it happens, and while civil rights is not my practice area, there is some overlap, so I have a working familiarity with it.
In general, government employees are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for acts which violate civil rights–that is, they cannot be held personally liable for the harm caused by those acts. The essential inquiry is whether the right was clearly established law at the time the government agent acted. As is true with the application of most legal standards, that inquiry sounds a lot simpler and more straightforward than it turns out to be in practice. We may think that the right to free speech is so well established that the answer is obvious, but in fact free speech jurisprudence is (again, like many areas of law) extremely nuanced. A lot depends, not just on the facts of the case, but on how they are mustered and how the legal theories are framed in the initial pleading.
Additionally, at least at the state government level in at least some states, it is not uncommon for the government employer to be required by law (or to have voluntarily agreed in collective bargaining) to defend and indemnify employees against allegations of wrongdoing. While there are limits (for example, in the state where I practice, a government employee can’t be indemnified against intentional or malicious wrongdoing–so then you get into niggling analyses of intent), the likelihood would be that state actors would be entitled to defense and indemnification in the case you describe. I don’t know about the Feds, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they also provided such indemnification.
21 January 2011 at 8:49 pm
Jim
I think you are exactly right, Ric. The cops would not have done what they did unless they were darned sure they would get away with it.
I can’t comment on the personal lawsuit angle – but I so know that lawfare is every bit as expensive as warefare.
The libertarians are screeching that there is no ‘wiggle room’ here and that may be true from a moral perspective…but legally speaking this case has the potential to make for some truly wretched precedents.
21 January 2011 at 9:24 pm
GuyS
Wow, thanks for following up. And if I understand you second to last comment correctly (on the update) I have to agree. If all our rights hinged on there being no “random acts of stupid” done by any of us, at any time, there would be no one eligible for said rights. I am personally very familiar with random acts of stupid just ask the wife!
21 January 2011 at 9:37 pm
Can't hark my cry
By the way, I forgot to say in the last one. . .I first ran into “praises with faint damns” in a Lord Peter Wimsey novel. I forget which one, but it definitely would have predated Mr. Robinson. In addition to which, copyright is disfavored for short phrases, and I think that one would qualify. So, you should be in the clear (but I heartily endorse the practice of giving credit to your source, even when it may not have been original–that’s just good manners.)
Um. Am I taking things too seriously?
21 January 2011 at 9:41 pm
GuyS
Given the case, and being a fan of Mr Robinson as well (his Callahan’s series are still favorites), I would be willing to bet he would accept the above credit given, as more then enough.