forgottenliberty.com

I live in a fairly conservative, gun toting area of Virginia, but I was shocked to learn of an incident that happened just a short drive from me in Roanoke.  A man named Aaron A. Stevenson filed a lawsuit last week in U.S. District Court alleging that his constitutional rights were violated during a May 6 traffic stop in Roanoke.  According to the Roanoke Times,

The lawsuit gives this account of Stevenson’s encounter with police:

Stevenson was driving along Williamson Road to pick up his daughter from church when Roanoke police Officer Jamie A. Kwiecinski stopped him. Stevenson was given a summons because his registration had expired.

Kwiecinski learned that Stevenson had a concealed carry permit and asked if he had a gun. Stevenson declined to answer.

Kwiecinski called for backup, and Officer Dwight W. Ayers arrived on the scene. Stevenson said the officers ignored his repeated invocation of his right to remain silent, and to have an attorney present during questioning.

The officers pulled Stevenson from his vehicle, the lawsuit said, took the .45-caliber handgun he wore in a belt holster, and put him in handcuffs in the back of a police car. Stevenson said he was threatened with loss of his permit, confiscation of his gun and indefinite detention while police investigated whether he was involved in anything criminal.

Officers never read Stevenson his Miranda rights, the lawsuit said, and Ayers told Stevenson the questioning would stop if he would admit to some criminal action.

As the incident continued, some of Stevenson’s co-workers drove past and his employer stopped to see what was happening. The officers asked the employer if Stevenson had mental problems.

Stevenson said the tight handcuffs injured his wrists.

Eventually, Sgt. Sandy Duffey, a police supervisor, said to release Stevenson.

In the lawsuit, Stevenson asked for unspecified monetary damages, injunctions to prevent future incidents and a declaration that his civil rights had been violated.

Online court records indicated that the expired registration charge against Stevenson was dismissed in June.

We only have one side of the story so far, but if Mr. Stevenson’s story is even remotely accurate, it is very disheartening.  I’m guessing when Officer Kwiecinski pulled up Stevenson’s information on his computer he saw that Stevenson had a concealed carry permit.  It seems that the officer used this information to contend that Stevenson was somehow breaking the law or was a criminal even though a clean criminal history is required to obtain a concealed carry permit.

What seems perplexing about this is that Stevenson was only stopped for a minor non-moving traffic violation (that was eventually dismissed).  His firearm was not visible, he was not threatening anyone with it, and he was not breaking any laws.  What reason did the officer have to ask if Stevenson had a firearm with him and why did it matter?  What reason did the officer have to pull Stevenson from his car and put him in handcuffs?  Was it ethical for the police to tell Stevenson that if he just admitted to a crime, they would stop questioning him?  Was it right to threaten confiscation of Stevenson’s property (his firearm) even though he was not breaking any law?  All Officer Kwiecinski had to do was give Stevenson a ticket for an expired registration and let him go on his way.  Why did he feel the need to push and search for a crime that was non-existent?  Why did he treat a law abiding citizen so poorly?

Does possessing a concealed carry permit somehow imply that the holder of the permit is a criminal?  If someone chooses to legally exercise their right to carry a firearm and goes through the process of obtaining a permit, do they lose their right to the presumption of innocence?  Is this infringing on our right to keep and bare arms?  Is this an effective way for police to serve and protect their communities?  I have lots of questions and I’m scared of what the answers may be.

I’ve watched a lot of C-span in the last couple of weeks while the Senate was debating their health care bill.  I noticed a reoccurring theme from almost every Democrat Senator who spoke on the floor.  The theme was that health care is a right.  Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa) even went as far as saying health care is an unalienable right!  When did this happen?  When did a service or product become a right?  How is it even possible?  Health care can not be a right and I will explain why.

Reason 1

First, we must identify what a right is, or more specifically, an unalienable right.  Historically, Americans believed an unalienable right is one that is not given to us by our government but is inherent and given to us by our Creator.  In other words, we were born with unalienable rights and these rights can not be taken away.  This is illustrated in the Declaration of Independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…

According to the Declaration of Independence, the government’s job is to secure (meaning to protect) our rights, not grant them!

So we now know that an unalienable right is not given to us by a government but is something we are born with because it is given to us by our Creator.  This begs the question, “Are we born with a right to health care?” 

Our founding fathers were brilliant, educated men who debated vigorously about what the powers of the government should be. They came up with a Constitution, and later a Bill of Rights, which limited and numbered the powers of the government. These documents put many of the people’s rights down on paper with the expectation that these rights would not be infringed upon. When the government tries to restrict the rights of the people there will always be negative consequences. In this video, Dr. Hupp testifies before a Congressional panel about the effect a restriction on her 2nd amendment rights had on her and her family. She also educates our elected representatives on the true meaning of the 2nd amendment and the reason our founders placed it in the Bill of Rights. I know this video is old, and many of you may have seen it before, but it is a great reminder of why we must be vigilant and guard our liberties at all times. “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” — Patrick Henry.

Health care reform has been in the news every day for a month now, and my recent posts have been a reflection of that.  I’ve covered the angry citizens at Town Halls, insults from leading Democrats directed towards anyone who disagrees with them (here’s a new one from Harry Reid, evil-mongers), and reasons why more government involvement in health care will bring the quality of care down and lead to rationing.  However, up to this point, I have not posted on a certain aspect of this debate that goes to the core of my political philosophy.  This morning, I was given the motivation to blog about it from a Mr. Larry Bassett, who wrote a letter to the editor in my local newspaper.  This particular letter raised my blood pressure a little bit.

The letter was titled Reform Needed Now.  Here is a portion of it: