Free Your Mind News

February 11, 2010

Gun Control and the War on Drugs

Filed under: Gun Control, War On Drugs — Liberatus @ 3:36 pm

Anthony Gregory
Campaign For Liberty
Thursday, February 11th, 2010
 
Many opponents of gun control support the war on drugs, and many critics and reformers of America’s drug laws tend to believe in gun control. Conservatives tend to fall into the first category and liberals into the second.

In reality, these two issues are more similar than many people might think.
In both cases — laws that restrict which guns people may buy, own, and carry; and laws that restrict which drugs people may buy, possess, and ingest — what we’re dealing with are possession crimes: victimless offenses against the state, whereby merely having something is branded a crime and punishable by fines and imprisonment.
Both types of laws are terribly immoral, as they are affronts to basic personal liberty. In a free society, all individuals own themselves and the products of their labor and exchange, and are free to do as they wish so long as they do not commit violence and fraud against other people. Arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating people for the weapons they choose to own or the drugs they choose to consume are immoral violations of the rights of self-ownership, and the corollary rights to control one’s own body and property.
The right to self-ownership necessarily implies the right to self-defense and the right to peacefully acquire the means of self-defense. Hence, all gun control immorally violates the right to self-defense and self-ownership.
The right to self-ownership implies the right to self-medication and also the general right to decide what to put into one’s own body. Either you own yourself or you do not.
Gun laws have rendered millions of Americans defenseless; and drug laws, as in the case of medical marijuana, have left thousands of cancer, AIDS, and glaucoma patients helpless without the medical benefits of their preferred treatment. The interference with the right of people to choose their own medicines and means of self-defense has been a tragic matter of life and death for all too many peaceful Americans. The most fundamental argument against drug laws and gun laws is moral: people have a right to own themselves, defend themselves, possess property, and control their own bodies. In practice, when this right is thwarted, disaster ensues.
Because of the particular nature of possession crimes, the similarities between gun control and the drug war do not end there.
Creating spies and destroying civil liberties
Possession laws are very difficult to enforce in a free society. Since no one’s rights are being violated when someone owns a banned gun or smokes marijuana, there is no victim to report these “crimes” to the police and little natural incentive for third parties to report their neighbors to the authorities. Instead, the police have to actively search for the offenders, an approach that predictably leads to the destruction of other civil liberties, such as rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Wiretaps, random searches and roadblocks, and spying become common.
Since few people are naturally willing to turn in their neighbors for victimless activity, the government has to create perverse incentives for people to turn in lawbreakers. The drug war and war on the Second Amendment have inspired the government to pressure teachers and pediatricians to ask children about what drugs or guns their parents might have. Drug and gun offenders are also encouraged to testify against other offenders — often-times ones who committed much more minor offenses — in exchange for lowered prison sentences. This often leads to small-time offenders getting longer sentences than the big-time dealers. Such government programs to incite tattle-telling belong in history-book chapters about the Soviet Union, but they have no place in a free society.
In addition, since victimless crime laws are difficult to enforce with due process, the burden of evidence becomes horrifically lowered. All that is needed is the presence of guns, drugs, or money alleged to have been used in illegal transactions — and, thanks to more recent changes in the laws, not even that. Often only a testimonial from someone who was offered lenient punishment by the prosecutor will do. So thousands of people who didn’t even commit the crime — much less were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — end up in prison. Restrictions against entrapment and the planting of evidence become increasingly eroded and ignored in a legal regime that prohibits peaceful possession of contraband.
Since millions of Americans violate gun laws and drug laws, and since it would be an economic and logistic impossibility to catch and punish even most of them — nor would most Americans want to see them all punished, whereas most would probably want to see all murderers punished — the punishments against people who break these laws end up being grossly unjust and disproportionate. There are few crimes that have mandatory minimum punishments designated by the federal government, drug and gun offenses being the main ones. So we see drug offenders and gun offenders receiving prison sentences of 5, 10, 20, or even 50 years; meanwhile actual criminals who stole property or committed violence receive relatively light sentences and are released early owing to prison overcrowding. Federal prisoners convicted of violating drug and firearms laws receive longer sentences, on average, than criminals convicted of sexual abuse, assault, manslaughter, burglary, or theft. This is a horrifying injustice, but it is inevitable, once it is illegal to do something peaceful that people want to do.
Black markets and violence
Of course, the drug war and gun control have led to huge black markets in drugs and guns. With millions of potential customers, people who enter the illegal businesses are people who are likely to take risks and perhaps break laws in other ways. Without the legal mechanisms of arbitration, disputes are often settled with violence. The more money spent on enforcement, the more lucrative and risky the business, and the more violence results. Economists have estimated that the drug war increases homicides by as much as 50 percent, and the Justice Department has estimated that 2 million crimes are stopped every year by private gun ownership. Few policies would cut down on crime more than ending the drug war and repealing America’s gun laws.
The violence caused by gun control and the drug war leads, predictably, to more government spending, more draconian laws and enforcement, and yet more crime and violence. The black-market money also leads to incredible corruption in the police and judicial systems. Bribes become commonplace, and in some places the line between organized crime and the police departments becomes dangerously blurred.
The massive amounts of money in black markets have also inspired the advent of asset forfeiture — an un-American, unconstitutional assault on liberty and property rights whereby the government can confiscate property that is suspected to be involved in these “crimes,” even if no one is formally accused. (In 80 percent of the cases, no one is actually accused.) This has led to more police corruption, with departments and even individual law enforcers having a twisted incentive to confiscate as much property as they can to line their coffers and pockets. Asset forfeiture has mainly been rationalized as a gun-control and drug-war measure, but it has become a monstrosity of its own, leading to such atrocities as the killing of Don Scott, a millionaire slain by L.A. County Sheriff’s Department agents who raided his Malibu home in the middle of the night, supposedly looking for marijuana, suspiciously shortly after Scott refused to sell his valuable land to the government. The Ventura County D.A. concluded that the agents were motivated by the prospect of using asset forfeiture to seize the land he refused to sell.
The vast black-market money in drugs and guns has also spawned more victimless-crime laws against “money laundering.” In a free society, people would be free to do with their property what they wish, so long as they don’t commit violence. This would include transferring it, or moving it out of the country. This too has become heavily regulated by the government, thanks mainly to the impossibility of succeeding in the wars against guns and drugs.
The elevated crime associated with the black markets in guns and drugs has, predictably, led to more laws against guns and drugs. Instead of punishing the crimes themselves — and, ideally, ending the prohibitions that foster such crimes — politicians have focused on guns and drugs as if these inanimate objects were the root causes of gang violence. Without the drug war and its corresponding crime, the motivation for supporting gun control would be much weaker. Without the drug war and its legacy of attacks on the Bill of Rights, proposals to further attack the Second Amendment would be without many of their most important precedents.
Drug and gun prohibition
The relationship between drug prohibition and gun control goes way back: the organized crime of Al Capone and the Mafia, which flourished as a result of alcohol prohibition, was the inspiration and rationale for the first major federal gun control, the National Firearms Act of 1934. It is interesting to note that instead of convicting Al Capone for either breaking laws against liquor or the actual commission of violence, the government used tax laws, and then proceeded to find ways to ban the firearms used by organized crime. Instead of addressing the violence — which is hard to do when a vibrant prohibition-caused black market corrupts the justice system and amplifies violent crime — the government created more crimes out of peaceful behavior, which only made the problem worse, in the long run. Bad laws beget more bad laws.
Three years after passing the National Firearms Act, the federal government passed the most sweeping national drug law since alcohol prohibition, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, followed a year later by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Politicians stretched the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to pass both of these blatantly unconstitutional laws.
Particularly egregious are today’s laws that connect guns and drugs and punish people worse for possession of both than for the sum of each. Even the otherwise legal possession of a gun during the commission of a drug “crime” carries a federal five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Sometimes, sentences are doubled. And when drug offenders are released on parole or probation, they are often stripped completely of their right to keep and bear arms. This atrocious assault on the basic human right of drug offenders released from prison has gotten precious little attention, partly because many supporters of gun rights are not sympathetic toward drug offenders, and many drug-war reformers are all too apathetic about gun-ownership rights.
As long as gun-rights advocates don’t see the direct threat to all our civil and financial liberties that inevitably follow from the drug war — and as long as opponents of the drug war fail to understand the evils that predictably come from a war on guns — Americans will continue to see their priceless liberties steadily stripped away by both programs, in all their unconstitutionality and immorality.
If proponents of civil liberties, on the other hand, become more principled in their opposition to overbearing government laws against possession — or, more ideally, if they come to embrace the moral rights of all individuals to own weapons to protect their lives, families, and property and of all persons to possess and ingest what they wish — we can unite against both kinds of oppression, and have a fighting chance of restoring two of the most fundamental freedoms we have tragically lost in this country over the last hundred years. And because of the way these freedoms relate inextricably to so many others that affect all Americans, and because of their connection to violent crime, restoring the right to bear arms and ending the drug war would result in one of the greatest revivals of liberty and civility in the history of America.

February 4, 2010

Getting Ready for Tax Day: IRS Puts Out Bid to Buy Sixty Police Shotguns

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
If we are to believe senator Harry Reid (see video below), the taxation system in the United States is voluntary. Reid admits that if you don’t pay your cut to the government you will be fined or arrested and imprisoned, but the system is voluntary in the sense that you are allowed to file tax forms. Other countries, says Reid, just take your money without this formality.

Prior to the Sixteenth Amendment (supposedly ratified on February 3, 1913) there was no justification for the government to steal your hard-warned money. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” It says nothing about income taxes.
“The Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm of the Federal government’s present unjust tax system,” notes the Constitution Party. “Citizens, both in groups and as individuals, have repeatedly sought responses from the IRS bureaucracy as to the basis for the agency’s tax policies and procedures. No answers have been forthcoming although a responsible government must be answerable to the people and has a duty to those it is supposed to serve.”
Obama has rolled out his class warfare tax increase rhetoric. He says he will increase taxes on the “rich” (defined as anybody who makes over $200,000 per year) in order to pay down the debt owed to a gaggle of international bankers. He also plans to float increased taxes on corporations.
“While we extend middle-class tax cuts in this budget, we will not continue costly tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers and those making over $250,000 a year,” Obama said. “We just can’t afford it.”
Of course, the real rich — the Warren Buffetts and Rockefellers of the world — and large transnational corporations do not pay taxes. Taxes are for the little people (including those making around $200,000), as billionaire Leona Helmsley once said. Obama is merely attempting to sell the idea of tax increases by engaging in class warfare and pandering to public contempt for oil companies and “investment fund managers” on Wall Street.
New taxes will be taken out of the hide of the average American, as always. In order to enforce this looting, the IRS and its Criminal Investigation Division will need more muscle in the coming months. That’s why they are arming themselves to the teeth. The role of the Criminal Investigation Division is to “generate the maximum deterrent effect, enhance voluntary compliance, and promote public confidence in the tax system,” according to Treasury Department, a branch office of the Federal Reserve (currently run by the criminal Timothy Geithner, the man with Goldman Sachs on his speed dialer).
According to the FedBixOpps website, the IRS is in the market for sixty police shotguns:
Quotes are solicited under Request For Quotation (RFQ) number TIRWR-10-Q-00023. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; a written RFQ will not be issued. If your company can provide the product listed in the RFQ and comply with all of the RFQ instructions, please respond to this notice.
This requirement is a Small Business Set-Aside and only qualified sellers may submit quotes. NACIS code for this requirement is 332994. The RFQ opens on the date this announcement is posted and closes Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 2:00:00 PM Pacific Standard Time. Response should be emailed or mailed by the closing date to Marc.Feinberg@irs.gov or IRS, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. FOB Destination shall be Washington DC.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.
featured stories   Getting Ready for Tax Day: IRS Puts Out Bid to Buy Sixty Police Shotguns
In order to make sure you pay your ransom to the government, the IRS needs to add sixty of these to its arsenal.
Submit quotes including 11% Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) and shipping to Washington DC.
The following provisions and clauses in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) apply to this acquisition and include any addenda to the provisions. This solicitation incorporates one or more provisions and clauses by reference with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text: Provisions FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items (June 2008); 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items (August 2009); Clauses 52.212-4; Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items (March 2009); and 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items (December 2009). The full text of a FAR clause may be accessed electronically at http://www.acqnet.gov.
New equipment only; no remanufactured products. No partial shipments
Offer must be good for 30 calendar days after submission
Offerors must have current Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at the time offer is submitted. Information can be found at http://www.ccr.gov.
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. The government will award a commercial item purchase order to the offeror with the most advantageous offer to the government. All offerors must submit their best price and delivery capabilities.
Contracting Office Address:
Internal Revenue Service OS:A:P:B:W
Office of Business Operations
1301 Clay Street, Suite 810S
Oakland, CA 94612 -5217
Place of Delivery:
IRS-CI
SE:CI:OPS:STO, attn. S/A Staggs, Room 2003
1111 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington DC 20224
202/622-5114
Primary Point of Contact:
Marc A Feinberg
marc.feinberg@irs.gov
Phone: 510/637-2152
Fax: 519/637-2110
Secondary Point of Contact:
Kyong H Watson
kyong.h.watson@irs.gov
Phone: 510/637-2142
Fax: 510/637-2110

Blog at WordPress.com.