Gun "Control" or "Regulation"

        "Control" or "Regulation": words matter in this contentious debate. The Second Amendment succinctly, if not a bit cryptically reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [Memo to anti-government conspiracy types: a "militia" aids and assists the government in the absence of a standing army, not exists to oppose it, that's treason.] So regulation it is!

       The Supreme Court confirmed the right to bear arms as a Constitutional Right, but subject to reasonable regulation. America holds just 5% of the world's population but is awash in 40% of its firearms, much of it unregulated. Just as freedom to travel is modified by reasonable laws concerning vehicle ownership and use, surely stringent and meaningful laws to ensure such inherently lethal objects as firearms are possessed and used as safely as possible is constitutional. Let's face it - assault rifles do not effectively serve for self-defense or hunting. Banning military style guns and ammo will cut down on the threat of mass violence and risk to law enforcement. Regulation of all gun sales with mandatory background checks is a must along with a comprehensive national registry. Not every nut will be thwarted from causing gun violence, but this approach will greatly improve the situation. Such gun restrictions do work in countries where they are in place.

       Florida has strict punishment for those who possess, fire, wound or kill others during the commission of a crime. That carries minimum mandatory yearly prison terms of 10-20-25-life and 3 year minimum mandatory prison sentences for felons in possession of firearms or ammo. But that is after the fact of harm caused but the use of firearms. So still waiting for meaningful gun regulation for this civilized society....

AVOIDING UNWANTED POLICE CONTACT

     Two teenagers of color from a disadvantaged neighborhood sought my advice in how to respond to what they saw as police harassment: describing their most recent encounter as being "grabbed" and frisked against their will while walking in their neighborhood. What can you do to safely avoid unwanted contact with the authorities?

     You have the right merely to walk the other way if there is no good reason to engage you. Avoid doing anything that gives rise to "reasonable suspicion" when there was none to begin with such as appearing to throw something away, running, or reaching into a pocket although none of those things are illegal. If an officer insists on making contact, do not do anything that can be considered a threat. Show your hands. Politely insist you do not give your consent to this encounter, do not wish to make any statements and want your lawyer. 

     If the police have reasonable suspicion you are about to commit, are committing or just committed a crime, they can justify a "Terry" (v. Ohio) stop: a brief detention to speak with you and pat you down for weapons. If anything illegal is discovered and you are arrested, you will have your day in court to challenge the police conduct as an invasion of privacy and freedom.

     At the same time, gather information in the neighborhood of other similar cases of unwarranted contacts and file a complaint as a group and protest to the department and municipality. Good police work is one thing. Harassment is another.