January 13, 2013
I’m not saying I want Gregory prosecuted. I only want people to see how unfair it is to have a law that seems ridiculous to enforce against him, when that law is used against others. And Gregory richly deserves to be slapped around on the blogs, because he’s making the argument — that’s why he was waving that thing around — that there ought to be more invasive gun laws. He wants the government to reach more deeply into the ordinary lives of private citizens, and he’s entirely reckless about what these laws would really mean to ordinary people, and it[']s a recklessness that thrives in the mind of someone who easily and instinctively believed — correctly! — that the law did not apply to him.
Just remember, those who are above the law are in a poor position to hide behind it. Plus, from the comments:
What the decision to not prosecute Gregory while simultaneously insisting that the magazine ban law that he violated is important means is that there is absolutely no moral component to our legal system.
The only reason to not violate the law is from a reasonable fear of getting caught if you don’t have enough juice to get out of it. This also has interesting implications for the jury system.
Let’s see how well this new way of organizing society works out.
If those who enforce the law are amoral, they can expect to exercise little in the way of moral authority. Yes, I’m talking to you, Irvin Nathan.
UPDATE: Compare David Gregory’s free pass with the prosecutorial bullying aimed at Aaron Swartz.