Like you and me, only better
On a bill to allow politicians to carry weapons in the capitol but not regular Joes, TN Rep. Henry Fincher said:
It’s a dangerous world. … We are in danger because of our public positions, because of the stands that we have to take. We become targets
Yeah, it’s not like it’s dangerous for people without public positions or anything.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 am
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, EXCEPT FOR A FEW PUBLIC OFFICIALS.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
They are perhaps the people who should not have protection, to ensure that they don’t take stupid, UN-public positions.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
If these politicos did’nt do things that piss people off they would’nt have anything to worry about. If they feel insecure around John Q. Public it’s their own goddamn fault!
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Hypocrisy, thy name is Fincher..
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I dont know, I feel almost like if this passed. It could be the chink in the armor.
You get me? let it pass, let a year go by, then start the lawsuits- “Why them and not all of us?”
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Bobby, do you know legal grounds to challenge this. In Georgia, a whole bunch of public servants are exempted from the carry laws. We’ve looked around and can’t find legal basis to challenge their exemptions or get the people exempted as well.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Wonder what the robbery/murder rate is for congress vs regular citizens?
I bet I know who’s more in danger…
April 4th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Give ’em a cellphone with 9-1-1 in speed dial.
Just like us proles.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Uh, maybe I’m being simplistic but wouldn’t the Equal Protection Clause be the perfect challenge to them having guns and us not?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
One could try that, but it would be a long shot. In theory, any law anyone thinks is unfair can be challenged on equal protection grounds. In practice, an equal protection challenge alleging any basis of discrimination other than the usual suspects (race, religion, creed or, to a lesser extent, sex) is doomed to fail since they are subject only to “rational basis” review, which is essentially a rubber stamp. [A notable exception is sexual orientation, where courts pretend to apply rational basis review but actually impose a more exacting standard.]