It is amazing the amount of “crimes” one broken taillight precipitated.
A recent court case in Massachusetts highlights the insanity of statute law, versus common law. That is, relying on laws made by politicians, rather than assessing a claim brought by a victim.
Time, money, and freedom are all poured down the drain in favor of arbitrary statutes.
It started with a guy being pulled over for having a taillight out.
He was arrested for not having a license to drive a car. Already, this is a violation of rights. Why should you be forced to pay for a license in order to travel down public roads?
Licensure does little in the way of public safety. It is a vehicle to collect more money and keep track of citizens.
So society says it is better to kidnap a man and throw him in a cage than to allow people the freedom to travel unmolested. He victimized no one but was victimized by the state.
Next, cops saw a gun muzzle poking out of the pocket in the back seat. Apparently, seeing a bit of a gun is probable cause to search. Are guns illegal? No. Ah but again, those pesky licenses! The government requires licenses to exercise rights. You have to pay in order to be free.
When they performed the search, which was based on the gun, which was discovered because no driver’s license, which was revealed because of the broken headlight, the police found he also had some drugs in the vehicle. Add another victimless crime to the rap sheet.
This guy would never have been in the crosshairs of law enforcers at all, except a statute says a car must have two working taillights. Nowhere in any of this did the suspect victimize anyone.
Judges and lawyers then spent time (and thus tax dollars) arguing over things like:
Should he be charged with another crime, based on whether or not the gun was loaded?
Was there probable cause to find out if the gun was loaded?
Did the defendant know the gun was loaded?
The Appeals Court decision acknowledged that “proving knowledge that a firearm was loaded will often be quite difficult,” and that the effect of the ruling will likely be that few people will be convicted under that section of the law.
But the judges concluded that because the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in an earlier case that prosecutors must prove someone knew they were in possession of ammunition, they must also prove someone knew if that ammunition happened to be inside of a gun.
Blah, blah blah, blah blah. Was there a victim? No? Let the guy go. That is how simple true rule of law is.
Unless a law protects a victim, it creates a victim. Laws are not the same thing as the rule of law. Under rule of law, mere possession of an item would not see you imprisoned.
Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Of Course, the government doesn’t abide by the rights enumerated in the Constitution, let alone implied rights.