A new legal case has hit the news that sheds light on a host of very important civil liberties issues – especially the right to keep and bear arms – and calls into question a pair of oft-accepted assumptions about the US legal system.
The story comes from Fort Smith, Arkansas, where expectant mom Krissy Noble exercised her right to self-defense to save herself and her unborn child.
Only, the government has problems with that.
Noble was cleared of all wrongdoing in the Dec. 7th shooting death of Dylan Stancoff, who attacked her in her own home. Noble was pregnant at the time of the shooting when Stancoff, calling himself Cameron White, stopped by her home and asked to speak to Noble’s husband who was not home at the time. Saying he was a friend from the military, Stancoff left but returned later, pushed himself into Noble’s home, attempted to cover her mouth to prevent her from screaming, and began to struggle with the mother-to-be.
Self-defense. A home invasion. Noble had a right to defend herself with that gun.
But not according to the state.
As Burns explains:
Noble escaped briefly and retrieved a .40 caliber handgun, fired three shots, and killed her attacker. But because Noble pleaded guilty (before the shooting in 2017) to felony possession of marijuana, she now faces six years in prison, all for the crime of using her husband’s handgun, a gun she successfully used to defend herself and the life of her unborn baby.
“War on Drugs," meet “War on the Second Amendment.”
Some thoughts to consider:
Regardless of one’s view of the plant, those who like to tout the idea that the federal government has a justified Constitutional role in prohibiting the possession, sale, or use of marijuana have a mighty mountain to climb. There is no provision in the supposed “rule book” of the federal government to grant Congress any authority over the legality of pot. As with alcohol prohibition, if politicians in DC want to ban the weed across the nation, according to their “rules,” they should pass an Amendment.
Many states are pushing back against the federal laws, exercising the time-honored power to “nullify” federal laws that are unconstitutional. Yet the changes have not impacted this young mother.
And she has a right to self-defense with a firearm.
Most states prohibit convicted felons from possessing firearms, which is not just technically problematic, it stands in complete opposition to the idea that people have inherent rights prior to the existence of the state.
And it calls into question something equally fundamental: People are incarcerated partially for punishment (itself a murky area of jurisprudence), but, mostly, for the protection of others. If the state determines that a criminal is safe enough to be allowed into society, how is that person not safe enough to exercise his or her right to keep and bear a firearm?
If a felon is too dangerous to carry a legal firearm, why is the state releasing that felon into the general population?
There’s a profound disconnect there that tells us a lot about how badly the state jurisprudence system works, how dimly the politicians and bureaucrats view rights, and how little they seem to acknowledge the fact that people with truly criminal intent will not care whether statutes tell them they can’t get guns.
Krissy Noble had a pre-existing right to defend herself and her unborn child. She had a right to be left alone prior to that, before she was pregnant, when she was busted for her pot charge.
This infuriating case exposes questions many Americans might want to consider, especially if they believe in the idea of rights and the supposed rules of the US Constitution.
Especially if they want to respect the rights of their neighbors.