In a far simpler time, things were a bit more straight forward. Citizens elected representatives, both at the State and Federal levels, to enact legislation upon the citizens’ behalf. Concerns of one citizen or group may be entirely different than another, so the legislators cobbled bills together, hoping to address as many issues as possible, in a problem-solving manner. Urban citizens had different issues than rural, and each locality addressed issues unique to their specific area. NYC is as different now from Dallas, TX as it always has been, and each have different hot-button topics that are important to themselves. But fast-forward to the present day. Who represents us now? Let’s dig.
At the State level, even in a Conservative-leaning Texas, the following meme has made the rounds:
“In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state’s “castle doctrine.” This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home.
Now listen to what she has to say…
“I’m not saying that stealing is okay,” Meza explained. “All I’m saying is that it doesn’t warrant a death penalty. Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed.”
Meza was quick to reassure that her bill “would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
Under the new law the homeowner’s obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder. But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner’s responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt. The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner.”
“In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does,” Meza reasoned. “The homeowner’s insurance we reimburse his losses. On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better.””
This State lawmaker has opened up such a can of worms, it needs to be parsed out:
1. Whether an intruder breaking into a home ‘warrants the death penalty’ is entirely on the intruder. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don’t wish to get your ass shot off? Do something else with your time.
2. How do we know the intent of said intruder? It may be theft, it may be rape, it may be arson, it may be murder. We generally do not have time to chat, so most homeowners err on the side of caution.
3. Thieves ‘only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate’? Really? Whom did you poll to arrive at that nonsense, Ms. Meza? My approach: I only carry weapons to ‘provide the intruder an incentive’ to not get his ass shot off by breaking into my home. Since when does the criminal’s ‘self-protection’ trump the homeowners?
4. Flee? What planet do you live on, Ms. Meza? We do not abandon our homes, property, or anything else to criminals. Period. Cooperate with the intruder? That negotiation ended when the bystander changed his status to ‘intruder’. The only hope for the ‘intruder’ is now: a. no one is home; b. no one is aware of the intrusion; or c. poor marksmanship by the homeowner. Don’t want to die? See 1. above.
5. Apparently, Ms. Meza also fails to understand how homeowner’s insurance works. Or anything else.
6. ‘Transfer of property’? Are you high? A LAWFULL ‘transfer of property’ involves a VOLUNTARY exchange of assets or charity. This is neither. ‘Equitable distribution of wealth’? There is ZERO equitable about theft. That you think the intruder has ANY rights in this ‘exchange’ should be grounds for immediate disbarment, as you apparently know so little about the law, you’ll represent the ‘rights’ of the criminal.
7. Your ‘bill’ would reward criminals at the expense of the assets and health of law-abiding citizens. By authoring such nonsense, you display an ineptitude that should disqualify you from any elected office, or remove your standing as any officer of the court.
8. Your Neville Chamberlain ‘peaceful’ process is the abandonment of the civilized to the criminal animal. Not only would you invite the increase of such illegal behavior, you should be held 100% responsible for it occurring. Maybe we should ‘redistribute’ your wealth and assets to the victims?
At the city and State level, we witnessed riots and mayhem all Summer, for one protest reason or another. The Mayors and Governors of many of those riot-torn areas seemed more sympathetic to those destroying property and lives, than the taxpayers and businesses that operate there. Police forces were given stand-down orders. Governors refused offered National Guard help to defuse the violence. Who represents the people that had their homes and businesses destroyed?
At the State level, Governors have decided that they hold near-omnipotent power to ‘handle’ the COVID-19 pandemic. I won’t get into the questionable numbers and such here, I’ll simply discuss their reactions to it—or their excuse to react as they do. First, these ‘edicts’ are not LAW. They are proclamations that passed no legislative body. Second, we’ve had viruses, even deadly ones, since…well, ever. At no time in the past did we decide that, upon adding a virus to the mix, elected officials now become RULERS, no longer subject to State or US Constitutional law. There is ZERO science behind these citizen-crippling edicts. But Governors, who break their own ‘edicts’ at will, have imposed rules upon those citizens that completely destroy their businesses, their activities, and, in some cases, their mental health. A point to be made here: MANY Governors and federal legislators have tested positive for COVID-19. NONE have died. Yet they will willingly sacrifice the well-being of everyone within their jurisdictions (not THEIR well-being, of course). The question: who represents those citizens? Who champions the small business owner, the student, the folks unable to attend weddings, funerals, and churches? They seem to be remarkably unrepresented.
On the Federal level, I continually ask, “WHO are their constituents?” There are lawmakers (and judges) that continually champion the breaking of our immigration laws, regardless of the negative impacts such a stance imparts upon the citizenry. Again, WHO are you representing? Certainly not the law-abiding citizens of the US. Somehow, it became fashionable to put the needs, wants, and ‘rights’ of people that simply do not legally belong here, over those that do (as if the US Constitutional rights apply to everyone in the world). Why? They legally cannot vote (although I’m fairly sure some do), they put an undue strain on our educational systems, our medical system, our criminal justice system, and our employment markets. Where is the upside to this policy? Note: we allow over 1 MILLION LEGAL folks to immigrate to the US annually. And many, most, if not all of the legal immigrants are some of the most loyal, hard-working, and patriotic people the US has! Why is that not enough? Perhaps the continual refreshing of a planned underclass for cheap labor is the incentive? Is that enough reason to allow such wanton destruction of the society our ancestors created from the wilderness? Yeah, I’ve heard the statements, “You STOLE the land from our ancestors!”, from both Native American Indians and Mexican Americans alike. Nope. It is called ‘winning a war’. See the ‘Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo’. Yes, it is possible your ancestors lived here, at one time or another. They lost. Want it back? Declare war. Would that be on behalf of Mexico as a country, or on behalf of the cartels that really run it? Or would it be on behalf of a specific tribe?
The point of all of this: who represents us now? Who of the elected class is working on behalf of the law-abiding, taxpaying citizens? EVERY elected officeholder swore an oath, some to State level Constitutions, some to the US Constitution. When did it become appropriate to abdicate their responsibilities to govern? When did it become OK for citizens’ rights to come in last place on the priority list, rather than first? And, as a citizen, what is our recourse? A Revolutionary War was fought due to ‘no taxation without representation’. We still get taxed—just waiting for that ‘representation’ part to kick in…
Author’s Note: It has come to my attention that some of the ‘quotes’ attributed to Ms. Meza were satire, but the gist of her ‘Bill’ is exactly accurate. this does not change my analysis, but perhaps Ms. Meza is slightly more coherent than I gave her credit for. The ‘Bill’ itself disqualifies Ms. Meza for Mensa membership, and I think it is a TERRIBLE bit of legislation. I just wanted to alert readers of the satire vs fact dynamic herein.