Given the American concept of "equal protection," it continues to surprise me that California, for example, allows the rich to use "hired guns" with no special training or responsibilities to protect their valuable lives, but forbids those with less money (and therefore less valuable lives) fo "do it yourself." Granting, in effect, more protection to your toilet than to your lower class life.
Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o- 651-523-2142 Hamline University School of Law f- 651-523-2236 St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- 612-865-7956 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/16/06 9:41 PM >>> I have been reading Elizabeth E. Joh's article "The Paradox of Private Policing" published in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2004. Private policing as a topic of study has been ignored by both social scientists and jurists, but its rapid growth has important implications for the future of policing and the gun debate. After all the rise of private policing is an implicit admission that the public police cannot provide adequate levels of protection. Therefore it is not surprising that often its areas of greatest growth are in regions burdened by high crime rates and draconian gun control. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
