Skip to comments.Justice Stevens: 'Maybe You Have Some Kind of Constitutional Right to a Cell Phone...'
Posted on 10/17/2012 7:11:14 AM PDT by VRWCmember
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking at an event hosted by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violences Legal Action Project, said Monday said that having some kind of constitutional right to a cell phone with a predialed 911 at your bedside might be better protection than a gun.
Im not sure I actually have captured the entire question, but it does occur to me that one thing that I thought about from time to time is that maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a predialed 911 number at your bedside, and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun, which youre not used to using, Stevens said.
Jonathan Lowy, Brady Center Legal Action Project director, read a question from the audience, saying: The Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment assures our right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense as you say. This questions asked: That protects only gun owners. What about those who dont have guns? Surely they have a right of self-defense. Instead of relying on the 2nd Amendment and dealing with gun laws, wouldnt it be more rational to rely directly on the right we all have to self-defense. What are your thoughts on that?
Stevens was appointed to the high court in 1975 by President Gerald Ford. He retired in 2010. He is considered the third-longest serving justice.
In which they also ruled even if the police do show they are not required to take life saving actions. or place their lives at risk to save yours.
IOW, this “just us” believes we are to be sheep.
"What is the victim gonna do with a govt provided phone? Hit the attacker over the head with it? UGH"
Well sure. Much MUCH more time efficient to call the cops and wait 5 to 10 minutes for them to arrive than to just reach into your night stand and grab your loaded glock and shoot your attacker. Makes all the sense in the world to me.
I believe The Federalist Papers also went over the Apple/Android thing .
One thing I learned doing dispatch work for the police .... no matter how fast you are in dispatching the officers and considering that a police car is rarely in the immediate vicinity where it would do some good (like parked in the victim's driveway) so it takes some minutes at best to get to the scene, it is up to John Q. citizen to protect himself when in a situation where time is not a luxury and where seconds make the difference between life or death. Me .... I'd rather have a gun than a cell phone for self-defense.
Yes but you need a warning label you know..
Warning: using both functions on your “cell phone” at the same time may cause hearing loss.....
Dial 911. When the cops are only minutes away; the criminal is only SECONDS away from shooting you. - Where we are; the cops are more like an hour away. I’m keeping cans of bear spray in every room and hoping that some visiting kid doesn’t decide it would be fun to spritz me!
What a dumb ass!
Thank God this doddering old fool is retired.
Stevens must be dribbling tapioca on his chin.
dial 911 and what will the cops bring ? guns.
you’ve just lost time.
In addition to his stupid logic, he is also ignorant about cell phones. All cell phone made in the last ten years will call 911, even if there is no contract (or minutes available for prepaid service). You can get an old cell phone from a thrift shop, charge it up and then connect to a 911 operator. A lot of women’s abuse centers hand out old cell phones to women for this very reason.
It is sad to watch someone slowly slip into dementia. I am glad Justice Stevens is retired.
...”some kind of constitutional right to a cell phone with a predialed 911 at your bedside might be better protection than a gun.
Good but not enough. Said phone must have its own integrated mini-printer, and a sworn judge on the call center end sitting next to the 911 dispatcher.
That way you can be issued an emergency ex parte order of protection from “the person or persons [hereafter known as the Respondant(s)] intent upon unlawful entry and causing the Petitioner to fear bodily injury or death.”
Once the police find that protective order next to your body, they’ll know you really didn’t want your attacker in your bedroom.
LOL -- Good catch!
The USSC has ruled multiple times that there is no affirmative obligation for a police officer to ensure the safety of a private citizen.
Flawed thinking by Stevens. All of those 911 calls will only overwhelm the Police and delay further any response time, resulting in more rapes, robberies and murders.
What we need is to guarantee, under the Constitution, every person in the US his own personal police officer, present at all times, on the spot to thwart any potential crime.
Now, dammit! The Constitution requires it, right next to where it says all abortion all the time.
"When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away."
How old is this guy now? Like, a million?
911 can be helpful if its used in conjunction with your firearm.
Tell 911 there’s someone in your house, shout that you have a gun.. *bang*
Clear cut self defense.
Yes, yes,yes. I've lost all respect for it as a whole.
I did get it off the Internet, so its not original to me.
Hopefully it did put a smile on your face. Its not only funny but true.
When I dialed 9-1-1 in N California, I got a dispatcher in SACRAMENTO....about 45 miles away.
She didn’t even know where GRASS VALLEY even was. I had to explain it to her. That took some minutes. I called because a car had just fone thru my horse fence & it was obvious that the occupants were on something.
If I were under attack, I would not have that luxury.
Where I live now in N Nevada, 9-1-1 gets me to the Nevada State Highway Patrol- which could be fielding my call as far away as Las Vegas—over 450 miles.
I know the local Sheriff dispatch number by heart & can dial it in the dark.
9-1-1 doesn’t get you fast response where you are. That is a myth.
Interestingly, it’s absolutely illegal to manufacture a gun disguised as a cellphone...
It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, 'You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
THIS is what YEARS of idiocy generated by the schools, the media and Hollywood social messaging produces.
Stevens, like Bader-Ginsberg,Souter, etc is simply a nut-case.
But then look at who selects these jerks - and approves of them.
Made by an idiotic and incoherent person.
Well, since in libs “minds”, 2A only guarantees you the RKBA the arms that existed when it was written, how could you possibly have a Constitutional right to technologies that were completely undiscovered at that time?