I’ve written before about our need to study the Constitution. A story a couple of months ago not only shows the tyranny of “Red Flag” style laws, but also explains why everyone should study the Constitution for themselves.
The Story
The protagonist of our story is Mr. Stephen Nichols, 84, of Tisbury, MA. Mr. Nichols is a Korean War vet with a six decade career with the Tisbury Police, who continues to serve his community as a crossing guard at the Tisbury School. While dining at a local restaurant, Mr. Nichols told a friend he was concerned that the school’s resource officer was going to a local convenience store to get coffee while the children were coming to school in the morning. He expressed concern that someone could “shoot up the school” in the officer’s absence, which he described as “leaving his post”. This conversation was overheard by a waitress, which is where the story gets interesting.
The waitress made a complaint to the Tisbury Police about what she’d overheard. Based on that, two officers of the Tisbury Police relieved Mr. Nichols of his crossing guard duties, drove him home, and took aways his firearms and license. According to Mr. Nichols, one officer told him what he’d said was a felony. However, Mr. Nichols was never charged.
So what does this have to do with studying the Constitution?
Why We Should Study
Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country, and teach the rising generation to be free. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.
John Jay, First Chief Justice of the supreme Court of the United States
This quote from John Jay is one of the founding principles behind the Constitution Study. He explains we should all read and study the Constitution to know our rights. He then goes on to list two outcomes from this knowledge, both of which are lessons we can apply to this situation.
They will sooner perceive when they are violated
I’m sure most of us can recognize at least one or two of Mr. Nichols rights that were violated, but by studying the Constitution, we can see so many more.
Yes, Mr. Nichols’ right to keep and bear arms, protected by both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article XVII of the Massachusetts Constitution, were violated. Without even being charged with a crime, the city of Tisbury, and by extension the state of Massachusetts, has violated Mr. Nichols’ rights.
Unfortunately, there are more violations. Mr. Nichols was relieved of his position as a crossing guard, his firearms license, and his property without conviction of a crime. These actions deprived him of both his liberty and property without due process of law protected by Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article XII of the Massachusetts Constitution.
The police officers confiscated property without a warrant or any exigent circumstances that would preclude getting a warrant, rights also protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article XIV of the Massachusetts Constitution. In fact, the officers did not have sufficient evidence to get a valid warrant, since no probable cause was demonstrated, nor support by oath or affirmation as required by both the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions.
All of this stemmed from a conversation overheard by a waitress, a clear violation of Mr. Nichols’ freedom of speech. Since this was based on state law, this was not a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was, however, a violation of Article XXI of the Massachusetts Constitution.
How many of these rights did you think of when I described the story at the beginning of this article? Unless you have taken the time to study the Constitution, probably not all of them. Meanwhile, with all these violations, what was Mr. Nichols to do?
Be better prepared to defend and assert them
Part of the problem with not studying the Constitution and not knowing our rights is that we are not prepared to defend and assert them. What could Mr. Nichols have done to defend his rights?
- Once relieved of his duties as a crossing guard, Mr. Nichols could have volunteered to leave the premises, but not to go with the police unless they were taking him into custody.
- He could have asked to see their warrant before going with the police, allowing them into his house, or searching and seizing his property.
- He could have asked for their probable cause and exigent circumstance to search and seize him and his property.
- He could have demanded to speak with an attorney.
I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice. This comes from an understanding of how the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of everyday Americans. I also would not recommend anyone resist any law enforcement officer; they are trained that they cannot lose control of a situation, so resisting them only escalates the situation and degrades any evidence of the violation of your rights. However, asserting your rights does give you evidence for any criminal or civil action that may follow. An officer cannot claim they had your permission to enter your premises if you are standing in the doorway asking for their warrant and they push you out of the way. And, of course, the more witnesses to these violations the better.
Conclusion
This story should be a warning to all of us. Unless we study the Constitution, know our rights, and prepare to defend and assert them, our liberty will be at the whim of any government official that wishes to infringe upon them. It’s not resisting an officer nor an admission of guilt to invoke your rights. You should not resist an officer, but neither should you assist them in violating your rights. If we are not willing to defend and assert our rights, who will? Are you willing to trust that any government that might be elected will never violate your rights? If so, this story should help dispel you of that myth.
