Here's a just-published, more complete list of supporters and opponents:
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_15847259?nclick_check=1
Richard - It's a nationwide phenomenon, unfortunately. The reevaluation of Miranda (a decision by the more liberal and arguably less extreme Warren Court of the 1960s) is born out of a dramatic swing to the right at the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist that continues today under his predecessor John Roberts.
Before the most recent Supreme Court term, Miranda was never interpreted to require speech invoking one's right to remain silent. For more on that decision, see here: http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/high_court_silence_doesnt_invoke_your_right_to_silence
For more on the Court's new approach to Miranda, generally, the Christian Science Monitor article that Colin references above is a great source.
The fact is that people eager to defend gun rights often leap to the conclusion that guns prevent crime, when the evidence is stacked in opposition to this approach.
For every woman who uses a gun to defend herself, over 100 have guns used against them: http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm
Also, Kleck's research is subject considerable academic controversy, some of which is available here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
If you spare the time to consider some of my other posts here, you may notice that I agree with your criticisms of the War on Drugs. Let's not pretend, though, that the Roberts Court's creation of an individual right to bear arms is anything other than what it is: conservative judicial activism that will claim American lives.
|
15 Actions
|
4 Actions
|
|
4 Actions
|
4 Actions
|