by David Grace
Eustace looked at the clock. A quarter to twelve and Kane and the kid are still farting around in the field while I’m stuck here getting blisters on my fingers from punching so many fucking numbers into my phone. Eustace glared at the dog-eared list of Metro Station security offices then his eyes slipped down to the Washington Post’s front page peeking from beneath the Brownstein folder:
Court Tightens Security
More Threats In Gun-Law Appeal
Now there was a case that had “career advancement” written all over it, provided that you caught the guy before he shot Mr. Justice Hopper. Fucking gun nuts! Eustace thought, though his sentiments were neither politically nor ideologically motivated. For him it was much simpler. Grant Eustace was an “us versus them” kind of guy and on a tribal level he wanted his own gang to be the only one with weapons. It was in his self-interest to keep all other groups, gangs and organizations that might challenge his tribe as powerless as possible. Not that Eustace was stupid. He could understand the ideological arguments. It was just that he didn’t care. In that, as in many other ways, he was different from Greg Kane. Kane was a firm believer in the dictum: “Know your enemy” whereas Eustace’s philosophy was “Get him before he gets you.”
The court battle over the guns had started with the death of a child, but like World War I sometimes the murder of a single person can ignite a far vaster conflict. Nine-year-old Lyla Masterson had been standing in line with her mother, Sonya, at the Baskin-Robbins when the shooting started. Two gang-bangers with AR-15s had decided to rob the Elite Jewelry & Gold Exchange two stores down. One of the jewelry-store’s customers was a twenty-two-year-old carpenter named Ronnie Dubois who held a firm belief that everyone should carry a gun “just in case.” Today Dubois was convinced that his foresight was finally paying off.
Ronnie pulled his Sig Sauer Model 228 from the special holster he wore on his belt at the small of his back, shoved in a clip, and started blazing away at the closest robber. He missed. The gunman fired back and caught Ronnie in the right calf. Ronnie tried to crawl behind a counter and was rewarded with another swarm of bullets and a hail of shattered glass. Now with his adrenalin really pumping, Ronnie popped up and blasted away as fast as he could pull the trigger, soon emptying his entire fifteen shot extended-load clip.
Having planned on a nice quiet stickup rather than The Gunfight At The OK Corral the robbers hustled out the door while randomly blasting away until their fifty shot clips went dry. It took the crime scene techs twelve hours to catalog all the spent shells and bullet holes and splatters of blood. The final tally in human terms was surprisingly light: the store owner, Frank Shapiro, was hit twice by the robbers but was expected to survive. Ronnie Dubois had taken one bullet, also from the gunmen. The wound hurt like hell and he had lots of cuts from flying glass but he would recover.
The sole fatality was Lyla Masterson. One of Ronnie’s nine millimeter slugs passed through the jewelry store’s sheet-rock wall, through the adjacent dry-cleaner’s wall and came to rest in Lyla Masterson’s brain, staining her pink dress with blotches of red. She was dead before she hit the floor. When questioned by the police Ronnie explained that he had merely been exercising his Second Amendment rights and contended that he was a hero who had succeeded in driving off two “bad guys” before they could steal anything. When asked about Lyla Masterson Ronnie replied that he was sorry that the little girl was “hurt” but sometimes when you’re fighting crime there’s “collateral damage.”
Since state law allowed an adult to carry an unloaded handgun so long as it was “in plain sight” Dubois could not be charged with a crime. Of course he could be sued in civil court but since he had no substantial assets, even if they won Lyla’s parents would likely never collect a dime. Two weeks after the shooting the NRA put Ronnie’s picture on page one of their America’s First Freedom digital magazine. That’s when the offers started pouring in.
In some circles Ronnie Dubois was a celebrity. Now the inconvenience of having to deal with a civil suit coupled with the possibility that his interview fees and endorsement money might be seized motivated Ronnie to declare bankruptcy which would wipe out any debt that some bleeding-heart jury might see fit to award Lyla’s parents. Hell, he got $10,000 for posing with his Sig on the cover of next year’s Guns And Freedom calendar and he intended to keep it. The text beneath his photo read:
Bad Guys Beware
For Lyla’s parents this was a million miles beyond too much. They created their own poster, a picture of their smiling child superimposed over her gravestone and captioned with the words: “Collateral Damage?”
Thus began the ballot initiative for what was called “Lyla’s Law.” The measure contained nine provisions:
1. Except for sales or transfers to (1) sworn law enforcement officers and/or (2) members of a state or federal government-sponsored militia or military organization, no non-clip-using firearm shall be sold or transferred that is capable of firing more than six rounds without reloading.
2. Except for sales or transfers to (1) sworn law enforcement officers and/or (2) members of a state or federal government-sponsored militia or military organization, no clips for firearms shall be sold or transferred that are capable of holding more than six rounds.
3. Except for (1) sworn law enforcement officers and/or (2) members of a state or federal government-sponsored militia or military organization, it shall be illegal to possess any fire-arm-clip with a capacity of more than six rounds.
4. Except for (1) sworn law enforcement officers and/or (2) members of a state or federal government-sponsored militia or military organization, it shall be illegal to possess any non-clip-using firearm that in its then present state is capable of firing more than six rounds without reloading.
5. Except for (1) sworn law enforcement officers and/or (2) members of a state or federal government-sponsored militia or military organization, it shall be illegal to possess any non-clip-using firearm that can be readily modified to hold or fire more than six rounds without reloading.
6. Except for (1) sworn law enforcement officers, (2) members of a state or federal government-sponsored militia, (3) duly licensed sellers of ammunition (4) duly licensed shooting ranges, (5) officially accredited law enforcement agencies, (6) state or federal militia or military organizations, and/or (7) recognized delivery, transport or shipping services when possessed in connection with shipping the same, it shall be illegal for any person to buy or possess more than 100 rounds of ammunition of any one caliber and it shall be illegal to sell or transfer more than 100 rounds of ammunition of any one caliber to any person during any continuous period of seven days except for those persons exempted in subsections (1) through (7) above.
7. Except for (1) sworn law enforcement officers, (2) members of a state or federal government-sponsored militia or military organization and/or (3) persons duly licensed to do so, it shall be illegal for any person to carry a loaded firearm in any public place.
8. Except for (1) sworn law enforcement officers, (2) members of a state or federal government-sponsored militia or military organization and/or (3) persons duly licensed to do so, it shall be illegal for any person to carry an unloaded clip-using-firearm and a loaded clip for any firearm in any public place.
9. No person may purchase or possess a firearm unless and until that person has taken and passed an approved firearms safety class.
The Mastersons and their supporters might as well have suggested that Sunday church service be replaced with a free-for-all orgy topped off with a complimentary double-shot of cocaine. Nevertheless, to everyone’s amazement the initiative passed by 1,127 votes. It was instantly challenged in Federal Court. After almost a year of legal wrangling the District Judge ruled that Lyla’s Law was constitutional. The NRA members challenging the law appealed. Nine months later, by a two to one vote of one of its more conservative three-judge panels the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the District Judge and struck down Lyla’s Law.
The Secretary of State requested a rehearing en banc by the entire 9th Circuit. Recognizing that no matter what they did the case was going to end up being decided by the Supreme Court and desperately wanting to get out of the line of fire of the already overheated dispute, by a two-vote margin the 9th Circuit refused the en banc petition. The Secretary of State quickly filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For weeks prior to oral argument waves of protesters on both sides surged around the Supreme Court Building like rip tides preceding a storm. When the case was heard on a freezing mid-January morning a blizzard driving in out of the Midwest threatened the city. Snowflakes like fragments of shaved ice peppered the crowds in the plaza while inside the chamber every judicial twitch and blink was noted and pondered.
The attorney for the citizens challenging Lyla’s Law began by reading the text of the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
“On its face,” he told the Justices, “the so-called Lyla’s Law prohibits citizens from owning or keeping, a wide range of firearms and also from bearing or carrying an even wider selection of guns. All of the provisions of the law that restrict the right to own certain types of firearms are in violation of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Second Amendment. All of the provisions of the law restricting the right to carry firearms are clearly in violation of the Second Amendment. If the proponents of this law want to enact such a statute then they must first amend the Constitution before they can do so.”
Mr. Justice McCoy noted that the stated purpose of the Second Amendment was to insure the existence of a well-regulated militia. “Don’t the law’s exemptions for members of a government-sponsored militia save the statute from being in violation of the Second Amendment?” he asked counsel for the Respondents.
“Militias are historically drawn from ordinary citizens in times of crisis and are, in fact, usually organized on an ad hoc basis after the emergency has become apparent. There are often no members of a militia in existence until the threat arises. For that reason the Second Amendment does not protect the right of the members of a militia to keep and bear arms but rather the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So, no, Your Honor, the exclusion of members of an organized militia from the provisions of the statute do not save it from being unconstitutional.”
Mr. Justice McCoy frowned but said nothing further. Spectators quickly marked McCoy down as favoring upholding Lyla’s Law.
Sensing that the “Militia Argument” wasn’t going to win the day, when his turn came the attorney for the State took a different tack. He began by reading the text of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
“The text of the First Amendment is clear,” he began “that the Government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Yet, it is without question that it is constitutional for the government to prohibit the practice of bigamy even though multiple wives are one of the tenets of a recognized religion. Without question members of a religion who wanted to practice human sacrifices or have sex with children or do any number of other actions which might well be a part of their religious beliefs may constitutionally be prevented from doing so in spite of the fact that the First Amendment says, with absolute clarity and without exception, that the Government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
“The First Amendment says with absolute clarity and without exception that the Government may not abridge the freedoms of speech or of the press, yet it is without any doubt constitutional to prohibit the publication of a person’s private information and it is constitutional to prohibit making statements that are defamatory and that it is constitutional to prohibit shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater.
“The clear language of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion is nevertheless constitutionally subject to reasonable, rational and common-sense limitations when the same are enacted in support of a compelling state interest. And so too is the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms also subject to reasonable, rational and common-sense limitations when they are enacted in support of a compelling state interest.
“Even though the text of the Second Amendment does not include an exception for machine guns, flame throwers or rocket-propelled grenades, counsel for the Respondents would admit that laws prohibiting private citizens from owning machine guns, flame throwers and rocket propelled grenades are nevertheless constitutional. The Second Amendment does not include any exception allowing the government to deny convicts and mental patients the right to own a gun but it is unquestionably constitutional to deny convicts and mental patients the right to keep and bear arms.
“The question is not whether the government may constitutionally prohibit some citizens from owning some weapons. That question has long since been settled law. The government may constitutionally prohibit some citizens from owning some weapons. Period. The only question before this Court is which people and which weapons may be constitutionally prohibited. The only question before this court is: Where can the line be drawn between the constitutional and the unconstitutional regulation of firearms?
“At one end of the spectrum it is clear that the government may not constitutionally prohibit all firearms other than the single-shot muzzle-loaders that existed when the Second Amendment was adopted. The respondents argue for the other end of the spectrum when they demand that the government may only constitutionally prohibit fully automatic machine guns and nothing less. Both are extreme positions. Somewhere between those two extremes is the proper line, which is to say the common sense and reasonable line between the constitutional and the unconstitutional regulation of firearms.
“It is the Petitioner’s position that the Act in question is reasonable and rational, that it is in response to life-threatening conditions, that it is a proper exercise of government power, and that it draws the line between the two regulatory extremes in a reasonable place and that therefore the Act is constitutional.”
If the Petitioner’s attorney harbored any secret fantasy that when he concluded his remarks the Justices were going to nod sagely and say, “Yes, of course, clearly you’re right” he was instantly disabused of that idea. Three different Justices immediately took turns challenging every point he had made.
At the end of the day savvy court watchers concluded that there were four votes against the law, three in favor, one Justice who would likely uphold several but probably not all of its provisions, and one jurist, Mr. Justice George Hopper, who, if not on the fence, was at least in the “unknown” column.
The Lyla’s Law opinion could be delivered anytime between a month from the date of oral argument and the week of June 23rd, the last week of the term. The actual date that the decision would be rendered was unknown. One thing that the legal pundits seemed confident of was that if Hopper supported the law, it would stand and if not, it would fail.
As the man in the middle Mr. Justice George Hopper came in for threats from both sides. Supporters of the law warned that the lives of all victims of gun violence would be on Hopper’s head if he voted to affirm the Court of Appeals and strike down Lyla’s Law. Opponents warned that Hopper would be responsible for the eventual imposition of a police state on the American people if he voted to uphold the law.
Of course, there was no shortage of citizens whose threats went beyond mere warnings of moral responsibility. “If you take our guns away you will die,” was a common theme in the hundreds of anonymous threats that poured into the Supreme Court’s mail room.
Down in Jackson, Mississippi Carl Feeney did not concern himself with threats of retribution. His concern w
as more immediate – Should Hopper be killed before the case was decided? If Hopper voted to affirm the lower court’s decision it would form a precedent that would block any gun legislation for decades to come. If Hopper voted to overrule the 9th Circuit and uphold Lyla’s Law it would open the floodgates for similar legislation in cities, counties and states all over the country. But if Hopper died before the vote was taken the Court would likely be split four to four meaning that the decision of the 9th Circuit striking down the law would stand and, for a while at least, the threat to gun ownership would be averted.
Feeney had been told that a patriot in Silicon Valley had hacked the computer of one of Hopper’s clerks and found material indicating that the justice was probably going to vote to reverse the Court of Appeals and uphold the law. Feeney couldn’t be sure whether that was true or not but the risk was high enough that he felt that he had no choice. Mr. Justice Hopper needed to die, the sooner the better. The only question was how to do it. Feeney thought he knew a way.
* * *
None of these theoretical issues troubled Grant Eustace as he pondered how he might get himself involved in investigating the threats against Mr. Justice Hopper. He just figured that there were a lot of nut-jobs with guns out there and that if he was able to grab one of them in the act of trying to knock off the justice his career would get a rocket-ship kick in the ass. The question was, how could he get a piece of the Hopper case? After five minutes of thinking about it as hard as he could he had nothing. I bet if Kane put his mind to it, he’d be able to find us a way in, Eustace mused as he fiddled with the Metro Security Offices’ phone roster. And just like that Grant had an idea. Maybe the simplest thing to do would be to just ask Kane to come up with a plan. It couldn’t hurt, Eustace decided.