Our local borough assembly here in Fairbanks Alaska, has an ordinance coming up that one of the NEO-CONS on the assembly wrote where he wants to strike a rule of the Mayor’s that prohibits borough employees from being armed. “2nd amendment rights for all!” he claims.
I have a serious problem with this, because I don’t want the local dog catcher and tax assessor to be armed in their public capacity. Our borough has no police powers anyways.
I have had a assembly member ask for my opinion on this, (which is fun, assemblymen asking an ANCAP for his opinion on government) and my thought on it is 2 fold. One, no one is forcing the employees of the borough to work there, and they technically work for the Mayor, if they don’t like the rules he makes, they can choose to work elsewhere. My other thought is the one I would like an opinion on.
In Georgia v. Chisholm, it’s my view that John Jay’s opinion (and that of the Court) of a government official is that in his official capacity, a government employee doesn’t necessarily have the same “Rights” as when he is in his private citizen capacity. He is not a “Sovereign” but a servant of the Sovereigns. Restrictions can be put on him, such as, “in this situation or that, you may not do this or that while in your official capacity.”
Am I correct in this?
I think it is important to mention the extent to which the conditions (rules to exercise the privilege) of government employment go. For two and half centuries of Common Law one of those conditions has been that the exercise of government privilege of whatever sort or fashion (employment, officeholding, contracting, etc.) can be taxed. This privilege or excise tax is generally always measured by the gain, profit or income that the privilege produces. Blackstone’s ninth excise and Sections 86 and 90 of the 1862 internal revenue act are excellent examples of this privilege tax or excise. Most of the States utilize this tax via their personal income tax acts, as do the Feds, since 1862.