In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Gaze your eyes on this gem???
Deadred707
Member Posts: 168 ✭✭✭
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/16/MNHR1C20HD.DTL
"City Councilman Nat Bates said he will try to restore a long-abandoned local ordinance allowing police to randomly search vehicles for weapons and contraband. Had it still been in place, he said, the men might have thought twice about carrying a gun."
"City Councilman Nat Bates said he will try to restore a long-abandoned local ordinance allowing police to randomly search vehicles for weapons and contraband. Had it still been in place, he said, the men might have thought twice about carrying a gun."
Comments
If you have nothing to hide.....
Brad Steele
No different than the spot checks for sobriety that so many, including many on this forum, support.
If you have nothing to hide.....
Don,
Sorry I must humbly disagree with you on this one. Carrying a weapon is a protected right by the Constitution. Having one does not in any way imply you are a threat to society.
Driving a car is a privilege. Driving it drunk is an immediate threat to the public - just as carrying a gun and being drunk could be a threat to the public. The key here is drinking, and a privilege.
So let's say they did a spot check, and found a gun... so what? The issue would be they would probably find the person with the gun was not allowed to have it (under age or already a felon).
The travesty here is that they'd find a gun and then take it from a law-abiding citizen. THAT would be the problem arising out of the spot check for weapons.
JMHO,
COB [:)]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
No different than the spot checks for sobriety that so many, including many on this forum, support.
If you have nothing to hide.....
Don,
Sorry I must humbly disagree with you on this one. Carrying a weapon is a protected right by the Constitution. Having one does not in any way imply you are a threat to society.
Driving a car is a privilege. Driving it drunk is an immediate threat to the public - just as carrying a gun and being drunk could be a threat to the public. The key here is drinking, and a privilege.
So let's say they did a spot check, and found a gun... so what? The issue would be they would probably find the person with the gun was not allowed to have it (under age or already a felon).
The travesty here is that they'd find a gun and then take it from a law-abiding citizen. THAT would be the problem arising out of the spot check for weapons.
JMHO,
COB [:)]
I drink at home with firearms in my home and I'm no threat to the public, my neighbors ect.
I am however a threat to the public every time I drive, we all are, but it's an acceptable risk so why isn't a constitutional RIGHT an "acceptable risk"?
No different than the spot checks for sobriety that so many, including many on this forum, support.
If you have nothing to hide.....
Uh, who in our "brotherhood" supports that?
You said "this" forum, and I assume you ment gun rights forum.
I for one, do not support ANY un-necessary intrusion. Even if driving is a privliage, my right to privacy and to be free from illegal search and seizure TRUMP "public saftey".
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
No different than the spot checks for sobriety that so many, including many on this forum, support.
If you have nothing to hide.....
Uh, who in our "brotherhood" supports that?
You said "this" forum, and I assume you ment gun rights forum.
I for one, do not support ANY un-necessary intrusion. Even if driving is a privliage, my right to privacy and to be free from illegal search and seizure TRUMP "public saftey".
I was refering to the GB Forums in general, James.
There have been threads where those that would have government protect us from all evil have stated that random sobriety checks are perfectly acceptable, specifically citing public safety, and going on to suggest that such intrusion should be no big deal if you have nothing to hide.
I am in total agreement with you that such a spot check is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment, even though driving is a privilege. I do think, however, that COB makes a valid point that there is a difference between the specifics of the random search for a firearm and the random search for a 0.8%. While both are a violation of privacy, the former is a violation of privacy with the specific goal of violating an additional protected right.
In the big picture, I guess a violation is a violation. I think I'll have to reconsider my agreement with Mr. Cob.
Brad Steele
Except our fore fathers didn't imagine an iron * government much worse than the one they were rebelling against would ever exsist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
No different than the spot checks for sobriety that so many, including many on this forum, support.
If you have nothing to hide.....
Uh, who in our "brotherhood" supports that?
You said "this" forum, and I assume you ment gun rights forum.
I for one, do not support ANY un-necessary intrusion. Even if driving is a privliage, my right to privacy and to be free from illegal search and seizure TRUMP "public saftey".
You keep your mind open Freemind to believe your 4th Amendment right trumps public safety... but I'm afraid you'd be all alone.
In this world, public safety trumps your 4th Amendment rights when in public.
The line on this is gray - not black or white by the judicial system.
Please do not mistake this as my supporting it... it's just today's reality. The OK corral happened due to a disagreement of the right to carry in town.
COB
Gentlemen driving is a basic right of freedom IMO. Much like riding a horse when the constitution was written.
Except our fore fathers didn't imagine an iron * government much worse than the one they were rebelling against would ever exsist.
Sorry Hunter- driving is a privilege not a basic right of freedom. You confuse the right to freedom to pass with the freedom to pass by car. The two are NOT the same.
COB
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Gentlemen driving is a basic right of freedom IMO. Much like riding a horse when the constitution was written.
Except our fore fathers didn't imagine an iron * government much worse than the one they were rebelling against would ever exsist.
Sorry Hunter- driving is a privilege not a basic right of freedom. You confuse the right to freedom to pass with the freedom to pass by car. The two are NOT the same.
COB
One still retains the basic right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, COB, do they not? Does it not then follow that probable cause must be required to undertake a search, whether it be for firearms, for impairment, for transporting mattresses without a label attached?
You are in effect advocating for the right of government to undertake a random search of individuals for any cause whilst in their automobiles. By extension, this same random search can then be taken at any place and at any time in any public setting.
No, there may be a technical difference in that one must demonstrate a basic capability before being licensed to drive. That demonstration of capability does not negate the Constitutional protections afforded us.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
No different than the spot checks for sobriety that so many, including many on this forum, support.
If you have nothing to hide.....
Uh, who in our "brotherhood" supports that?
You said "this" forum, and I assume you ment gun rights forum.
I for one, do not support ANY un-necessary intrusion. Even if driving is a privliage, my right to privacy and to be free from illegal search and seizure TRUMP "public saftey".
You keep your mind open Freemind to believe your 4th Amendment right trumps public safety... but I'm afraid you'd be all alone.
In this world, public safety trumps your 4th Amendment rights when in public.
The line on this is gray - not black or white by the judicial system.
Please do not mistake this as my supporting it... it's just today's reality. The OK corral happened due to a disagreement of the right to carry in town.
COB
No sir, he is not all alone. I stand shoulder to shoulder with him in this.
And, no, public safety does NOT trump enumerated constitutional rights, except when applied extra or anti-constitutionally.
As to 'the line', it is clear black and white.
The Constitution is dirt simple to read and understand. Lawyers and judges merely use their craft to abrogate what they see as a pesky inconvenience, since it does not match up to their philosophy and world-view.
Simple stuff, really.
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Gentlemen driving is a basic right of freedom IMO. Much like riding a horse when the constitution was written.
Except our fore fathers didn't imagine an iron * government much worse than the one they were rebelling against would ever exsist.
Sorry Hunter- driving is a privilege not a basic right of freedom. You confuse the right to freedom to pass with the freedom to pass by car. The two are NOT the same.
COB
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, regardless of what one is doing, or how one is going about ones business, is a fundamental Natural-Right.
Amendment IV clearly spells out the requirements that must be met by government to intrude upon that right.
Check-points are warrantless seizures of a person and are unconstitutional on their face. Any physical search of a person or vehicle sans warrant, probable cause, or consent, is also unconstitutional on its face, regardless of what some lawyer wearing a black-robe massaged and perverted out of the text of the Constitution.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, regardless of what one is doing, or how one is going about ones business, is a fundamental Natural-Right.
Amendment IV clearly spells out the requirements that must be met by government to intrude upon that right.
Check-points are warrantless seizures of a person and are unconstitutional on their face. Any physical search of a person or vehicle sans warrant, probable cause, or consent, is also unconstitutional on its face, regardless of what some lawyer wearing a black-robe massaged and perverted out of the text of the Constitution.
Lt, I'm sorry but I wish I could agree with you. However, the 4th Amendment does NOT clearly spell out the requirements. Exactly what requirements does that 4th Amendment spell out regarding computers? And exactly what does it say about searching automobiles?
Therein lies the reason it is the MOST CONTESTED Amendment in the judicial system or history.
You may disagree with a black-robed lawyer (which I spell judge) but until we find another government, they are what and who run the judicial system. You have my blessing to disagree but I hope you have the where-with-all to understand the reality upon which you stand.
COB
I see that there IS another side to the story..and it is being presented.
There was a day in this country travel was considered one of the freedoms awarded at birth.
Generations of propaganda and corrupted judges, police, and lawyers have made it subject to whatever the hell bullsnit they decide upon next.
I have seen excellent cases made for the RIGHT TO TRAVEL trumping ALL the jack-booted thugs laws and regulations.
I tend to agree.
Using the argument that autos are not horses is the same argument that ARs are not muskets.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, regardless of what one is doing, or how one is going about ones business, is a fundamental Natural-Right.
Amendment IV clearly spells out the requirements that must be met by government to intrude upon that right.
Check-points are warrantless seizures of a person and are unconstitutional on their face. Any physical search of a person or vehicle sans warrant, probable cause, or consent, is also unconstitutional on its face, regardless of what some lawyer wearing a black-robe massaged and perverted out of the text of the Constitution.
Lt, I'm sorry but I wish I could agree with you. However, the 4th Amendment does NOT clearly spell out the requirements. Exactly what requirements does that 4th Amendment spell out regarding computers? And exactly what does it say about searching automobiles?
Therein lies the reason it is the MOST CONTESTED Amendment in the judicial system or history.
You may disagree with a black-robed lawyer (which I spell judge) but until we find another government, they are what and who run the judicial system. You have my blessing to disagree but I hope you have the where-with-all to understand the reality upon which you stand.
COB
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IV is quite simple and quite clear, despite all the legal wrangling and 'contesting' that has gone on for lo these many years.
One needs a warrant (based on the standards listed) or permission, to be a 'reasonable' search of a 'person', 'house', 'papers' and 'effects'.
Anything else is constitutionally unreasonable.
Now, obviously such simplicity and such clarity is an impediment to government doing the things that it wishes to do and in their maintaining the level of 'control' and level of 'subjugation' that they desire, but it really is what it is.
Enter the lawyers and lawyers in black-robes, creating, massaging and perverting things from the Constitution that clearly are not there and are clearly beyond the bounds of what is a very easily discernible intent and text.
Sorry that you feel modern times justify perversions, or excesses of the timeless principles and fundamental rights that our Constitution contains, but that 'feeling' or that 'desire' does not make it right, or constitutional.
Collectivism inevitably leads to totalitarianism...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IV is quite simple and quite clear, despite all the legal wrangling and 'contesting' that has gone on for lo these many years.
One needs a warrant (based on the standards listed) or permission, to be a 'reasonable' search of a 'person', 'house', 'papers' and 'effects'.
Anything else is constitutionally unreasonable.
Now, obviously such simplicity and such clarity is an impediment to government doing the things that it wishes to do and in their maintaining the level of 'control' and level of 'subjugation' that they desire, but it really is what it is.
Enter the lawyers and lawyers in black-robes, creating, massaging and perverting things from the Constitution that clearly are not there and are clearly beyond the bounds of what is a very easily discernible intent and text.
Sorry that you feel modern times justify perversions, or excesses of the timeless principles and fundamental rights that our Constitution contains, but that 'feeling' or that 'desire' does not make it right, or constitutional.
Collectivism inevitably leads to totalitarianism...
Lt,
Sorry but your black and white version of the 4th Amendment does not work with the last 200 years of jurisprudence. It wasn't until well into the 1960's that states courts even acknowledged a 4th Amendment right from the Federal Constitution in lieu of a state's Charter or their own state Constitution. Where were the Forefathers during the first 25 years of court cases on the 4th Amendment? What they penned applied to the newly formed FEDERAL government and not the states.
Are you advocating returning to that interpretation? It was black and white back then.
You can protest all that you want, but it won't help you either in today's world or in a court of law.
I admonish only to be based in reality whilst you decry from the hills. If you believe ANY search to patently illegal, then you're welcome to that belief. Just don't walk into a court with that belief controlling your decisions on your defense. You may come up a bit short on rebuttal to the judge.
JMHO,
COB
Sorry but your black and white version of the 4th Amendment does not work with the last 200 years of jurisprudence.
Back to 'lawyering' massaging and wrangling a perverse meaning of an original enumerated right and to creating things that are clearly not there.
You see this as proper and appropriate jurisprudence, I do not.
Jurisprudence is fine as it relates to peripheral legislated law and other issues, but the Constitution stands as written e.g. the Supreme Law of The Land and the only appropriate mechanism to make changes to it is through the Amendment Process, not through Judicial Fiat.
Obviously, we have a differing view on this matter and if it makes you feel better, your view is accepted by near everyone.
That does not mean that I am wrong, or course, merely that, as a nation, we have acceded to this usurpation.
Since I am not Supreme Leader, there is naught that I can do about it except to call it what it is.
It wasn't until well into the 1960's that states courts even acknowledged a 4th Amendment right from the Federal Constitution in lieu of a state's Charter or their own state Constitution.
You may want to back up there.
Article 2, Section 3 of my State's Constitution clearly states....
"The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."
That simply and clearly makes Amendment IV directly applicable to government actions here.
My original point and assessment stand.
Where were the Forefathers during the first 25 years of court cases on the 4th Amendment? What they penned applied to the newly formed FEDERAL government and not the states.
Correct, and if and when a 'state' adopted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of The Land, the provisions of the Constitution were adopted within that state.
Then we have a 'Constitutional Amendment' that was adopted, Amendment XIV, which provided for the 'privileges and immunities'. This clearly prohibited any state from making or enforcing ANY law that would abridge those constitutional provisions.
Constitution amended, adopted and in force, as provided for in, you guessed it, the Constitution itself.
Are you advocating returning to that interpretation? It was black and white back then.
Yes, it was black and white back then, just as written and intended.
Fact is, once the Constitution was amended, it remained black and white, but simply applies differently than it did originally.
Simple stuff, really.
You can protest all that you want, but it won't help you either in today's world or in a court of law.
I know that.
I simply call it like I see it and call it like it is.
Some, including you it seems, simply do not like or agree with how I call it.
Neither will I acquiesce to or agree with the perversions that are taking place both extra-constitutionally or anti-constitutionally.
Why would anyone, unless they either fail to understand the Constitution and the system it set up, or they are of the collectivist ethic & philosophy and the Constitution, as written and as intended, is an impediment to their wishes and desires?
I admonish only to be based in reality whilst you decry from the hills.
First, I need no admonishment from you or anyone else and I am not in the hills, I am standing up, right in your face, speaking loudly and clearly about simple foundational principles and government excesses.
What hills are those that I am crying from?[:)]
What you are doing is merely a degree of the same old 'reasonable restriction', 'modern world', 'common sense' mantra that is used by all those who try to turn the Constitution and its limitations into something that it is not, nor was every intended to be.
Gun-controllers used the same tactic, as do the neocons when trying to sell such crap as the Patriot Act, or Lefties when they try to sell some social program.
It is an old tactic, born of the collectivist ethic that those who make it are plagued with, in my reasoned assessment.
My position is perfectly 'realistic' and factual, it merely is disagreed with and not practiced, since government and most citizens do not want to be limited to what the Constitution authorizes.
Hence all the 'lawyering', wrangling and massaging from government and those in society who are of the collectivist ethic & philosophy.
For if they were limited as written and intended, their collectivist desires would be thwarted.
Simple stuff, really.
If you believe ANY search to patently illegal, then you're welcome to that belief.
Don't put words in my mouth, please.
Amendment IV clearly establishes that there shall be no 'unreasonable' search or seizure and that a warrant, based on probable cause, signed by a magistrate, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing what is to be searched and what is to be seized, is required to be 'reasonable'.
Dirt simple, rock solid, yet twisted, perverted, massaged and circumvented, expressly against the clear text and intent.
'Lawyering', both the regular and the black-robed variety, at is finest.
Twisting my position does nothing to put your position in a stronger light.
This thread was started about government having authority to conduct checkpoints or stops for no reason and to subsequently search people or vehicles based on nothing but a broad, lame, unconstitutional 'public safety' angle.
I called bullschite and called it unconstitutional and it is exactly that, bullschite and unconstitutional.
Just don't walk into a court with that belief controlling your decisions on your defense. You may come up a bit short on rebuttal to the judge.
Another unnecessary bit of prose right there, used to marginalize the simple points that I am making.
Perversion of the Constitution is the reality.
You and I both know it and you seemingly are absolutely fine with it. I am not.
Another reality is that it has been foisted upon us largely by judicial fiat and that doesn't make it right either, or make it constitutional.
But, hey, that's never stopped the government or many citizens from doing what they want, now has it?
You know, those pesky constitutional rights and pesky strict limitations placed on government......
This is an excellent opportunity, however, for me to lay out a view that is little seen, since most people just 'feel' or 'think' that government is authorized to do the things that it does.[:)]
JMHO,
COB
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Gentlemen driving is a basic right of freedom IMO. Much like riding a horse when the constitution was written.
Except our fore fathers didn't imagine an iron * government much worse than the one they were rebelling against would ever exsist.
Sorry Hunter- driving is a privilege not a basic right of freedom. You confuse the right to freedom to pass with the freedom to pass by car. The two are NOT the same.
COB
If that's the case than every choice/action not specifically spelled out in the constitution could be labeled a "privilege"
The 2A is clearly spelled out yet blatantly ignored. So I can easily see how this topic is circumvented also.
You sound like a politician,....are you? or do you just have the same elitist beliefs as they do? [;)]
quote:Lt,
Sorry but your black and white version of the 4th Amendment does not work with the last 200 years of jurisprudence.
Back to 'lawyering' massaging and wrangling a perverse meaning of an original enumerated right and to creating things that are clearly not there.
You see this as proper and appropriate jurisprudence, I do not.
Jurisprudence is fine as it relates to peripheral legislated law and other issues, but the Constitution stands as written e.g. the Supreme Law of The Land and the only appropriate mechanism to make changes to it is through the Amendment Process, not through Judicial Fiat.
Obviously, we have a differing view on this matter and if it makes you feel better, your view is accepted by near everyone.
That does not mean that I am wrong, or course, merely that, as a nation, we have acceded to this usurpation.
Since I am not Supreme Leader, there is naught that I can do about it except to call it what it is.
It wasn't until well into the 1960's that states courts even acknowledged a 4th Amendment right from the Federal Constitution in lieu of a state's Charter or their own state Constitution.
You may want to back up there.
Article 2, Section 3 of my State's Constitution clearly states....
"The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."
That simply and clearly makes Amendment IV directly applicable to government actions here.
My original point and assessment stand.
Where were the Forefathers during the first 25 years of court cases on the 4th Amendment? What they penned applied to the newly formed FEDERAL government and not the states.
Correct, and if and when a 'state' adopted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of The Land, the provisions of the Constitution were adopted within that state.
Then we have a 'Constitutional Amendment' that was adopted, Amendment XIV, which provided for the 'privileges and immunities'. This clearly prohibited any state from making or enforcing ANY law that would abridge those constitutional provisions.
Constitution amended, adopted and in force, as provided for in, you guessed it, the Constitution itself.
Are you advocating returning to that interpretation? It was black and white back then.
Yes, it was black and white back then, just as written and intended.
Fact is, once the Constitution was amended, it remained black and white, but simply applies differently than it did originally.
Simple stuff, really.
You can protest all that you want, but it won't help you either in today's world or in a court of law.
I know that.
I simply call it like I see it and call it like it is.
Some, including you it seems, simply do not like or agree with how I call it.
Neither will I acquiesce to or agree with the perversions that are taking place both extra-constitutionally or anti-constitutionally.
Why would anyone, unless they either fail to understand the Constitution and the system it set up, or they are of the collectivist ethic & philosophy and the Constitution, as written and as intended, is an impediment to their wishes and desires?
I admonish only to be based in reality whilst you decry from the hills.
First, I need no admonishment from you or anyone else and I am not in the hills, I am standing up, right in your face, speaking loudly and clearly about simple foundational principles and government excesses.
What hills are those that I am crying from?[:)]
What you are doing is merely a degree of the same old 'reasonable restriction', 'modern world', 'common sense' mantra that is used by all those who try to turn the Constitution and its limitations into something that it is not, nor was every intended to be.
Gun-controllers used the same tactic, as do the neocons when trying to sell such crap as the Patriot Act, or Lefties when they try to sell some social program.
It is an old tactic, born of the collectivist ethic that those who make it are plagued with, in my reasoned assessment.
My position is perfectly 'realistic' and factual, it merely is disagreed with and not practiced, since government and most citizens do not want to be limited to what the Constitution authorizes.
Hence all the 'lawyering', wrangling and massaging from government and those in society who are of the collectivist ethic & philosophy.
For if they were limited as written and intended, their collectivist desires would be thwarted.
Simple stuff, really.
If you believe ANY search to patently illegal, then you're welcome to that belief.
Don't put words in my mouth, please.
Amendment IV clearly establishes that there shall be no 'unreasonable' search or seizure and that a warrant, based on probable cause, signed by a magistrate, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing what is to be searched and what is to be seized, is required to be 'reasonable'.
Dirt simple, rock solid, yet twisted, perverted, massaged and circumvented, expressly against the clear text and intent.
'Lawyering', both the regular and the black-robed variety, at is finest.
Twisting my position does nothing to put your position in a stronger light.
This thread was started about government having authority to conduct checkpoints or stops for no reason and to subsequently search people or vehicles based on nothing but a broad, lame, unconstitutional 'public safety' angle.
I called bullschite and called it unconstitutional and it is exactly that, bullschite and unconstitutional.
Just don't walk into a court with that belief controlling your decisions on your defense. You may come up a bit short on rebuttal to the judge.
Another unnecessary bit of prose right there, used to marginalize the simple points that I am making.
Perversion of the Constitution is the reality.
You and I both know it and you seemingly are absolutely fine with it. I am not.
Another reality is that it has been foisted upon us largely by judicial fiat and that doesn't make it right either, or make it constitutional.
But, hey, that's never stopped the government or many citizens from doing what they want, now has it?
You know, those pesky constitutional rights and pesky strict limitations placed on government......
This is an excellent opportunity, however, for me to lay out a view that is little seen, since most people just 'feel' or 'think' that government is authorized to do the things that it does.[:)]
JMHO,
COB
Well said, Thank You.
Gentlemen driving is a basic right of freedom IMO. Much like riding a horse when the constitution was written.
Except our fore fathers didn't imagine an iron * government much worse than the one they were rebelling against would ever exsist.
+1. Agree wholeheartedly.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
No different than the spot checks for sobriety that so many, including many on this forum, support.
If you have nothing to hide.....
Don,
Sorry I must humbly disagree with you on this one. Carrying a weapon is a protected right by the Constitution. Having one does not in any way imply you are a threat to society.
Driving a car is a privilege. Driving it drunk is an immediate threat to the public - just as carrying a gun and being drunk could be a threat to the public. The key here is drinking, and a privilege.
So let's say they did a spot check, and found a gun... so what? The issue would be they would probably find the person with the gun was not allowed to have it (under age or already a felon).
The travesty here is that they'd find a gun and then take it from a law-abiding citizen. THAT would be the problem arising out of the spot check for weapons.
JMHO,
COB [:)]
You cannot have it both ways, COB.
If carrying a gun is a protected right, there can be no reasonable argument that the protections listed in the 4th do not constitute a protected right. Even if one adopts the fairly loose constraints of 'probable cause', one cannot be subject to random searches for either firearms or impairment.
The argument that the BOR only applied to the Federal Government is a strictly judicial construct. It does not matter that 200 years of jurisprudence has distorted this basic fact, but there is no reasonable argument that can be made to suggest that the 4th Amendment was referencing only Federal Law Enforcement Officials. Frankly, the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article 4, Section 2 is sufficient even though that clause in the 14th Amendment is used for historical cover.
Please pardon the rant. I realize you are speaking from historical application and not necessarily personal belief. The concept, however, of hiding behind the robes of judges while our Constitutional Rights are being shredded is bothersome to me to say the least.
Brad Steele
You cannot have it both ways, COB.
If carrying a gun is a protected right, there can be no reasonable argument that the protections listed in the 4th do not constitute a protected right.
Don, I'm not asking to have it two different ways. We're talking about an apple and an orange.
I agree that the right to carry IS a protected right under the 2nd Amendment. However, that is not the same right as the right of the government to search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, which is what is really at question here. For example, if a COP searches you and you have money in your pocket that belongs to you, he can't take it. If you legally have a gun that belongs to you, he can't take it. The question is one of stopping you and assessing if you are a risk to the public good. (Shades of George Orwell in a scary way.)
quote:
Even if one adopts the fairly loose constraints of 'probable cause', one cannot be subject to random searches for either firearms or impairment.
Actually, according to the years of jurisprudence, they can be searched for precisely that - firearms. The question is can the COP take it away after it's all said and done. The basis for this is call the "Terry Stop" due to the case that set that precedence.
quote:
The argument that the BOR only applied to the Federal Government is a strictly judicial construct. It does not matter that 200 years of jurisprudence has distorted this basic fact, but there is no reasonable argument that can be made to suggest that the 4th Amendment was referencing only Federal Law Enforcement Officials. Frankly, the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article 4, Section 2 is sufficient even though that clause in the 14th Amendment is used for historical cover.
You say there is no reasonable argument. Yet all that time between 1792 and 1965 the Tenth Amendment people successfully argued that the state had their own sovereignty and the Federal laws (including the Federal Constitution) did NOT apply at the state level - only to the Feds. The states had their own constitutions or state charters. Hence, there were many cases where searches, seizures and evidence were admitted against someone at state level that could NOT be admitted at a Federal trial. Different rules. Judicial construct or strict interpretation of the Constitution?
quote:
Please pardon the rant. I realize you are speaking from historical application and not necessarily personal belief. The concept, however, of hiding behind the robes of judges while our Constitutional Rights are being shredded is bothersome to me to say the least.
No pardon for rant necessary. You are right, I'm speaking from both a historical and reality based position as opposed to my own personal belief. Call it a habit of the business.
My own personal belief is something I don't usually share for obvious reasons. That said, I feel the rights of the individual have been trampled by the masses. Whether it be the state or the federal government, the individual's right to self-determination have been all but eliminated by those who feel they need to "protect you" or "protect others".
Why MUST I wear a seatbelt?
Why MUST I have a helmet on a bike?
Why MUST I be warned that putting a plastic bag over my head may result in my death?
Why MUST I be prohibited from something if it doesn't hurt others?
Whatever happened to natural selection?
But my own beliefs were not the the topic of this thread. The thread has digressed to a discussion of random searches based on public safety.
The information I provided is just a statement of what we have to contend with in today's reality.
Make me king for the day, I'd go back to what this country was founded on, individual determination of destiny.
Oh yeah... and don't forget to shoot all the lawyers![:p]
COB
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Gentlemen driving is a basic right of freedom IMO. Much like riding a horse when the constitution was written.
Except our fore fathers didn't imagine an iron * government much worse than the one they were rebelling against would ever exsist.
+1. Agree wholeheartedly.
Buffalobo - if you believe driving a car is a RIGHT provided by the Constitution, try giving a COP a copy of the Constitution when he asks for your driver's license and see how far you get.
COB [:D]
Lt,
Sorry but your black and white version of the 4th Amendment does not work with the last 200 years of jurisprudence.
Back to 'lawyering' massaging and wrangling a perverse meaning of an original enumerated right and to creating things that are clearly not there.
You see this as proper and appropriate jurisprudence, I do not.
I just see it as reality of today.
quote:
Jurisprudence is fine as it relates to peripheral legislated law and other issues, but the Constitution stands as written e.g. the Supreme Law of The Land and the only appropriate mechanism to make changes to it is through the Amendment Process, not through Judicial Fiat.
Not even our Forefathers that wrote it agreed all together as you appear to believe. Jefferson and Madison had major issues with each other over the interpretation of the Constitution. Madison said it was fine as is. Jefferson argued for 12 Amendments and got 10. The most contested at the time appeared to be that of State Sovereignty (the 10th Amendment)
quote:
Obviously, we have a differing view on this matter and if it makes you feel better, your view is accepted by near everyone.
That does not mean that I am wrong, or course, merely that, as a nation, we have acceded to this usurpation.
Since I am not Supreme Leader, there is naught that I can do about it except to call it what it is.
Nope you're not wrong in your belief. What I've espoused is reality today not my belief. Two separate issues.
quote:
It wasn't until well into the 1960's that states courts even acknowledged a 4th Amendment right from the Federal Constitution in lieu of a state's Charter or their own state Constitution.
You may want to back up there.
Article 2, Section 3 of my State's Constitution clearly states....
"The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."
That simply and clearly makes Amendment IV directly applicable to government actions here.
My original point and assessment stand.
Sorry LT but we are discussing the U.S. Constitution rather than your "state constitution". In the U.S. Constitution, Article 2 Section 3 is all about the Presidency. Whereas, Article 6 Section 2 says ."shall be the supreme law of the land:. " but you need to read the rest of it and apply it. Your state context and the context of the Founding Fathers differs according to my research.
quote:
Where were the Forefathers during the first 25 years of court cases on the 4th Amendment? What they penned applied to the newly formed FEDERAL government and not the states.
Correct, and if and when a 'state' adopted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of The Land, the provisions of the Constitution were adopted within that state.
The problem with your statement here is that the U.S. Constitution was originally a Federal device and was fought at each state level for state's rights.
The 10 Amendment clearly states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we have a right to drive, OR to ride a horse OR get married. These are not RIGHTS by the U.S. Constitution. They are governed therefore by the states. Ever wonder why you get a license for something you call a right?
A "license" to carry is Unconstitutional to me because it IS enumerated in the 2nd Amendment.
quote:
Then we have a 'Constitutional Amendment' that was adopted, Amendment XIV, which provided for the 'privileges and immunities'. This clearly prohibited any state from making or enforcing ANY law that would abridge those constitutional provisions.
Constitution amended, adopted and in force, as provided for in, you guessed it, the Constitution itself.
Although you choose to interpret that each time an amendment is added, then the states have to be obligated to use all of the Constitution within their own borders. That's where the difference of interpretation lies.
quote:
Are you advocating returning to that interpretation? It was black and white back then.
Yes, it was black and white back then, just as written and intended.
If only it were so.
quote:
Fact is, once the Constitution was amended, it remained black and white, but simply applies differently than it did originally.
Simple stuff, really.
The Constitution did not remain black and white and was argued over from its inception. Simpler then? Yes. But not certainly not simple at all.
quote:
You can protest all that you want, but it won't help you either in today's world or in a court of law.
I know that.
I simply call it like I see it and call it like it is.
As you said, ".as I see it." Different views which is what started this country.
quote:
Some, including you it seems, simply do not like or agree with how I call it.
Neither will I acquiesce to or agree with the perversions that are taking place both extra-constitutionally or anti-constitutionally.
Why would anyone, unless they either fail to understand the Constitution and the system it set up, or they are of the collectivist ethic & philosophy and the Constitution, as written and as intended, is an impediment to their wishes and desires?
True, I don't agree with you on your perspective. I believe it in error and too simplistic. But to lump everyone who disagrees with your interpretation in an US vs. THEM scenario is also too simplistic.
quote:
I admonish only to be based in reality whilst you decry from the hills.
First, I need no admonishment from you or anyone else and I am not in the hills, I am standing up, right in your face, speaking loudly and clearly about simple foundational principles and government excesses.
What hills are those that I am crying from?[:)]
What you are doing is proclaiming your interpretation. That I'll buy. But it's your own choice to listen as was mine. Choose as you wish - but take the consequences of your choice. I'm okay with that.
quote:
What you are doing is merely a degree of the same old 'reasonable restriction', 'modern world', 'common sense' mantra that is used by all those who try to turn the Constitution and its limitations into something that it is not, nor was every intended to be.
Gun-controllers used the same tactic, as do the neocons when trying to sell such crap as the Patriot Act, or Lefties when they try to sell some social program.
It is an old tactic, born of the collectivist ethic that those who make it are plagued with, in my reasoned assessment.
Your assessment of my statements is factually incorrect. Mantra all you wish but reality is what we have today to live with. What I'm "doing" is citing what reality is. I'm sorry you don't like it but that doesn't change the facts.
quote:
My position is perfectly 'realistic' and factual, it merely is disagreed with and not practiced, since government and most citizens do not want to be limited to what the Constitution authorizes.
If it were I would not have disagreed with you.
quote:
Hence all the 'lawyering', wrangling and massaging from government and those in society who are of the collectivist ethic & philosophy.
For if they were limited as written and intended, their collectivist desires would be thwarted.
Simple stuff, really.
Again you profess to have an insight into what YOU believe the Founding Fathers intended. Many men (and women) have studied long and hard to obtain just that insight and have failed. I congratulate you on succeeding where so many who came before have lost. You are certainly convinced of your own position and interpretation. I too must then disagree with you on your view.
quote:
If you believe ANY search to patently illegal, then you're welcome to that belief.
Don't put words in my mouth, please.
Sorry if you thought I was trying to put words in your mouth. I was just interpreting what I believed you to say. Please feel free to restate your belief regarding searches and seizures as guided under the 4th Amendment if you so desire.
quote:
Amendment IV clearly establishes that there shall be no 'unreasonable' search or seizure and that a warrant, based on probable cause, signed by a magistrate, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing what is to be searched and what is to be seized, is required to be 'reasonable'.
Dirt simple, rock solid, yet twisted, perverted, massaged and circumvented, expressly against the clear text and intent.
'Lawyering', both the regular and the black-robed variety, at is finest.
Twisting my position does nothing to put your position in a stronger light.
This thread was started about government having authority to conduct checkpoints or stops for no reason and to subsequently search people or vehicles based on nothing but a broad, lame, unconstitutional 'public safety' angle.
I called bullschite and called it unconstitutional and it is exactly that, bullschite and unconstitutional.
LT - You're welcome to your belief be it right or wrong. Should you choose to call it BS, or unconstitutional, have at it. My statement is that of I hope you have more than that if you ever go to court. I'd hate to see you lose in front of one of those black-robed demons.
quote:
Just don't walk into a court with that belief controlling your decisions on your defense. You may come up a bit short on rebuttal to the judge.
Another unnecessary bit of prose right there, used to marginalize the simple points that I am making.
Perversion of the Constitution is the reality.
You and I both know it and you seemingly are absolutely fine with it. I am not.
Again here LT you assess that you are interpreting my mind from my statements but you are the only one who is right. Were these words you just put in my mouth? No I do not believe I am marginalizing it or that I'm "fine with it" as you say. I'm again, just stating what we have for reality.
quote:
Another reality is that it has been foisted upon us largely by judicial fiat and that doesn't make it right either, or make it constitutional.
Well if you go back to what is written in the Constitution, and according to the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803, that's precisely what has happened and is now called Constitutional. How do you propose to change it from 1803?
quote:
But, hey, that's never stopped the government or many citizens from doing what they want, now has it?
You know, those pesky constitutional rights and pesky strict limitations placed on government......
This is an excellent opportunity, however, for me to lay out a view that is little seen, since most people just 'feel' or 'think' that government is authorized to do the things that it does.[:)]
LT, You apparently believe strongly in your own sense of self interpretations regarding the U.S. Constitution and the development of Constitutional law over the last 218 years. I wish you well with them. But please do not ask me to either believe as you do, or to act accordingly based on them as I find they conflict with my interpretation of what those famous words say or the power they hold.
Governments come and go. The people create their government and then live with their creation. In my opinion, until it devours them or they slay it. Ours is no different.
COB
You say there is no reasonable argument. Yet all that time between 1792 and 1965 the Tenth Amendment people successfully argued that the state had their own sovereignty and the Federal laws (including the Federal Constitution) did NOT apply at the state level - only to the Feds. The states had their own constitutions or state charters. Hence, there were many cases where searches, seizures and evidence were admitted against someone at state level that could NOT be admitted at a Federal trial. Different rules. Judicial construct or strict interpretation of the Constitution?
No pardon for rant necessary. You are right, I'm speaking from both a historical and reality based position as opposed to my own personal belief. Call it a habit of the business.
My own personal belief is something I don't usually share for obvious reasons. That said, I feel the rights of the individual have been trampled by the masses. Whether it be the state or the federal government, the individual's right to self-determination have been all but eliminated by those who feel they need to "protect you" or "protect others".
Why MUST I wear a seatbelt?
Why MUST I have a helmet on a bike?
Why MUST I be warned that putting a plastic bag over my head may result in my death?
Why MUST I be prohibited from something if it doesn't hurt others?
Whatever happened to natural selection?
But my own beliefs were not the the topic of this thread. The thread has digressed to a discussion of random searches based on public safety.
The information I provided is just a statement of what we have to contend with in today's reality.
Make me king for the day, I'd go back to what this country was founded on, individual determination of destiny.
Oh yeah... and don't forget to shoot all the lawyers![:p]
COB
Good morning, COB.
My head begins to hurt with the multiple quotes, so I've taken the liberty to clean this up just a little.
I would disagree that this thread has digressed as you put it. The OP was specifically about random searches based upon public safety, whether that public safety be an 'illegal' firearm, contraband, or an illegal level of blood alcohol.
I assume we can agree that regardless of history, the 4th Amendment is now incorporated upon or against the States and the agents of those States. The necessity of incorporation is also no longer an issue, as it is now (properly, IMO) a done deal.
The question, then, is not the target of the search, rather it is the search itself, which is precisely the point of my original response. Contrary to the beliefs of many on the neo-con right and the overly protective left, we have not as yet digressed as a society to the point where we are subject to inspections at the whim of our uniformed masters. We thus retain the right of being secure in our persons absent probable cause for a violation of that security.
IMO, that precludes the stop and search, regardless of the target of that search, and regardless of where I may be or what I am doing at the time provided, of course, that I am not hurting others as you point out.
Lastly, I am unsure that we need to shoot all the lawyers. Legal-zoom.com is still limited in its scope.[:)]
Brad Steele
Agreed on all parts... except for shooting lawyers. Can we make a "target" due date? lol [;)]
Have a great weekend. [:)]
COB