Enforce gun bans by house to house searches?

[Aaron]

So guess what would be used to do this sort of thing on a massive scale?

The Army's not big enough for this either. And you'd run into the same problem of Army personnel being gun owners too. Not to mention that I think the US Government would have to enact emergency powers to use the military in this manner.

[Coyote]

So guess what would be used to do this sort of thing on a massive scale?

The Army's not big enough for this either. And you'd run into the same problem of Army personnel being gun owners too. Not to mention that I think the US Government would have to enact emergency powers to use the military in this manner.

Which brings us back to the point in contention from the OP-- don't get sidetracked so much by the gun control portion of this thread, bear in mind that the overall point is the complete dissolution of any sort of right to privacy, freedom from personal search, government home searches without cause... the military would be needed for any such thing (be it guns, drugs, pirated DVDs, etc) and that does away with habeus corpus, which it has been pretty much agreed here before is a bad thing.

[Surlethe]

The Army's not big enough for this either. And you'd run into the same problem of Army personnel being gun owners too. Not to mention that I think the US Government would have to enact emergency powers to use the military in this manner.

Which only compounds the problem of giving too much power to the government. You'd have to draft people and invoke emergency powers to use the military to police your own populace.

[Flagg]

Would the cops even want to carry this out?

I mean besides the large number who'd likely be against it on principle and because of their own gun ownership, I can't think of a much more dangerous job for the cops to do than to be going around and confiscating guns in the manner suggested in the artilce.

Only with minorities.

[Keevan_Colton]

So guess what would be used to do this sort of thing on a massive scale?

The Army's not big enough for this either. And you'd run into the same problem of Army personnel being gun owners too. Not to mention that I think the US Government would have to enact emergency powers to use the military in this manner.

Which brings us back to the point in contention from the OP-- don't get sidetracked so much by the gun control portion of this thread, bear in mind that the overall point is the complete dissolution of any sort of right to privacy, freedom from personal search, government home searches without cause... the military would be needed for any such thing (be it guns, drugs, pirated DVDs, etc) and that does away with habeus corpus, which it has been pretty much agreed here before is a bad thing.

You know what is really really funny...folk throwing around terms in latin without knowing what the fuck they mean. Here's a clue, stop and search and warrantless searches have absolutely fuck all to do with habeus corpus. The clue is in the phrase if you want to go look it up...

Amazing, the notion of being able to stop and search people spirals into some apocalyptic vision of setting the military on the streets...what the fuck is in the water in america anyway?

Try to put across the point that granting the police stop and search powers for the enforcement of laws is only good sense results in a shitload of screeching about privacy and eventually descends into some kind of civil war scenario...why the fuck do I even bother? It's like arguing with small children, the mentality is very much that of a four year old screeching "mine!" does it occur to anyone that laws might exist for the sake of society rather than them personally?

[General Zod]

You know what is really really funny...folk throwing around terms in latin without knowing what the fuck they mean. Here's a clue, stop and search and warrantless searches have absolutely fuck all to do with habeus corpus. The clue is in the phrase if you want to go look it up...

Amazing, the notion of being able to stop and search people spirals into some apocalyptic vision of setting the military on the streets...what the fuck is in the water in america anyway?

Try to put across the point that granting the police stop and search powers for the enforcement of laws is only good sense results in a shitload of screeching about privacy and eventually descends into some kind of civil war scenario...why the fuck do I even bother? It's like arguing with small children, the mentality is very much that of a four year old screeching "mine!" does it occur to anyone that laws might exist for the sake of society rather than them personally?

What exactly do stop and search powers have to do with random, systematic house by house searches? Which is what the article in the OP was going on about, rather than random stop and search.

[Keevan_Colton]

The article also screeches about stop and search powers which have been what I've been talking about since my first post in this thread. You might have trouble noticing it in the OP, it's highlighted in a bright yellow...

[General Zod]

The article also screeches about stop and search powers which have been what I've been talking about since my first post in this thread. You might have trouble noticing it in the OP, it's highlighted in a bright yellow...

I saw that. But I don't recall anyone else making a big deal out of stop and search, only the systematic house by house searches.

[Keevan_Colton]

The article also screeches about stop and search powers which have been what I've been talking about since my first post in this thread. You might have trouble noticing it in the OP, it's highlighted in a bright yellow...

I saw that. But I don't recall anyone else making a big deal out of stop and search, only the systematic house by house searches.

Then I suggest you visit an optician.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Summary: I don't feel like defending my bullshit.

Would trolling, by any other name, still be as fucking retarded?

[Keevan_Colton]

Summary: I don't feel like defending my bullshit.

Would trolling, by any other name, still be as fucking retarded?

Would vulturing, by any other name, still be as fucking annoying?

All I keep getting is how evil and terrible this shit would be. Guess what, police do have stop and search powers in other nations and civilization hasnt collapsed. Then again, socialized health care works in other nations but that doesnt matter a damn to americans, why should police stop and search powers be any different.

[General Zod]

The article also screeches about stop and search powers which have been what I've been talking about since my first post in this thread. You might have trouble noticing it in the OP, it's highlighted in a bright yellow...

I saw that. But I don't recall anyone else making a big deal out of stop and search, only the systematic house by house searches.

Then I suggest you visit an optician.

Then you wouldn't mind actually quoting the people that were complaining about stop and searches. Maybe RedImp said something, but nobody else was making that big of a stink.

[Keevan_Colton]

I saw that. But I don't recall anyone else making a big deal out of stop and search, only the systematic house by house searches.

Then I suggest you visit an optician.

Then you wouldn't mind actually quoting the people that were complaining about stop and searches. Maybe RedImp said something, but nobody else was making that big of a stink.

Yes, so you saw RedImp, well done you might manage to pass basic reading at this rate.
Did you notice the first reply to my post about stop and search powers by Glocksman?
Have you actually read the fucking thread?

[Surlethe]

All I keep getting is how evil and terrible this shit would be. Guess what, police do have stop and search powers in other nations and civilization hasnt collapsed. Then again, socialized health care works in other nations but that doesnt matter a damn to americans, why should police stop and search powers be any different.

Care to name another nation where police have the right to stop, without the slightest hint of suspicion, anyone they damn well please, and search him?

[Keevan_Colton]

All I keep getting is how evil and terrible this shit would be. Guess what, police do have stop and search powers in other nations and civilization hasnt collapsed. Then again, socialized health care works in other nations but that doesnt matter a damn to americans, why should police stop and search powers be any different.

Care to name another nation where police have the right to stop, without the slightest hint of suspicion, anyone they damn well please, and search him?

The UK for starters. The police have the power to stop and search anyone, anywhere.

[Aaron]

Care to name another nation where police have the right to stop, without the slightest hint of suspicion, anyone they damn well please, and search him?

Canadian police have the right to conduct spot checks for drunk drivers. If during the course of the check if they have reason to suspect the driver might be hiding drugs or something illegal in his vehicle they can conduct a search.

[General Zod]

Yes, so you saw RedImp, well done you might manage to pass basic reading at this rate.
Did you notice the first reply to my post about stop and search powers by Glocksman?
Have you actually read the fucking thread?

Yes, I have. I also recall this post.

Ma Deuce wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:
I'd put that down to having a corrupt bunch of nutters in charge. That's a whole other problem in america with the tendancy to elect people on the basis of beer drinking rather than some kind of sense to it...


Okay, random searches of cars and pedestrians (who are on public property) are one thing, but you honestly don't have a problem with total strangers coming into your home without warning and rummaging through your stuff?

Notice that the main problem is with systematic searches of homes rather than stop and search?

And this post. . .

Enough vague culture BS. You said its unreasonable for Americans to oppose random search and seizure without warrants. Show an example where the lack of these has produced a good society and an effective government, and where there's been no abuse. Otherwise, why isn't it a good idea to oppose such things?

Or are you just looking for a reason to rave about Americans.

Not stop and search, search and seizure, since warrants are needed for that it implies that he's discussing searching people's homes.

and this. . .

Constitutionality of the searches aside, local police aren't required to enforce Federal laws.
If they did, we wouldn't have the spectacle of certain cities declaring themselves 'sanctuaries' for illegal aliens and forbidding their police departments from checking on an arrestee's immigration status.

Then again, since implementing this basically means the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on, the Feds would probably demand the locals enforce the law on pain of imprisonment.
Of course in a lot of areas, the 'searches' by the local police would go something like this:

Officer at front door: Y'all got any guns here?
Homeowner: Of course not.
Officer: Good enough for me. Have a nice day. (leaves)

No mention of stop & search, shocking innit?

And even the most recent one.

Which brings us back to the point in contention from the OP-- don't get sidetracked so much by the gun control portion of this thread, bear in mind that the overall point is the complete dissolution of any sort of right to privacy, freedom from personal search, government home searches without cause... the military would be needed for any such thing (be it guns, drugs, pirated DVDs, etc) and that does away with habeus corpus, which it has been pretty much agreed here before is a bad thing.

Still no talk about stop and search, which gives me no reason to believe that the majority of posters you're responding to are even talking about the subject you're going off of.

[Glocksman]

Care to name another nation where police have the right to stop, without the slightest hint of suspicion, anyone they damn well please, and search him?

Canadian police have the right to conduct spot checks for drunk drivers. If during the course of the check if they have reason to suspect the driver might be hiding drugs or something illegal in his vehicle they can conduct a search.

US police have the right to set up checkpoints for drunk drivers, but they can't go beyond that unless they can articulate reasonable suspicion to procede further, or of course, if the driver is drunk.
Then a search is performed as part of the process of arrest.

Stop and search without reasonable suspicion is just as illegal as a warrantless search of one's home.

[wolveraptor]

Thanks for posting this. It'll be great to use versus the anti-gun nuts over on SA. Sometimes a cause's worst enemy can be itself.

Wait, how? This article doesn't refute their position. Unless you're being one of those assholes who conflates the moderates and extremists of any given group to create caricatures of them. "Look, this is what one anti-gun nut wants to do! You're all crazy!"

[Aaron]

US police have the right to set up checkpoints for drunk drivers, but they can't go beyond that unless they can articulate reasonable suspicion to procede further, or of course, if the driver is drunk.
Then a search is performed as part of the process of arrest.

Stop and search without reasonable suspicion is just as illegal as a warrantless search of one's home.

I was given to understand that US police couldn't setup drinking and driving checkpoints. Someone in a previous thread had mentioned that this violates the unreasonable search and siezure (sp?) clause of the Constitution. There was a rather lenghty argument about it.

I'm a little hazy on the details on Canadian law regarding search procedure but I believe that the police have to show a reason to search the vehicle IE: guy was drunk, had a joint in plan view, acted suspicious, let slip he had a gun etc. I only brought it up because of the other thread.

[Glocksman]

There are no Federal police patrolling the highways, so traffic enforcement is left to the states.
Indiana permits them., but some other states don't.

Aren’t sobriety checkpoints illegal?
No, they are legal. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in Michigan vs. Sitz. The court decided that the interest in reducing the incidences of impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion of a properly conducted sobriety checkpoint. If conducted properly, sobriety checkpoints do not constitute illegal search and seizure in most states. Thirty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia, can legally conduct sobriety checkpoints.

I thought sobriety checkpoints were illegal in Indiana.
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints do not violate Indiana’s Constitution when implemented pursuant to a properly approved, minimally intrusive, neutral plan with standardized instructions and explicit guidance for officers to protect against inconsistent enforcement and a narrow objective.

[Glocksman]

And adding to my earlier post about stop and searches.
There is an exception to the warrant requirement called exigent circumstances.

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction or a suspect will escape.

Generally, an emergency, a pressing necessity, or a set of circumstances requiring immediate attention or swift action. In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstances means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.

People v. Ramsey, 545 P.2d 1333,1341 (Cal. 1976).

United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984): "Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."

Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Anderson, 154 F. 3d 1225 (10th Cir, 1998) cert. denied 119 S. Ct. 2048 (1999) (citations omitted). There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence. United States v. Reed, 935 F. 2d 641 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 960 (1991). In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.

Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary. See Grosenheider, supra and United States v. David, 756 F. Supp. 1385 (D. Nev. 1991).

Needless to say that this is a very complex part of the law.

[Durandal]

American police are allowed to set up DUI checkpoints under certain rules. For example, they must use a random formula to determine which cars to stop, such as every fifth car or every tenth car. They can't use any sort of profiling. Also, they must minimize intrusiveness. If they're pulling over a shitload of cars and holding people up, the checkpoint could be illegal.

Also, police must obtain probable cause to perform a breathalyzer by administering a roadside sobriety test. Administering the test, I believe, counts as a lawful order from a police officer, so I don't think you're allowed to refuse. But the breathalyzer constitutes a search, since it illuminates properties which are not plainly observable (the subject's blood-alcohol level), so you can refuse unless the officer has probable cause.

[Keevan_Colton]

But the breathalyzer constitutes a search, since it illuminates properties which are not plainly observable (the subject's blood-alcohol level), so you can refuse unless the officer has probable cause.

And that doesnt strike you as utterly fucking retarded?

[CarsonPalmer]

The state of New Jersey has an "implied consent" law on its roadways. That is, if you are driving on New Jersey's roadways, you have already given permission for the police to test you for alcohol.