DC gun ban, your thoughts?
 

This is kind of scary in my mind...

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/H...d=1.1.1&sflg=1

Although, they aren't busting in people's homes yet with out warrant or probable cause, but who is to say that won't start happening?

I feel we lose more rights every year, and it is getting worse and worse.

.
Tom, I am not sure this thread is well advised.
As far as I can see this is purely political.

I really don’t think a discussion of American gun laws, and search-and-seizure issues, is designed to enrich this forum.

-- ArcticStones

well you can delete it if it gets too political I was just asking people's opinions is all.

Sorry if it is deemed too political, I wasn't taking sides just wanted to discuss

I've never understood the American gun thing. Seems like a no brainer to me. Unless you live somewhere where you need to shoot something to eat then you don't need a gun. There's plenty of other ways to get your jollys without the need for a lethal weapon.

I guess that's a bit OT considering the gist of the article in the link seems about illegal guns.

That article scares me to death.

Scheduling a time to search your home for illegal whatever is..... let me think a second... DUMB. That's not a search, that's an IQ test.

DC's gun laws are currently under review by the US Supreme Court. Their laws are the most stringent in the country and I suspect unconstitutional. DC also has one of the highest, if not the highest, rate of gun violence of any city in the country.

Meantime, in my state you can own all you want and even carry a concealed one with a permit. The only requirements for a permit is to not have a felony, complete some training and issue of the permit not be opposed by your local police dept for cause.... such as pending charges. Zero incidents, statewide, of criminal gun violence by a gun owner with a permit. The problem ain't the guns.

I agree with you aehurst, however the police have no right to do what they are doing, and the people who give them that right don't know their rights to begin with. I hate how backwards our country is sometime.

And, I agree with you. Unlawful search and seizure is clearly a constitutional right. But, violations of that right are exploding throughout the US. Lots of examples, like setting up road blocks and checking people for DWI and then searching the car if the officer thinks they smell something/anything (try to prove they didn't). Holding you until a drug dog can sniff around the outside of your car. And all this takes on an even more sinister tone when profiling is added to the police tactic (Illegal, I know, but don't tell me it doesn't go on daily... it does!).

Good police officers won't do the above, but I'm afraid we have way too many rogues out there.

.
What do you mean by profiling? Is this a euphemism?

(I know the term "psychological profiling" from TV series and movies where the guys and gals in blue are hunting a serial killer before they strike again etc, but I presume this is not what you mean.)

If I am a young kid in my early 20s with some skateboard company t-shirt on and listening to a certain type of music I must be a pot head and I probably have pot or some other drugs in my car so they must search it.


True story here. My old roommate did a lot of video production stuff, and some acting in some very small budget films, like below radar budget that get released to like 4 states max. It was a horror film, and that night he did a scene where he was covered in fake blood from head to toe from fighting zombies or something. He got caught in a sobriety check, covered in blood still, they didn't have facilities where he could wash off where they filmed that night. He got stopped and the officer came up to him and he told the truth that he was acting in a movie and that he was covered in blood from head to toe because it was a horror movie. The cop just let him go, that kind of makes me scared that since he literally looked like he had just hacked some living creature up to hell and back and the cop did nothing to stop him.

If he may have looked like he was a pot head, he would have been searched.

I lived in Israel for ten years, and everyone has guns. When anyone in a crowd can pull out a gun and kill a criminal, you have peace. Where only the criminals have guns, you have tyranny.

Well, when you are surrounded by feuding armed nations, you tend to what to arm your population. I agree with your reasoning to some extent, but not sure how well that would work in America.

Maybe five years ago or earlier, the police would make a profile of what they thought a criminal looks and acts like and would pull just those individuals over for special treatment. It would be things like a minority person in a non-minority neighborhood, certain types of cars like a low rider truck with Texas license plates and an Hispanic driver. Simply being on the road late at night, particularly for the kids, was sufficient in some places to bring unwarranted police scrutiny.

These tactics have been pretty much made illegal in most all jurisdictions because they often took on overtones of racial discrimination. But, it still happens. Not only were the tactics discriminatory, they pretty much ignored people's right to not be searched without probable cause and/or a court issued warrant. Simply looking out of place is not probable cause that a crime is being committed.

Again, I would not want to paint the police with one broad brush because most would never conduct themselves in this manner.

heavens - you're actually citing Israel as a peaceful country?!?

generally this means "racial profiling" - it has often been suggested that police use obvious characteristics like race to determine who to investigate. the term is sometimes expanded to include other obvious characteristics (e.g. looking like a pothead).

true story - a friend of mine (cute blond girl) was going biking with her boyfriend. so she threw their bicycles in the back of her pickup and drove down to his house to pick him up. he (good-looking black guy) gets in the car, they start off, and they get pulled over twice in the next 10 blocks by cops wanting to know who the bikes belong to. that's profiling.

the whole gun thing was instituted as a protection against tyranny, actually. the founders wanted to ensure that the people always had access to the means of revolution. it was never about hunting, or defense against criminals. of course, in the modern US the only weapons you can (legally) own are fairly useless for revolution, so that intent has gone right out the window.

Gotcha.
That’s a sad comment on the state of affairs.

I prefer this one, true story... This Norwegian career woman retired and bought the sports car of her dreams. To the cops, however, the combinations of vehicle and driver seemed so unlikely, that she got pulled over for ID and registration check more than a dozen times in the next few months.

Not that’s profiling. :D

It seems to me that the most useful weapon for that purpose is a compact digital camera, or a mobile phone with that and a video recording function. (Re: the Rodney King episode)

And not an Uzi.

I think, actually, that we are forgetting about the number of groups that have held notable rebellions against much larger powers with little more than machine guns and maybe some RPGs. Just food for thought...

Unsuited for the Revolution
 

.
How much more effective was Mohandas Gandhi and his followers, who with demonstrably empty hands forced the British colonial power to leave India.

In this day and age, taking up guns is more than likely to be a recipe for disaster. Do you think for a moment that Mr Mugabe would have hesitated to crack down mercilessly if Morgan Tsvangirai would have made the disastrous mistake of taking up arms?

And what ideological “colour” do American militias have? They’re the ones with guns who are organised in the USA, and their reading of the Bill of Rights and Constitution is highly selective!

Have we forgotten the shock of the investigators after catching the culprit behind the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, in which there were almost 1000 casualties? Rather than being enemies from outside, it was a gun-crazed would-be revolutionary from within.

How striking, then, that the T-shirt Mr McVeigh wore at the time of his arrest bore the words “Thus always to tyrants” (Sic semper tyrannis).

Recognise them? They’re the same words shouted by John Wilkes Booth after he shot Abraham Lincoln! (And the state motto of Virginia)

Respectfully,
A non-gunowner

.

forgive my headache, so i really cant be bothered reading the entire thread.

Just my opinion, the gun's in america are completely useless, and only cause problems, never have i heard of a story in the news, where a member of the public has saved the day because he used his gun to stop a bank robber for example. I have only heard of the school shootings, which seem to be getting closer in frequency, or gang violence. Personlly i feel a gun ban is a good thing..

While a college student years ago, I worked at a manufacturing plant that built school buses in a rural Southern state. Come deer hunting season, the plant just shut down for two weeks .... might as well because nobody was going to come to work.

Two points.

What seems so obvious to some (banning of guns) is not at all obvious to those in a different environment and culture. Gun ownership is very much a part of our way of life. As my Dad used to say, "There are two things a man never loans out... his shotgun and his wife." That's how important guns are to us.

And second, there is a State's Rights issue here. The feds should not impose a law on us to solve a problem in Washington DC... a problem the rest of us don't have. Indeed, many would argue the feds do not have the authority to do so under our constitution. This is particularly offensive when the policy/law they would like to impose has been a total failure in addressing the problem where it has been imposed.

In DC, they are violating the right of citizens to be free of unreasonable search and seizure to enforce another unconstitutional initiative. And, neither initiative has had any measurable success in dealing with their problem.... in fact, it seems to just be getting worse.

May I kindly remind you of your own history and your own bill of rights. England's had the right to bear arms since about the 12th century, and it was because all people made up the King's army. After the Glorious Revolution in the 1680's England's bill of rights clearly stated and made it an official right for citizens to bear arms. This is because the King took away the protestants weapons (gun control) then oppressed and persecuted them and they had no way to defend them self. Hitler did the same exact thing right before he persecuted the Jews.

I've also read that since the gun ban in England robbery by sword has shot up over 100%. I also hear only criminals have guns so law enforcement is less likely to be effective against hardened criminals. So, I highly doubt that gun ban has had any real effect against your crime rates.

Robbery by sword? From two to four instances per year...?

Surely it must be difficult -- not to mention risky -- to try to carry a sword inconspicuously in your Levis! ;)

(Or are you placing no lower size limit on the category "sword"?)

No, by samurai swords...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/6241363.stm

I only read what happens in the media and I don't live in England, but from what I am reading their gun ban had nil effect on their crime rates and violent crimes. You would have to ask someone from there though to get the best answer because my sources are all from the media, and we all know how any media outlet and exaggerate for a better story.

If Toronto and Vancouver in Canada are relevant to Washington DC's problem (with which I'm not familiar), then a large proportion all of the guns involved in robberies and drive-by street shootings are smuggled, unlicensed handguns obtained by and used in drug dealer's turf wars and by inner city gang members -- in other words, gun laws have almost nothing to do with their purchase or intended use. Toronto's mayor screams for gun control laws, but such laws have been tried and shown to be woefully inadequate in preventing gun crimes or shooting rampages in Canada. Obtaining an illegal hand gun is apparently no more difficult than obtaining the cache of drugs the gun owner wants to defend.

Gun crimes are predominantly an urban core problem and with the exception of target shooters and public security personnel there are really no reasons to own one. What bothers me is the perspective -- peanut butter allergies are relatively rare and yet whole school systems have no problem banning peanut butter from everyone's school lunch. Legitimate uses of guns in a city are also few and far between and yet banning them is an outrage.

If they sent a few kids to jail for smuggling a peanut butter and jelly sandwich into school, would that change your perspective?

I really don't disagree with you on the need for a gun past the fact that it is one more constitutional guarantee (I thought) that may be slipping away. I currently own eight firearms, but I haven't purchased one in 35 years. All but one of the eight were passed down or given to me as a gift.

Current US law, nationwide, requires an FBI background check (for felonies) before purchasing a firearm. However, this requirement is pretty much ignored when the exchange is between two individuals and the weapon is second hand.... as you pointed out. Just more bureaucracy that hasn't changed a thing.

And of course, a mandatory search to catch good citizens who chose to exercise their constitutional right really is scary. What do we give up next? How far can we let this go before we become a police state?

I am with fazstp on this one...

I know the Americans have guns deeply engrained in their culture... but the SOLE and ONLY purpose of a hand gun is to shoot and/or kill another human being. I just don't get it....

And in todays society there is no reason for ANYONE but the army or a small selection of farmers or hunters to have guns.... period.

I think its just another one of those industries like drugs, junk food, alcohol and gambling where a small amount of people make a lot of money from the misery of others..

tlarkin... gun crime is very very very low in the uk.... your average Brit wouldn't know which end of a gun the bullet came out of.. :) it tends to be the immigrant Nigerian drug gangs that Tony Blair let in that are having a field day in the UK.

Self defense, maybe?

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefe...g/blogger.html

OK, but your armed forces and your government sure knows how they work. I personally own 2 guns, shoot at the range, and do it for fun. I am not about arming a whole society, especially ours, however, I am all about our rights as a citizen. I can make many historical references thorough out time, through out many countries and cultures, and reference how once the government took away anyone's right to defend them self they got oppressed and persecuted on a major level.

I agree with you whole heartily when you say a hand gun is designed to kill. The sword is also designed to kill another man, you can not hunt with a sword. This was the philosophy of many ancient warriors and military cultures through out history. Just read any thing about the samurai and almost all sword masters admit the sword is an instrument only designed to kill another man. I do not use my hand gun to kill, I use it to shoot paper targets. I would also like to point out that I am also responsible, pay my taxes, don't break any laws, and have respect for almost all my common man, even though I do not share their political or religious views one bit. I still stand by the belief that they have every right I do. As well a right to their personal belief and opinions. I also stand by the belief that once they start to chip away at our personal rights it is wrong. You give them one inch they take a mile.

This is about our rights as citizens and the government has no way to take away any of our rights regardless of the right itself.

Maybe weapons are how humans feel secure with themselves, that they have the power to end another humans life, if they have to, and that makes them better then those who dont have weapons.....(im sure thats a quote from somewhere, its far too intelligent to come out of my head)

out of interest, you say you go to the range for fun, but what about if you played a game like call of duty, would that give you the same amount of pleasure?

And as far as rights go, dont you think the increased gun crime is a good enough reason to take guns away, whats more important at the end of the day? An innocent person's life, or the small amount of pleasure you get from using a gun at the range.

which brings us neatly back round to the beginning of the argument...



and Tom, I know how much having a gun means to most Americans, and us Europeans differ from you in that respect greatly.......
My only thought would be that ... it is one thing having the 'right' to defend your self... but its a different matter having the means to kill others made freely available to every American citizen....
Whilst 99% of Americans can, I hope, be trusted not to go on a killing spree... there have been to many 'Virginia Tech' type incidents to warrant such free and open access to weapon's who's sole design is to kill.

But hey, thats a European perceptive..

Acknowledging up front that I'm an old guy (retired 5 years ago), I still hark back to Canada's pre bill of rights motto: "Peace, Order, and Good Government". The focus of the times was on community rights at the expense, if necessary, of individual rights. As a graduate student at MIT 45 years ago, I often argued (over a few ales as students have forever) for the benefits of that community-based perspective in contrast with the American "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" which in my view and that of several other of the foreign students in our Friday gatherings focussed too closely on the rights of individuals over those of their communities. Gun control is just such an issue: individual rights trump those of endangered communities.

Having said that, however, many of those young foreigners (including me) nonetheless remained in the USA long after we graduated because the "American Way" fuels initiative and opportunity like no other country can or does. It's the flip side of personal versus community rights. I stayed for nearly 20 years and two of my adult children still live in the USA, both prospering as they quite possibly never would have in Canada (although a third is doing quite well here). Teaching a Mechanical Engineering graduate class some years ago on product development and entrepreneurmanship (I was a founding member of two successful startups, and so is my son now), a student asked "If you were to start another company right now, what would be your first move"? My response: "To Boston". One of my students then took that advice and has just arrived back to open a branch of his company here and live here.

So why am I back here now? Why did that student come back? Because while Canada is a hard place (compared to the USA) to get started, most Canadians think that it is a better place to live and raise children. With the exception of the cores of large cities, it feels safer, it's economy is steadier and more predictable (if less prosperous), it has universal health care and more accessible higher education (and higher taxes, of course). Even though there is now a bill of rights, there is still a lingering sense of community and community welfare. A ban on hand guns in Toronto will probably go through because the community wants it. A strip mine near Digby, Nova Scotia, will not succeed because the local community objects.

My point, of course, is that the American Bill of Rights cuts two ways; it empowers individuals to do great things, and it penalizes community welfare by so doing. You can't have it both ways, alas.

You're kidding, right? Mostly gun ownership is just a phallic symbol.

This cuts to the core of the argument. There has always been a degree of friction surrounding the issue of majority rule vs. minority (and individual) rights. Apparently, the majority of DC residents (but we don't know that for sure... they didn't vote on it you know) want gun control. It is the exact opposite in the more rural US heartland. So, in my view states rights should prevail... except DC is undermining constitutional individual rights and that affects all of us and not just the right to bear arms. BTW, the DC law is touted by their legislators as a gun safety measure, not a gun related violent crime prevention law.

Seems to me that if I lived in or near a crime infested inter-city with a police department that cannot protect its citizens, I would want very much to have the opportunity to defend my home and family. I would also like to be free from unreasonable police searches ... with the purpose of the search being to make absolutely sure I cannot defend my home from violent, armed intruders. But then, that's just me.

Photek, you just described a whole lot of people in my state. Take out our two urban centers, and I suspect "farmers and hunters" would constitute a rather large majority of our citizens.

I have no problem with people owning guns. I think the real problem is responsibility, or the lack of it, in the US. The more rights you choose to exercise, the more you should be held accountable for the consequences, but that's just not how we do things here.

I think that if you sell or lose a gun then you should be held responsible for its misuse. If the gun is stolen, then it's your job to know about the theft and promptly report it. The government did it's job by requiring a background check on you when you bought it from the dealer, and when you sell it to some one else, you need to be held responsible for that decision.

They go a step further and ever seller of a gun, even private sellers are required to keep records of driver's license information and the gun purchased, and are suppose to submit it to law enforcement upon request. To help track down guns in crimes.

Now, here is the problem about gun control. It does not take guns out of the hands of criminals at all. Look at anything we have outlawed or banned, and we always EPIC Fail! So you then strip the defense from every law abiding citizen and possibly create more government from regulating it, make things like the ATF bigger.

I am sorry but a right is a right, and even though if I don't exercise it, it should not be taken away or stripped by the government.

The government came today and took away all our cats, but I said nothing because I did not have a cat.

The government came today and took away our ability to congregate in public, but I did not speak out because I do not do that.

The government came today and took away our books, but I do not read, so I said nothing.

The government came today and took away my internet and I thought it was an outrage, but there was no one to stand up for me, so I was forced to give it up.

We need to keep our rights, it is important.

“Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.”

-- Sigmund Freud


How about a compromise:
DC can take the guns away from federal bureaucrats, as well as non-resident senators and congressmen*.

:cool:

NB. Those who voted against the Patriot Act exempted.
(Just kidding – no one exempt.)

Boston is working on instituting a similar voluntary search program, with mixed reaction. Some neighborhoods are strongly supportive. A high profile case of a child accidentally killed by another child with an illegal handgun adds to the emotional debate.

By coincidence, I came upon this post while thinking about how it sometimes seems that people who hold local control sacrosanct happily seek federal control when it suits them (abortion, school prayer, evolution, gun control, etc. are issues where this is continually argued).

I am not opposed to gun ownership, but I do support fairly strict regulation of it. I am uneasy about the vehemence with which sensible measures are opposed. Try to ban assault weapons or so-called "cop-killer" bullets and the NRA cries tyranny. Unfortunately, they also oppose measures (such as closing the "gun show loophole") that would help stem the flow of illegal guns.

I agree that prespective is lacking.

Also, by coincidence (and drifting off topic a tad), I have a child with a peanut allergy entering kindergarten this fall. It's more usual to have a peanut-free table in the cafeteria (a generally adequate solution, in my opinion), but you make an interesting point. Although I have, in exasperation, explained to people who can't grasp the severity of the situation that peanut butter is as deadly as a bullet to my daughter, on the whole, I have found the level of awareness of and support for protecting people (especially children) from allergens in general to be very high.

However, partially as a result of another divisive issue, illegal drugs and the resulting overwrought zero-tolerance drug policies in schools (just say no to aspirin :rolleyes:), I face an uphill battle with the school system in my efforts to ensure that my daughter's epi-pen is kept close enough to save her in the event of accidental exposure.

I thought what was at issue was a voluntary search to catch bad citizens who chose to violate the law. I don't know that the programs in Boston and D.C. - as they stand now - will withstand judicial review; I certainly see some problems with them - but I don't think they are a sign that we have become a police state.

Good one!

My sense is we're all coming from very different perspectives here, with gun owners pegged as some kind of ultra right wing militant cult or something. For those of you so adamantly opposed to guns, please take just 3 or 4 minutes to poke around this site -- http://www.agfc.com/ -- it's our state's Game and Fish Commission, a state agency. Hunting is big here and very much a way of life as well as a major tourist attraction.

Most attempts at increased gun control have nothing to do with hunting - unless you consider restrictions on assault weapons and armor piercing bullets to be an obstacle to hunting. Virtually all gun control advocates separate hunting (as much as possible) from the larger issue.

We (not that I took your point to be specifically directed toward me) may be coming from different perspectives, but that doesn't mean we are at opposite extremes. I think that could only be the case if I supported an absolute ban on firearms and you opposed any restrictions whatsoever on them.

I don't own a gun. I feel no need to own a gun. I believe that outside of law enforcement and the military, there is virtually no need for guns - although I do believe hunting (even though I was once shot at repeatedly by an idiot hunting out of season on private property) to be a legitimate if not entirely necessary, activity. Yet I support only certain restrictions, but not an outright ban, on gun ownership.

That doesn't mean that I believe gun ownership to be a sign of ultra right wing militancy; it doesn't mean it is logical to conclude that I believe gun ownership to be a sign of ultra right wing militancy; it certainly doesn't mean I should be considered an ultra-left wing socialist naively willing to give up my rights.

Isn't the bill of rights over 200 years old? Isn't it possible that we've made some progress in the last 200 years that might give us a slightly better perspective?

hmmm... that may have had more to do with her profile than anything else. Cops do tend to be a little randy... ;)

well, I'm not so sure. I remember another case after RK where a guy videotaped some cops smacking around a kid at a gas station (after a car chase, I think, but I could be wrong). a few days after the the video hit the airwaves, the LAPD swat smashed down the guys door in the middle of the night and dragged him off. turns out he had a bench warrant for a misdemeanor in a different county (which cops generally ignore unless and until you pulled in on another charge). LAPD, I guess, just thought they'd send a message about pointing your camera the wrong way.

the pen may be mightier than the sword in general, but not when it's pointed at your face.

I'll point out that in the military (at least originally), handguns were only issued to officers, and their main use was field execution of soldiers who refused to obey orders. they are designed to establish your (personal) power over some (individual) person. I'd be perfectly fine with banning guns completely, but if you're not going to ban some guns, I think you should ban handguns and keep the heavy weaponry legal. peace is best, but mutually assured destruction is a great motivator.

Agree that URWM's should not have guns. If there was a blood or urine test for Ultra Right Wing Militancy I'd have no problem with anyone else owning a long gun or with folks who live in rattlesnake territory carrying pistols.

lol - I remember reading a sci-fi book in which political assassination was a protected right of the electorate. tongue-in-cheek, maybe, but the story sure had a whole lot of honest, hard-working, and dedicated (if paranoid) politicians. :D

Yes, and responsibility is responsibility. It shouldn't be possible for anyone, including gun owners, to abdicate their responsibilities.

Well, you are right and the 2nd amendment of our bill of rights is widely misunderstood and debated heavily.

Here are my problems with gun control:

1) Creates more government
2) Citizens lose their guns but LEOs and Military do not
3) Does not affect violent crime at all
4) Is not even our biggest problem
5) Goes against our rights
6) Does not stop criminals from getting guns

Poverty is a bigger problem than gun control and a lot of these violent crimes you see are really a product of poverty in inner cities. The shootings you hear about that happen in malls and schools really can not be avoided at all. There is no way to tell when someone just goes crazy and snaps and starts shooting people. If you outlaw guns they will just acquire a gun illegally, which creates more crime in the end.

I also never said that the right removes any responsibility from any consequences that may happen if you break the law with a fire arm. I don't even know why that was brought up, of course every gun owner is responsible for their guns, period.

on kind of a side-note, there is some (usually ignored) support for gun control in the 2nd amendment itself. the passage literally reads "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" - implying that gun-ownership should only be associated with militias. militia is an ill-defined word, of course, but it clearly implies a defense of the social order (nation, state, or community), not the right of individuals to defend themselves or their property.

just a thought...

I brought it up because in the US people are rarely held responsible for the problems they cause. If they were, there wouldn't be much motivation for supporting gun control.

I am confused. Do you actually have people who have illegal weapons and don't know it, or are you expecting criminals who do have illegal weapons to make an appointment for a search? I really am confused here... really.

Yup, but it is included in the list with all the other rights granted to individuals indicating it might just be an individual right.

I think the basic worry is that if you don't agree to to have your house searched, then you are implicitly confessing guilt (to something or other...). The program isn't designed to have actual results, but just to induce (or should I say increase) paranoia in "suspect" communities.

Stalin would have loved it. :rolleyes:

Should have guessed. We have voluntary searches down here, too..... it goes something like:

Officer to driver: Can I search your vehicle, or would you rather sit in the hot sun on a 95 degree temp day, with the engine off.... for about two hours while I call in a dog to sniff around your car to see if there's probable cause to search it? Might need to roll the windows up to keep you from escaping, Mr. Good Citizen who has obviously given me no legal reason to search your vehicle or I'd be searching instead of asking.

And that's a true story. Stalin would have loved some of our local sheriffs' tactics, too.

While I don't doubt that this happens often, people could avoid it by knowing their legal rights.

"Am I under arrest, officer?"

If "Yes"

"What are the charges?"

If "No"

"Then I'm free to go, right?"

The officer can't have it both ways; either you're under arrest (or being detained with probable cause) or you're free to go.

When pulled over, any information beyond your name and address is, frankly, none of the officer's business and should generally not be volunteered. It is, however, a very good idea to be very polite and respectful when not volunteering information, with ignition keys on the dash and hands in sight on the top half of the steering wheel.

Best practice is to exercise your rights even if you have nothing to hide. Exercising rights should not imply guilt in any way.

actually, that doesn't quite work with cars. first off, a car has been ruled to be a semi-public place, meaning that the officer has more rights to invade your privacy there then he would in most other personal settings. second, the courts have been pushing the 'driving is a privilege, not a right' agenda for a couple of decades now. essentially, the officer can't detain you if you demand to leave, but he can confiscate your license, and consequently your car, at his or her discretion. if you want to get out of your car and walk away, that might work. otherwise you're stuck.

He can also put you in jail overnight on any pumped up charge he wants such as disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc. Course the judge will throw it out the next day (if you're fortunate enough to see a judge the next day), but you spent the night in jail and the officer made his point.

Saw one kid charged with public intox because he smarted off (very minor I thought) to the police inside the police station (hardly in public, and hardly there of his own free will)... he was a little drunk and was there for DWI. The PO'd police then piled on a half dozen addl charges. Instead of going home after being charged with the DWI, he spent the night in jail. Six months later and with no drivers license in between (guilty until proven otherwise), a judge threw out all the charges including the DWI. But, it cost the kid $3k in attorneys fees and a whole lot of inconvenience.

Here, you must provide a drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance card. And soon to be added, your National ID Card or proof of citizenship.

If the police want to search my car, the answer is going to be, "Go for it, SIR." I just don't want the aggravation.

(I ran drug/alcohol rehab and equal opportunity programs in a former life -- saw lots of crap.)

I'm with AEH. There are rights and there's common sense in this issue. Go for it is the common sense side of the argument. Like it or not, a policeman can delay you for a long time while a search will not.

I'm sorry, I can't take that seriously. Of course it's not the ridiculous situation you describe.

You can read about the Boston plan here. The goal, a laudable one IMOH, is essentially to give parents in high crime areas a way to rid their homes and neighborhoods of illegal weapons. Whether the chosen method to reach that goal is a good one is debatable.

I do not smoke, drink alcohol, or use "recreational" drugs. Never have. But I have long hair, earrings, and as tattoo. I was pulled over one morning. Before I had a chance to roll down the window, the cop was yelling that he smelled pot (I had a cup of hot chocolate) and ordered me out of the vehicle to be searched. It was surreal to be asked why I was "barely driving the speed limit, with both hands on the wheel." "Um, because I'm supposed to, sir." I was polite and cooperative (despite being furious) and soon on my way.

I didn't like it, but I knew from previous experience that there was really nothing else I could do.

Well, guess I am a little slow (okay, a lot), but I was seriously confused. Still am.

A parent can't search the room? I find that inconceivable.

Why on earth would anybody allow the police to search their home without a warrant and without immunity ... just simply trust them to do the right thing if they find drugs worth a 20 year or worse sentence (by your definition, the parent doesn't know what's in that room and who's to say the kid didn't put his stash somewhere besides his/her room... and who's to say the police didn't have some suspicions before they knocked on the door?)

By law, the home is under the control of the parent (owner, renter, occupant) and any drugs found there will be deemed to be under the control of the parent, owner, renter, occupant of those premises. Same with illegal firearms. The article even said the police would press charges for the drugs.

This is heavy handed tactics at best, and extremely close to outright intimidation (98 percent said go ahead). Lack of informed consent is just the tip of the iceberg.

I hope the good people of Boston rethink this one and give total immunity to the parents and child or just can the program totally..... and I would want that immunity in writing with two witnesses and a notary public seal before they came through the front door because my guess is sometimes this won't be a random search. Searching my car is one thing, my home is an entirely different matter.

I want to preface this post by reiterating that I, too, have misgivings about these programs. As I have said, whether this method is a good one is debatable. I just don't think the situation is as dire as some of the more alarmist statements in this thread claim. As I said earlier, we may be coming from different perspectives, but that doesn't mean we are at opposite extremes.

Of course a parent can search the room. This isn't a zero-sum situation. And their own search or suspicions may have led them to call the police or allow them in if they knock on the door.

Remember, in both D.C. and Boston, people can call to request a search of their home. What is more controversial is, for example, in Boston (from the link I posted):

"Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave".

That understandably makes people wary.

One of the sticking points is how much immunity is granted. This hasn't stopped some neighborhoods from endorsing the project.

Nothing I've said supports this conclusion.

The parent is giving permission to have the home searched, as is clearly stated in both articles.

Boston police have made it clear that they will do this, but they can be turned away. That some people will feel intimidated is a problem.

Actually, the Boston Globe article says

"If drugs are found, it will be up to the officers' discretion whether to make an arrest, but police said modest amounts of drugs like marijuana will simply be confiscated and will not lead to charges."

Take that with a grain of salt? Understandably.

It also says:

"Police said they will not search the homes of teenagers they suspect have been involved in shootings or homicides and who investigators are trying to prosecute."


To clarify, from the article:

"Boston police officials touted the success of the St. Louis program's first year, when 98 percent of people approached gave consent and St. Louis police seized guns from about half of the homes they searched.

St. Louis police reassured skeptics by letting them observe searches, said Robert Heimberger, a retired St. Louis police sergeant who was part of the program."

98% consent is not the same as 98% uninformed consent or intimidation - this is not to say that never happened.

They are rethinking it. Police officials held neighborhood meetings describing the program and is addressing concerns before fully implementing it.

Okay. I hope the cooler heads prevail. Bostonians must trust their police and prosecutors a lot more than I would.

I’m impressed by your cool-headed response! :cool:

it seems to me that a much more sensible policy would be for Officers to give up on these constitutionally-problematic searches, and simply notify the parents that their child is suspected of having a gun. the parent could then confront the child or search the child's room on their own (which is completely legal and ethical), and then turn over firearms, drug paraphernalia, or etc. to the police at a later date. there is absolutely no reason for the officers to enter the home, except that they want to go in there and sniff out whatever else they can find.

Just out of curiosity, CapitalJ, is the plan to implement citywide or only in select neighborhoods where guns are a problem?

Also, a major benefit of a search warrant is that it must specify what the police are to search for.... they don't have an entirely free hand. For example, if they're looking for a shotgun they shouldn't be looking for it in a shoe box where a shotgun obviously wouldn't fit.

The "Safe Homes" program is supposed to be targeted toward specific neighborhoods, and has been scaled back to address concerns raised by critics.

It is not designed to search for specific firearms, but all illegal firearms in the home, and will not target anyone already under investigation for criminal activity, since that could jeopardize prosecution. It is meant to be a tool to help parents with troubled children in troubled neighborhoods protect young people from from getting mixed up in or falling victim to violent crime. Yes, the parents could do much of this on their own, but community involvement and cooperation is extremely helpful to families living in less than ideal conditions.

The program may alarm some people, but I think that the fact that police are working hard to gain public support, and even scaling back and delaying the program, is a sign that we don't need to fear a police state quite yet.

And those of us lucky enough not to live in dangerous neighborhoods need to remember that while such an approach might not seem appropriate to our situation, we are also reasonably secure in assuming our children will return home safe at the end of the day, and more importantly, will be safe in their own home or the homes of friends and relatives. It's too simplistic to label those who cooperate with such programs as ignorant of their rights or victims of intimidation.

I don't think, as some do, that the program is an inherently bad idea. I have some misgivings about the details, but am more concerned about which officers execute the policy.

I've been searched several times simply because of my appearance, and I once watched an innocent bystander get roughed up and arrested for having the temerity to mutter his displeasure while obeying an order to return to his car. I tend to be less wary of the law than the all too human officers who are supposed to uphold it (yes, the laws are passed by all too human politicians... ). Yet I am also aware that few people are subjected to the relatively minor indignities that I've experienced, let alone worse, and most police officers behave professionally. I try to keep an open mind.

It's not that I am an apologist for the policy; I try (with varying degrees of success) to approach every subject without preconceptions. I don't read headlines blaring "warrantless gun search" and think "second amendment catastrophe". I consider the source (and I must admit to enough bias to be suspicious of any source with "Fox" in its name) and try to understand the details as applied to the specific situation rather than through the lens of my own politics (yes, I am aware that my disdain for Fox News and its ilk will undermine my objectivity and credibility in some circles).

Bias? I'd call it an education provided by experience. :D

.
Two simple questions:

Q1: Which types of guns, if any, should be absolutely banned from public ownership?

Q2: If it is viable to distinguish between rural and urban gun owners, which additional types of guns should be banned from owners with city residence?

.

Fox is okay, one just needs to understand who and what they are. Makes it easy to keep up with what the other side is doing and thinking (no names, so this is not political).

Q1: Real assault weapons... not what is being called assault weapons simply because they "look" like one but are functionally no different than any other semi-automatic rifle/pistol. Real assault weapons are fully automatic with high capacity ammo clips. They have been banned for many years... e.g. tommy guns and such. I would add a ban on armor piercing ammo to this as those bullets have no use other than to pierce armor. Most deer don't wear armor.... though I've heard some cows do during deer season.

Q2: One cannot distinguish. A lot of hunters live in the city. City dwellers sometimes have a greater need for self defense.

Really have no objection to stringent controls on the people who are permitted to own guns. Wouldn't even object to mandatory registration if it wasn't such a setup for a full ban... and I am convinced that is where the gun hater crowd is headed.

Just a thought-- perhaps it would be best if the pro-gun people volunteered to license their weapons. Then they could have a large hand in how it's done, keeping the "gun haters" from having total control over the system. That might keep a real ban from happening.

Might vary with individual state's Bill Of Rights. It was a former cop who told me, although he was barely "former" at the time.

I try to always have an out of state driver license. :D It reduces the options of the officer. Since I also have a current student ID, I don't risk being busted for failure to change my license with my address.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is on one extreme and the gun-haters the other.... and you just don't get more opposite than those two groups. I'm afraid all sense of logic and compromise left the room years ago. I'm somewhere in the middle (I'd like to think).

It really isn't just about hunting, though for sure that's part of it. Self defense is a huge piece. We had "stand your ground" legislation introduced in our state legislature last year that would have authorized the use of deadly force in a confrontation ... it failed on some technicalities, but you get the drift of the debate. The current standard is your life must reasonably be in danger before you can fire.... can't shoot someone just because they are stealing your car, they have to come after YOU before you can legally fire and even then you must have tried to remove yourself from the situation and attempted to avoid the conflict.... walk away if you can (as opposed to "stand your ground").

The debate here is not whether or not you can have a gun and what kind, it is when can you legally use that gun to end a life. No doubt our European friends are shaking their heads on that one.

Lot of people are afraid. And when it happens in the home in the middle of the night, they want some options. The police will not get there in time to protect them and that is a fact. If people felt safe in their homes, this would be a very different discussion.

What about these guys then? Serious munitions.

http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/

It is up to the state to require that. NY and CA both have strict gun laws and require registration. Here where I live, it is very liberal and I can just pay cash at a gun show and go.

Kansas just passed (in the house) a bill that would allow citizens to own fully automatic weapons recently, see this:

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/0319...59272077.shtml

The bill would allow private companies and gun shops to sell fully automatic weapons to law enforcement, it would also allow sales to private citizens. It passed in the house by a landslide too, like 112 to 18. The idea behind it is, if a company can sell to government they should also be able to sell to private citizens. Another aspect is that if the government is allowed to as well so should private citizens for protection from the government. Of course licensing and fees and taxes would apply to owning a fully auto gun. I don't think it would be real affordable to any average citizen.

Everyone experiences life different and in my experiences, I kind of like the idea of owning a gun. My home has been broken into twice while I was home. If they had been armed and assaulted me I could not be typing this right now. I have been mugged at knife point. I had a neighbor down the street go crazy and start shooting things in his home a few years back. What if he had gone out and started shooting up our houses on the streets? The main problem is that I live near a poor neighborhood. So, people from the other side of town come in to my side of town and rob, steal, mug, etc and then run back to their side of town with the stolen goods. My old roommates car got stolen from outside our house and they found it 50 to 60 blocks from our house on the other side of town. I love it where I live, and am not going to be afraid of criminals or crimes in my area. I am going to protect myself instead.

I am responsible, I pay my taxes, I don't really break any laws, any important ones anyway, I don't have any mental illnesses, I am not angry nor do I ever go looking for any fights, and I am a gun owner. I own a pistol and an assault rifle, which are both made for killing plain and simple. I can't hunt with either of them. I do however, enjoy going out to the range and shooting, adjusting my aim for windage, move my targets farther away and aim and adjust. It does take skill and the better you get the more fun it is. I will most likely end up buying a shotgun for home defense, because my current guns shoot far and penetrate through walls. So, if I ever had to use them in a home defense situation I could possibly shoot through my wall and into my neighbors house. Shotguns don't really penetrate through walls that much and would be much safer for everyone who lives around me.

I could go on and on too about the things that I have seen and go on near where I live that can easily justify a responsible person owning a gun. If I ever have kids, that is a different story, I'd either get a gun safe or get rid of my guns, or well at least some of them.

It is my understanding that the machine guns (including AK-47s, Uzi's and the like) had been banned everywhere, except for collectors who must register each weapon. No idea how they are getting around that. If they haven't been banned in some jurisdiction, then they should be.

That said, sure looked like some good, clean fun to me.

yes, but it looks like gun laws are shifting more towards the state instead of federal, which I like.

You can already go out certain places in the US and rent fully auto guns and shoot them. If you think ammo is expensive now, imagine shooting a 30 round magazine in a few seconds. You would go through so much ammo, it would cost you an arm and a leg. Even if you reloaded your own, it would still cost a lot.

I agree though, it sure would be a lot of fun.

Re: Your arm and leg
 

I suppose the accessibility (and not just rentals!) of automatic weapons is one of the things that I find truly shocking about present cirumstances. How anyone, even in the NRA, can oppose a moratorium on those kinds of weapons is beyond my comprehension.

And frankly, the shooter’s arm and leg is the least of my concerns in the midst of that madness. ;)

-- ArcticStones

Arctic-

This is something that many other people from other countries do not understand. Our government has the ability to police us, strip our rights, and call down martial law in any unjust manner. They have already chipped away at our personal freedoms and rights post 9/11.

This is an election year, so I get way more politically active during those years and am following laws, legislations, politics in general more than I do during non election years.

Banning anything in our country does not guarantee it gets banned. I remember seeing on the news last summer that there was a gun fight, in my city, and a M60 fully automatic machine gun was used in the gun fight. They are illegal, but there it was. A ban on anything does not mean people can not get them, and it creates more crime and more government. You make the ATF larger to regulate illegal gun sales, and you have illegal gun sales because you out lawed them.

No, I do not think everyone should own a gun, or carry a gun. I think only responsible people should. A gun is a lot like a condom, I would rather have one and not need it, than need it and not have one.

People think that if you ban guns or highly restrict them it will reduce violent crimes, and it won't. Poverty is a bigger problem in our country right now than gun ownership and our government debates gun ownership to not deal with the bigger issue. Our middle class is slowly becoming non existent and almost everything is being out sourced.

You know how war boosts economy right? Puts tax dollars right back into our nation? Well, our military is out sourcing things these days and our economy has gone to crap.

I guess I am somewhat of a liberal conservative in some ways. I want more personal and private rights and less government in our personal and private lives. I believe that if you are a law abiding citizen and you want to own and carry a gun and you have proven yourself responsible, then I have no problems. I also believe that if you prove yourself to be irresponsible you should no longer be allowed to carry.

Banning guns will only create more crime, and won't stop a thing. Illegal guns get smuggled in and sold all the time, just like all the illegal drugs in our country. I can walk down the street right now and get any illegal drug I wanted if I were so inclined to do so, and yet they are banned.

oops, deleted

I think the term "gun haters" is simplistic and unproductive.

I also think the gun control issue is too complex to be reduced to "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" positions.

And I find it interesting that a thread about voluntary warrantless searches for illegal firearms, which seems to me to be more a 4th amendment issue, quickly turned to more a discussion of the 2nd amendment.

You are correct, it really is a 4th amendment violation. The 2nd is just highly debated and will be forever until they finally lay down what it really means.

I said issue, not violation, because there is room for debate. Do you consider it a violation even if a person aware of their rights allows the search?

Do you really think this isn't happening in other countries for the very same reason?


It does provide a means to sanction those who violate accepted social norms.

What means, other than regulation, would provide a way to help keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people?

Highly debatable.

The government debates lots of things instead of poverty or other pertinent issues. And you seem to be pointing to the issue of poverty as a way to minimize the value of debate on gun control.

Oh, a point of agreement. ;)

If someone is not aware of their rights, does that make it OK to violate them?

I understand you have the right to have the police search your home. I guess if you want them to, you have every right to. I just don't understand it.

My comment about our government and our rights post 9/11, I guess my point was you have to live here to understand our views. I was not saying that doesn't happen in other countries, sorry for the confusion.

This I have thought on some. Make it so all federally licensed arm deals, and state conservatory ranges, can go out and get certified to teach a gun safety course, which would be regulated at the state level. So, your state sets the standards. Then have each person go through these tests and training to become certified to carry a gun on their persons. I don't care what people do or own in their own personal home. I am more worried about an idiot carrying a gun and it accidentally discharging due to ignorance at the grocery store I shop at. You must pay for the training course, so private businesses can make money off their time, and or the state can use that money to put back in the program.

Violent crime typically happens in poor neighborhoods. If you take Kansas City for example, which is extremely dynamic, you can go from million dollar homes to the ghetto and government housing in a few miles travel. The rich neighborhoods have a lot less crime, they have a private security and more police. There aren't a lot of murders in that area.

You go several miles North and you find yourself in a place where murder happens, sometimes every day. Mostly by gun or knife. Me bringing up poverty was kind of saying it could be the root of the issue is all.

Our constitution! That's who...

Owning a personal firearm is a right, one set in place to protect ourselves against those who choose to do harm. I can only hope this DC gun ban doesn't become a hot trend, because in my opinion, it is unconstitutional to ban what is a citizen's right to have. This is obviously excluding those citizens with a criminal record, etc.. but you get the idea. ;)

Here's another article on what DC is doing.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=58825

It is not possible to separate what they are doing from the right to own a gun. An illegal gun in DC is ANY handgun. This is being challenged in the Supreme Court, who has agreed to hear the case. The article clearly states:

"The district's perspective is that the Second Amendment only allows people to have guns in connection with service in a militia – not to own guns as an individual."

That's correct, DC is challenging directly the right to own guns.... any gun. And DC is continuing to confiscate so called illegal weapons while that right is being decided in the Supreme Court with constitutionally questionable tactic of voluntary searches with only limited immunity for the poor citizens tricked into giving up their rights.

And in the meantime, Florida just passed "Take Your Gun to Work" legislation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/...lorida_guns_dc

Yeah I read that Florida thing today. I guess you never know someone could come to work and start shooting the place up.:confused:

Of course not.

You don't have to agree with their decision, just respect their right to it - and not try to take it away from them, just like you would expect others to respect your right to own a gun.

Similar to drivers ed. - a reasonable proposition.

And yet, the home is where so so many deaths occur. I stopped going to a friend's house because, despite having children, he kept a loaded gun in the kitchen.

From what I understand, there aren't as many guns, typically, in the wealthy neighborhoods, either. Go figure.

I don't disagree that poverty is tangled up in the root causes of violence, I grew up poor. But not too long ago kids used their fists instead of weapons. Times have changed. Eventually, laws need to catch up.

That is the way it works here for a concealed gun carry permit, except the trainers can be anybody certified by the state to provide the training (fairly stiff educ reqmnts to be a trainer.)

Hunters are also required to complete a training course, which includes gun safety as well as the law, before they can be issued a hunting license. (one time only on the training)

Weapons in the home are not regulated past the background check reqd when they are purchased and laws preventing ownership for felons, domestic violence, and such.

Here its a 1 day class and a fee, and you can get your CCW. While I am a safety nazi with my guns, not everyone else is. I am also not the type to keep a loaded gun in my kitchen, under my pillow, in the bathroom, etc.

I keep one gun near reach, which is not loaded, but has a mag with like 8 or 9 rounds in it that is loaded. I can get to my gun and load it and cock back the slide in probably under 25 seconds or less if I really wanted to. All my other guns are empty with the chamber cleared.

Alas, we have a little one... 11. So the guns are tucked away out of site, unloaded, with ammunition stored in a different location (also out of sight and under lock and key). It'd take a while to get one ready to fire... not comfortable with that, but then not comfortable with them any other way either.

But, that doesn't stop me from loading one and slipping it in my pocket when I feel the need, which is pretty rare.

25 seconds??? You need some practice!;)

Even I can slide a mag into a nine milly and chamber a round in about 3 seconds.... Unless of course, you have to untangle all the lingerie first.:D

Heh, it is in a case, in a night stand on the far side of my bed (away from the door) and I am taking into account I have to wake up roll over, fumble with the drawer in the dark, pull the case out, load the mag, cock it and kick ass.

I am sure I could do it faster if I felt threatened, but like I said, I don't like keeping a loaded gun near me.

Like I said earlier, I think I am going to end up buying a shot gun, and put probably some game buck in it, which would take down any human and not penetrate through walls. I'd keep that loaded in the closet and could access it in a matter of seconds.

I don't have kids though so I feel safe doing so at this point in time.

Check out www.magsafeonline.com/faq.html for ammo that won't penetrate sheet rock (usually).

Glad to see there's not just the two of us who own guns.

I lock up the ammo, not the guns, because every young kid knows to an absolute certainty that you can fire a cartridge off with a hammer and a nail. With just a little thought, they'll figure out it takes nothing more than a piece of pipe (like a telescoping radio antenna) and a cap pistol to make their own firearm.... made my first one at 12. Fired .22 shorts.

Cartridges also provide access to gun powder which, again with just a little thought, can be used for a hand grenade (pipe, caps, gun powder, match heads, etc.). For that matter, a simple cannon can be constructed with a pipe, pipe cap, and a cherry bomb. Two pieces of telescoping pipe make a quick, effective shot gun.

Where I grew up, the weapon most common with the gangs was home made zip guns. All the bans and voluntary search warrants in the world are not going to solve the violence and weapons problem.

Solve? I doubt it. There is no silver bullet solution (sorry, couldn't resist that) because there are so many other factors (poverty, etc.). Help reduce it? Done properly (and of course, constitutionally), yes. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

At this point, I risk doing little more than repeat myself (I am prone to that, unfortunately). I should just read for now, in case anything new or productive is said while the thread peters out.

Supremes Say We Do Have the Right to Own Guns
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/...co/scotus_guns

So there !

*Cough* its the illuminati!! *runs away scared* :p

My point may seem pedantic, but I believe it needs to be reiterated that the so-called D.C. gun ban was not a ban on all guns. The real issue was gun restrictions, not outright bans. From the article you linked:

I know there are those who believe restrictions on gun ownership are tantamount to bans on gun ownership. I am not one of them.

I hope this decision does not lead to rapid erosion of sensible and effective gun restrictions.

It was a ban on handguns, with those who have owned one for 32 years being grandfathered in... and they could not buy a new one. Eventually, that becomes a total ban on handguns.

It also required rifles & shotguns to be rendered useless for self defense.... disassembled and/or locked with a key.

Put those two together and what you have is the right to store guns for hunting purposes, but no right to keep them readily available for self defense.

Suppose the only thing the decision did outside WASHDC was to reaffirm the right to own a firearm and the right to own it for the purpose of self defense. In my view, that is huge.

If you are referring to machine guns and grenade launchers, I agree.

Gov's right to regulate, or even require a license for any gun, was left in place. Course, the right to not regulate or require a license was left in place, too.