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