Page 1 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

egodeus59
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 169

16 Nov 2007, 10:55 pm

Today my dad told me that if you get a concealed weapons permit that the government has the right to come into your house and search it without your permission at any time. Is this true?
If it is isn't that a work around to the second amendment, I understand that it can be used as a way to make sure theres not some crazy guy going to go on a killing spree but it could also be used to keep the people down by knowing who has guns so if they start trying to take over( the government that is) they'd know exactly where to go to eliminate people from defending their freedom from a government turning into a dictatorship.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

16 Nov 2007, 11:08 pm

the supreme court is gonna be making a ruling soon that could effect handgun ownership across the country. keep an eye out for it.


the 2nd amendment is a big key and even if you're scared of guns...you should still support it because of how key and important it is to society and maintaining that balance.



egodeus59
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 169

16 Nov 2007, 11:23 pm

I don't care what they say the cops will have to take my guns from my cold dead hands before I give them up. Without guns the government could take over with ease. One of the first things Hitler did in Germany was to make it so citizens couldn't own guns, only the people who work for the government could possess them.

Also if they do somehow take my guns from my cold hards hands I'll find a freaken find a way to come back as a zombie and get them back. :twisted:



DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

16 Nov 2007, 11:41 pm

How concealed weapons permits work varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, no matter the jurisdiction, the Constitution requires a search warrant be issued before any searches can take place, unless the police have just cause to believe that a felony is in progress, and that taking the time to obtain a warrant might result in danger to life or property. And after the fact, most judges are pretty strict about making them prove that just cause, so very few police departments will risk making a warrantless search unless, for instance, they hear someone screaming something along the lines of "Don't shoot me!"

So, no, I'm afraid your father is misinformed about how police search powers work...


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


egodeus59
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 169

16 Nov 2007, 11:44 pm

Thanks you never know with that patriot act crap anymore.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 Nov 2007, 1:53 am

When the government decides to crack down with an army division or two to break down doors I wonder what a few guys with shotguns or target pistols are going to do.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

17 Nov 2007, 1:59 am

Sand wrote:
When the government decides to crack down with an army division or two to break down doors I wonder what a few guys with shotguns or target pistols are going to do.



a s**t ton more than if they're completely unarmed.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 Nov 2007, 2:57 am

If they're unarmed they might get out of it alive.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

18 Nov 2007, 8:04 pm

egodeus59 wrote:
Today my dad told me that if you get a concealed weapons permit that the government has the right to come into your house and search it without your permission at any time. Is this true?

No. They do not have the right, as they would be acting in violation of the 2nd and 4th amendments. Even issuing concealed carry permits violates the 2nd amendment- the Bill of Rights IS the permit, and causing people to go through unnecessary hassle or expense in order to exercise their natural rights infringes upon those rights. Any possibility of reprisal for exercising your rights (to possess a gun) in the form of having to sacrifice other rights violates that right. Searching your home without a warrant violates the 4th amendment. So, on every conceivable level, the government would have no right to do that.

That doesn't mean they can't, or won't.

This seems like a good time to mention that the Bill of Rights does not GRANT us any rights. It merely RECOGNIZES our pre-existing natural rigths and explicitly codifies them to prevent government abuse. Also, the Bill of Rights is not by any means means exhaustive, as its writers even explicitly stated in the 9th Amendment ("The enumeration here of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others still retained by the people" or something along those lines.)


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

18 Nov 2007, 8:20 pm

Police to search for guns in homes
City program depends on parental consent

By Maria Cramer, Globe Staff | November 17, 2007

Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms.

The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households.

In the next two weeks, 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.

If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide.

The program was unveiled yesterday by Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis in a meeting with several community leaders.

"I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution," said Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who now teaches criminology at Boston University. "The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."

Critics said they worry that some residents will be too intimidated by a police presence on their doorstep to say no to a search.

"Our biggest concern is the notion of informed consent," said Amy Reichbach, a racial justice advocate at the American Civil Liberties Union. "People might not understand the implications of weapons being tested or any contraband being found."

But Davis said the point of the program, dubbed Safe Homes, is to make streets safer, not to incarcerate people.

"This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case," said Davis, who met with community leaders yesterday to get feedback on the program. "This is a seizing of a very dangerous object. . . .

"I understand people's concerns about this, but the mothers of the young men who have been arrested with firearms that I've talked to are in a quandary," he said. "They don't know what to do when faced with the problem of dealing with a teenage boy in possession of a firearm. We're giving them an option in that case."

But some activists questioned whether the program would reduce the number of weapons on the street.

A criminal whose gun is seized can quickly obtain another, said Jorge Martinez, executive director of Project Right, who Davis briefed on the program earlier this week.

"There is still an individual who is an impact player who is not going to change because you've taken the gun from the household," he said.

The program will focus on juveniles 17 and younger and is modeled on an effort started in 1994 by the St. Louis Police Department, which stopped the program in 1999 partly because funding ran out.

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.

"In a case where we have investigative leads or there is an impact player that we know has been involved in serious criminal activity, we will pursue investigative leads against them and attempt to get into that house with a search warrant, so we can hold them accountable," Davis said.

Police will rely primarily on tips from neighbors. They will also follow tips from the department's anonymous hot line and investigators' own intelligence to decide what doors to knock on. A team of about 12 officers will visit homes in four Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods: Grove Hall, Bowdoin Street and Geneva Avenue, Franklin Hill and Franklin Field, and Egleston Square.

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.

"A kilo of cocaine would not be considered modest," said Elaine Driscoll, Davis's spokeswoman. "The officers that have been trained have been taught discretion."

The program will target young people whose parents are either afraid to confront them or unaware that they might be stashing weapons, said Davis, who has been trying to gain support from community leaders for the past several weeks.

One of the first to back him was the Rev. Jeffrey L. Brown, cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, who attended yesterday's meeting.

"What I like about this program is it really is a tool to empower the parent," he said. "It's a way in which they can get a hold of the household and say, 'I don't want that in my house.' "

Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, whose support was crucial for police to guarantee there would be no prosecution, also agreed to back the initiative. "To me it's a preventive tool," he said.

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.

"We had parents that invited us back, and a couple of them nearly insisted that we take keys to their house and come back anytime we wanted," he said.

But the number of people who gave consent plunged in the next four years, as the police chief who spearheaded the effort left and department support fell, according to a report published by the National Institute of Justice.

Support might also have flagged because over time police began to rely more on their own intelligence than on neighborhood tips, the report said.

Heimberger said the program also suffered after clergy leaders who were supposed to offer help to parents never appeared.

"I became frustrated when I'd get the second, or third, or fourth phone call from someone who said, 'No one has come to talk to me,' " he said. Residents "lost faith in the program and that hurt us."

Boston police plan to hold neighborhood meetings to inform the public about the program. Police are also promising follow-up visits from clergy or social workers, and they plan to allow the same scrutiny that St. Louis did.

"We want the community to know what we're doing," Driscoll said.

Ronald Odom - whose son, Steven, 13, was fatally shot last month as he walked home from basketball practice - was at yesterday's meeting and said the program is a step in the right direction. "Everyone talks about curbing violence," he said, following the meeting. ". . . This is definitely a head start."

Maria Cramer can be reached at [email protected].



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

18 Nov 2007, 9:45 pm

Sand wrote:
If they're unarmed they might get out of it alive.


I'd rather die than live as a slave, oppression is no way to live.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

18 Nov 2007, 9:47 pm

As a great patriot said "he who gives up liberty for security deserves neither".



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

18 Nov 2007, 9:48 pm

I'm sorry but your position was that of a coward.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Nov 2007, 12:53 am

It is not cowardice to survive. It is stupidity to die and be made totally ineffective. There are other means to change the world than directly confronting overwhelming power. There is no point in suicide for theatrical effect. The only result would be to give a lesson to others who reject the regime that the government control of overwhelming force will result in certain death.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

19 Nov 2007, 1:12 am

So you'd rather be ruthlessly oppressed than risk death?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Nov 2007, 1:39 am

Post deleted



Last edited by Sand on 19 Nov 2007, 4:14 am, edited 1 time in total.