Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
trexmeyer wrote: All I was trying (and apparently failing) to make clear was that mass shooters consistently have misogynistic tendencies, a history of mental illness, and a history of social isolation.
Very true. What to do about it though? I have no idea.
Imagine a world where healthcare is free and guns laws requiring safe storage of guns are actually enforced.
No wait. No. THE COMMULISTS ARE COMING FOR US! WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN! NOT SOCIANISM!
I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/23 00:45:12
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight. Prevents police from getting free house searches. Which is great because you should never ever trust the police, they do not have your best interest in mind.
Ouze wrote: I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight. Prevents police from getting free house searches. Which is great because you should never ever trust the police, they do not have your best interest in mind.
These are not unsolvable problems.
Yeah no. Not only would you be potentially violating the 2nd amendment, but you'd definitely be violating the 4th.
Where do you draw the line at what constitutes proper storage? Do you require everybody to have their guns locked in an expensive, and very large, gunsafe at all times? That treads into areas where you'd be denying the gun owner's right to self defense if they can't access their firearm quickly. You would also potentially be effectively denying their 2nd amendement right by making it too difficult to have the proper storage, either because its too expensive or because they don't live in a house with enough space to have a safe of whatever dimensions and specifications are required. No one thing here is an issue by itself, but all together you end up breaking the camel's back little by little. You make the 2nd a right only able to be practiced by people with enough income to afford both a safe and the space to hold it. Granted, there are affordable safes out there, but outside of drawer safes for handguns none of them are close to compact.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency, but also has authority from the government to enforce the laws by doing inspections on demand whenever they want. I don't think it would be possible to be an enforcer of government laws and simultaneously be independent of said government. Either you'd have a private organization committing forced entry and criminal trespass on private property OR you have a government entity committing an illegal search without probable cause in violation of the 4th.
:edit for derp
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/23 04:32:03
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Ouze wrote: I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight. Prevents police from getting free house searches. Which is great because you should never ever trust the police, they do not have your best interest in mind.
These are not unsolvable problems.
Yeah no. Not only would you be potentially violating the 2nd amendment, but you'd definitely be violating the 7th.
Where do you draw the line at what constitutes proper storage? Do you require everybody to have their guns locked in an expensive, and very large, gunsafe at all times? That treads into areas where you'd be denying the gun owner's right to self defense if they can't access their firearm quickly. You would also potentially be effectively denying their 2nd amendement right by making it too difficult to have the proper storage, either because its too expensive or because they don't live in a house with enough space to have a safe of whatever dimensions and specifications are required. No one thing here is an issue by itself, but all together you end up breaking the camel's back little by little. You make the 2nd a right only able to be practiced by people with enough income to afford both a safe and the space to hold it. Granted, there are affordable safes out there, but outside of drawer safes for handguns none of them are close to compact.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency, but also has authority from the government to enforce the laws by doing inspections on demand whenever they want. I don't think it would be possible to be an enforcer of government laws and simultaneously be independent of said government. Either you'd have a private organization committing forced entry and criminal trespass on private property OR you have a government entity committing an illegal search without probable cause in violation of the 7th.
Wow, that escalated quickly. We wen't from having somebody other than the police doing it to the new group breaking and entering with no warrant in order to do whatever they want.
This is brilliant. Just pure brilliant BS and fearmongering. Kudos to you sir.
Ouze wrote: I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight. Prevents police from getting free house searches. Which is great because you should never ever trust the police, they do not have your best interest in mind.
These are not unsolvable problems.
Yeah no. Not only would you be potentially violating the 2nd amendment, but you'd definitely be violating the 7th.
Where do you draw the line at what constitutes proper storage? Do you require everybody to have their guns locked in an expensive, and very large, gunsafe at all times? That treads into areas where you'd be denying the gun owner's right to self defense if they can't access their firearm quickly. You would also potentially be effectively denying their 2nd amendement right by making it too difficult to have the proper storage, either because its too expensive or because they don't live in a house with enough space to have a safe of whatever dimensions and specifications are required. No one thing here is an issue by itself, but all together you end up breaking the camel's back little by little. You make the 2nd a right only able to be practiced by people with enough income to afford both a safe and the space to hold it. Granted, there are affordable safes out there, but outside of drawer safes for handguns none of them are close to compact.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency, but also has authority from the government to enforce the laws by doing inspections on demand whenever they want. I don't think it would be possible to be an enforcer of government laws and simultaneously be independent of said government. Either you'd have a private organization committing forced entry and criminal trespass on private property OR you have a government entity committing an illegal search without probable cause in violation of the 7th.
Wow, that escalated quickly. We wen't from having somebody other than the police doing it to the new group breaking and entering with no warrant in order to do whatever they want.
This is brilliant. Just pure brilliant BS and fearmongering. Kudos to you sir.
If this group has government authority to conduct searches and enforce the law, they are a government agency. Doing blanket unjustified searches of personal property is a violation of the 4th amendment. You have to have probable cause and apply for a search warrant. "This person owns guns" isn't probably cause for a violation. Even if the law right now said everybody who has a gun has to keep it in a bank vault with 2" steel plate and 3 different types of locking mechanisms, you'd still need probable cause to search someone's house who you suspected didn't own such a safe. You couldn't conduct random inspections whenever you wanted.
If this group doesn't have government authority, they're trespassers.
Thats not fearmongering or BS. Thats how the law works.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/23 04:32:20
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
You suggested a 3rd party group be the ones to do the inspections to enforce safe storage.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight.
Now, either this group is a non-government agency. In which case they have no authority to do inspections at all, and any "inspections" done by them are nothing more than trespassing. Obviously, trespassing is illegal.
Or this group is a new or existing government agency. You are suggesting this group inspect everyone who owns guns to see if they are storing their firearms properly. The problem with this is that that is a violation of the 4th amendment. You need evidence that someone is improperly storing their firearms before you can inspect where they are storing them. Same reason police cannot pull you over unless you are doing something that indicates you are doing/have done something illegal or if they actually witness an illegal act. And even if they do pull you over, for say a busted taillight, they still can't search your vehicle unless you give consent or they see something illegal in plain view or something else that gives probable cause.
Simply owning a gun would definitely not pass the smell test for probable cause to allow inspections out of the blue.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/23 04:32:35
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Haven't most of the misogynistic strand of shooters legally acquired their guns? How do you keep them from acquiring guns if they have no prior record?
My suggestiosn:
1) Felons can are still denied access to firearms regardless of the felony.
2) Any misdemeanor assault bars you from purchasing a firearm for a minimum of 5 years and you are required to turn over any firearms in your possession.
3) Medical records are allowed to be checked. Any history of mental illness OF any kind within the last X years prevents you from immediately purchasing a firearm. Make it like a 30 day wait or something. Any record of a suicide attempt, expressed desire to do harm against others, sociopathic or otherwise violent tendencies within the last X years prevents you form purchasing a firearm.
4) Raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm nationwide to 25.
5) Decriminalize possession up to X amount (what someone could use in 2-3 days IMO) and stop wasting time chasing those people.
6) Pass a law requiring firearms to either be stored in a safe or with a lock that prevents firing (IDR the name) unless the owner is in the immediate vicinity of the weapon at the time.
7) Punish neglectful owners whose firearms are used in any kind of assault.
However, my opinion is that the issue is primarily a cultural one in that mass shootings are, by and large, carried out by young, mentally ill males. The symptoms can be reduced, but the disease will not be destroyed without addressing that. Even then, there will always be criminals and there will always be hate.
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
You suggested a 3rd party group be the ones to do the inspections to enforce safe storage.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight.
Now, either this group is a non-government agency. In which case they have no authority to do inspections at all, and any "inspections" done by them are nothing more than trespassing. Obviously, trespassing is illegal.
Or this group is a new or existing government agency. You are suggesting this group inspect everyone who owns guns to see if they are storing their firearms properly. The problem with this is that that is a violation of the 7th amendment. You need evidence that someone is improperly storing their firearms before you can inspect where they are storing them. Same reason police cannot pull you over unless you are doing something that indicates you are doing/have done something illegal or if they actually witness an illegal act. And even if they do pull you over, for say a busted taillight, they still can't search your vehicle unless you give consent or they see something illegal in plain view or something else that gives probable cause.
Simply owning a gun would definitely not pass the smell test for probable cause to allow inspections out of the blue.
Okay so, first I am going to really ruin your view of the police. The police do this all the time. They pull people over for no reason. A lot of them are called DUI checkpoints. Or you can just get pulled over for driving too close to the lines for half a second. (Happened to me!) Now with that fun little issue solved, we can move on to the next.
I see you have figured out that 3rd party doesn't mean civilian and you are going with the new/existing government agency. Just so happy this conversation is moving forward.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
trexmeyer wrote: Haven't most of the misogynistic strand of shooters legally acquired their guns? How do you keep them from acquiring guns if they have no prior record?
Well that is the thing. You're not a criminal until you've broken the law. Best you can do is something like the Red Flag laws. Or with dudes like the Parkland shooter actually enforce existing laws, that guy could and should have been locked up long ago. Its just people chose to do nothing.
My suggestiosn:
1) Felons can are still denied access to firearms regardless of the felony.
2) Any misdemeanor assault bars you from purchasing a firearm for a minimum of 5 years and you are required to turn over any firearms in your possession.
3) Medical records are allowed to be checked. Any history of mental illness OF any kind within the last X years prevents you from immediately purchasing a firearm. Make it like a 30 day wait or something. Any record of a suicide attempt, expressed desire to do harm against others, sociopathic or otherwise violent tendencies within the last X years prevents you form purchasing a firearm.
4) Raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm nationwide to 25.
5) Decriminalize possession up to X amount (what someone could use in 2-3 days IMO) and stop wasting time chasing those people.
6) Pass a law requiring firearms to either be stored in a safe or with a lock that prevents firing (IDR the name) unless the owner is in the immediate vicinity of the weapon at the time.
7) Punish neglectful owners whose firearms are used in any kind of assault.
1) Already Federal Law. If you're a convicted felon, you can't possess firearms ever again.
2) Bad idea. Misdemeanor assault covers a range of very minor things. At most, I'd say if you have a misdemeanor assault you could be temporarily prohibited from purchasing and posessing, but only for a short time. 1 year at most, and then I'd say only if you've had multiple misdemeanor assaults or similar offenses. A one off minor issue like being involved in a barroom brawl shouldn't strip you of a constitutional right for 5 years. If you keep doing it, sure.
3) Maybe, but we'd need to be very careful about what kinds of mental illness and how you define mental illness for the purposes of this law. You'd need to carefully have this documented too. You wouldn't want only one person's word or report get you on a registrar of crazy people.
4) Hell no. If you're old enough to vote, you should have access to all your constitutional rights. If you ever managed to get the voting age raised to 25, then maybe we could revisit this.
5) Possession of what? Drugs? I'm ok with having policy's not to prosecute if the possession is the only violation and its only a personal amount. Not sure exactly how this is relevant to shootings.
6) Unenforceable, and any attempt to enforce it would open up the issues I raised in my previous post.
7) Maybe, but again its difficult to prove and it deflects blame away from the people who actually committed the crime.
However, my opinion is that the issue is primarily a cultural one in that mass shootings are, by and large, carried out by young, mentally ill males. The symptoms can be reduced, but the disease will not be destroyed without addressing that. Even then, there will always be criminals and there will always be hate.
Okay so, first I am going to really ruin your view of the police. The police do this all the time. They pull people over for no reason. A lot of them are called DUI checkpoints. Or you can just get pulled over for driving too close to the lines for half a second. (Happened to me!) Now with that fun little issue solved, we can move on to the next.
I see you have figured out that 3rd party doesn't mean civilian and you are going with the new/existing government agency. Just so happy this conversation is moving forward.
I am aware they do it. I'm not ok with it.
As for the 3rd party, I wasn't sure what you meant in your original post. It sure seemed you might be implying it wouldn't be a government agency. Especially since you were trying to come at the angle of not having the police do it, and Government Law Enforcement = Police. Be they federal, state, or local. FBI, ATF, ICE, State, and Local Police are all Police agencies. Even the freaking IRS has its own police. So this new/existing agency you'd have inspecting everybody's guns would infact be Police of some flavor.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/23 02:41:14
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
You suggested a 3rd party group be the ones to do the inspections to enforce safe storage.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight.
Now, either this group is a non-government agency. In which case they have no authority to do inspections at all, and any "inspections" done by them are nothing more than trespassing. Obviously, trespassing is illegal.
Or this group is a new or existing government agency. You are suggesting this group inspect everyone who owns guns to see if they are storing their firearms properly. The problem with this is that that is a violation of the 7th amendment. You need evidence that someone is improperly storing their firearms before you can inspect where they are storing them. Same reason police cannot pull you over unless you are doing something that indicates you are doing/have done something illegal or if they actually witness an illegal act. And even if they do pull you over, for say a busted taillight, they still can't search your vehicle unless you give consent or they see something illegal in plain view or something else that gives probable cause.
Simply owning a gun would definitely not pass the smell test for probable cause to allow inspections out of the blue.
Okay so, first I am going to really ruin your view of the police. The police do this all the time. They pull people over for no reason. A lot of them are called DUI checkpoints. Or you can just get pulled over for driving too close to the lines for half a second. (Happened to me!) Now with that fun little issue solved, we can move on to the next.
I see you have figured out that 3rd party doesn't mean civilian and you are going with the new/existing government agency. Just so happy this conversation is moving forward.
Being pulled over on a road way is not the same as searching a house. Noticed how you gave a reason for being pulled over, driving too close to the line. That opens the probable cause to stop you. They still don't have the right to search your car, unless during your interaction with the police you give them permission. They can look in, see anything that is open to public view, but not search.
Also, the state gives you the permission to drive, as such they can take it away. Our constitution is based on the belief that some rights are inalienable, grated by a power higher than any government of man. The right to defend oneself, is part of the right to life and liberty.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
You suggested a 3rd party group be the ones to do the inspections to enforce safe storage.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight.
Now, either this group is a non-government agency. In which case they have no authority to do inspections at all, and any "inspections" done by them are nothing more than trespassing. Obviously, trespassing is illegal.
Or this group is a new or existing government agency. You are suggesting this group inspect everyone who owns guns to see if they are storing their firearms properly. The problem with this is that that is a violation of the 7th amendment. You need evidence that someone is improperly storing their firearms before you can inspect where they are storing them. Same reason police cannot pull you over unless you are doing something that indicates you are doing/have done something illegal or if they actually witness an illegal act. And even if they do pull you over, for say a busted taillight, they still can't search your vehicle unless you give consent or they see something illegal in plain view or something else that gives probable cause.
Simply owning a gun would definitely not pass the smell test for probable cause to allow inspections out of the blue.
Okay so, first I am going to really ruin your view of the police. The police do this all the time. They pull people over for no reason. A lot of them are called DUI checkpoints. Or you can just get pulled over for driving too close to the lines for half a second. (Happened to me!) Now with that fun little issue solved, we can move on to the next.
I see you have figured out that 3rd party doesn't mean civilian and you are going with the new/existing government agency. Just so happy this conversation is moving forward.
Being pulled over on a road way is not the same as searching a house. Noticed how you gave a reason for being pulled over, driving too close to the line. That opens the probable cause to stop you. They still don't have the right to search your car, unless during your interaction with the police you give them permission. They can look in, see anything that is open to public view, but not search.
Also, the state gives you the permission to drive, as such they can take it away. Our constitution is based on the belief that some rights are inalienable, grated by a power higher than any government of man. The right to defend oneself, is part of the right to life and liberty.
No, it doesn't give them probably cause to stop me. Driving too close to a line is not reckless or illegal.
Also, the constitution gives you the right to own a gun and that right can be taken away.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
You suggested a 3rd party group be the ones to do the inspections to enforce safe storage.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight.
Now, either this group is a non-government agency. In which case they have no authority to do inspections at all, and any "inspections" done by them are nothing more than trespassing. Obviously, trespassing is illegal.
Or this group is a new or existing government agency. You are suggesting this group inspect everyone who owns guns to see if they are storing their firearms properly. The problem with this is that that is a violation of the 7th amendment. You need evidence that someone is improperly storing their firearms before you can inspect where they are storing them. Same reason police cannot pull you over unless you are doing something that indicates you are doing/have done something illegal or if they actually witness an illegal act. And even if they do pull you over, for say a busted taillight, they still can't search your vehicle unless you give consent or they see something illegal in plain view or something else that gives probable cause.
Simply owning a gun would definitely not pass the smell test for probable cause to allow inspections out of the blue.
Okay so, first I am going to really ruin your view of the police. The police do this all the time. They pull people over for no reason. A lot of them are called DUI checkpoints. Or you can just get pulled over for driving too close to the lines for half a second. (Happened to me!) Now with that fun little issue solved, we can move on to the next.
I see you have figured out that 3rd party doesn't mean civilian and you are going with the new/existing government agency. Just so happy this conversation is moving forward.
Being pulled over on a road way is not the same as searching a house. Noticed how you gave a reason for being pulled over, driving too close to the line. That opens the probable cause to stop you. They still don't have the right to search your car, unless during your interaction with the police you give them permission. They can look in, see anything that is open to public view, but not search.
Also, the state gives you the permission to drive, as such they can take it away. Our constitution is based on the belief that some rights are inalienable, grated by a power higher than any government of man. The right to defend oneself, is part of the right to life and liberty.
No, it doesn't give them probably cause to stop me. Driving too close to a line is not reckless or illegal.
Also, the constitution gives you the right to own a gun and that right can be taken away.
I mean, are we even trying in here?
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
No, it doesn't give them probably cause to stop me. Driving too close to a line is not reckless or illegal.
Actually, driving too close to the line would fall under Reckless driving. Yes, it is a flimsy justification, but it is there. And yes, police can abuse this by just saying "You drove too close to the line" without you really having been reckless.
This is way different than police saying "This person owns guns and might be storing them improperly" and using that as justification for getting a search warrant. No judge would sign off on that warrant. Its a totally different level of breaking the law. Pulling you over on a thin justification is really treading the line, but using that as an example to show cops could willy nilly search anybody's house because you have guns doesn't work. Thats just so far into blatantly illegal territory that not even the most anti-gun of judges wouldn't sign off on that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/23 04:40:41
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
So, are you telling me that police can stop me and do a visual search of my car and ask me for license and registration without me committing a crime or giving any sort of consent?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Dreadwinter wrote: So, are you telling me that police can stop me and do a visual search of my car and ask me for license and registration without me committing a crime or giving any sort of consent?
No. What they can do is use a flimsy justification like you going just a little too close to the line to pull the "Reckless driving" line. Its not right, but there isn't much you can do about that other than fight any ticket you may get in court. And if you do fight something that had flimsy justification you can get it dismissed. Lots of people don't fight minor tickets which, if they tried at all, could get tossed out fairly trivially. Assuming something more severe didn't get found.
What they definitely can't do is physically search your vehicle without a warrant unless you consent OR something like drugs, a body, or something else of similar severity is plainly visible from outside the car. This applies even if they arrest you for something like DUI because you failed a field sobriety check.
This is why Cops will, if they see someone they want to pull over, might follow someone around for a bit before pulling them over. They're waiting for them to do something they can use to justify a stop. Then during the stop they'll try to weasel consent to search out of you or look for something they can plainly see from outside the car that gives them probably cause to do a search.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/23 05:04:24
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.
Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/23 05:26:45
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
No, it is illegal. Just nobody will punish them for it.
Saying it is legal for a cop to stop me with no justification is absurd. But that is okay. However, asking a person to comply with laws is out of hand.
But here is the deal. I have to provide license, registration, proof of insurance. So I was searched. They should wait until I have been in a wreck to check my insurance, no?
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.
Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.
Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?
Ouze wrote: I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
That's how it works on most of the world. Part of the social contract of owning a gun here is that cops can show up without any warning and ask to see where you keep your guns and ammo.
I once had a cop approach me at the range and ask me about a recent uptick in ammo purchases (all ammo purchases have to be done through the same license you have the guns for) I just answered that I was preparing for the IPSC nationals and that was it. I'm positive that if I'd given a suspicious answer or I failed to show up at the range for a while after purchasing too much ammo next step would be a friendly home visit.
It's not 100% foolproof (just last week a sports shooter shot his girlfriend then himself right at the range they both were practising, he was on some drugs for depression which usually means he should have had his guns removed) but at least you don't have toddlers shooting parents and kids shooting other kids.
Just for comparison, checking there is a secure storage place for the gun is part of the gun licence process in the UK; it’s done by the local police as part of the background checks and (depending on the area*) can be as simple as a locked gun clamp (so not an expensive safe).
You also need to provide a letter from your GP confirming that you don’t have any mental conditions or illness that means you would be a risk to yourself or others.
* There is a weird quirk in the UK gun laws that the application is down to individual local constabularies, so the interpretation and guidance varies quite a lot across the country.
Now an honest question, given that there are various background checks taken when people in the US buy a gun, every time, wouldn’t it save time and money (and provide a more robust system) to just have a licence that does the same checks, but on a routine basis? This can’t/shouldn’t be a second amendment issue, because you already accept that those checks and limitations are required.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.
Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.
Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?
Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?
I wonder if home gun inspections would be hard to roll out in the USA? One aspect to consider is how common guns are compared to countries like the UK. Home inspection is a great idea, but at a practical level of enforcing it you've got to have inspectors (eg police) free to actually carry out the inspections.
I'd think the USA might have to dedicate a separate force of police or enforcement group to carry out the massive number of inspections and to keep up with them otherwise it could seriously eat into regular police time for other duties.
