Crackdown on Guns Beginning in DC

SSilicon, please read what I said in my original post and read it verrrrry carefully this time. I'll repeat it and explain.

USAFNodak wrote:Well, theoretically, if they ask for permission to search, they are not doing anything illegal, unless they come back with a warrant which says that refusal to let them search constituted probable cause that the home owner was hiding something.

So, if they came back with a warrant that they'd managed to get some liberal judge to issue, THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL ON THE GOVERNMENTS PART!

But that doesn't mean those types of things haven't happened in the past. Cops conduct warrantless searches all the time.

I agree with you that the cops cannot "legally" ask to search, and if you refuse, seek a warrant to come back and do a legal search under warrant. It all depends upon the judge who would issue such a warrant and how the cops sell it to him.

Your honor, we'd like a warrant to search address 123 for drugs and guns.

Judge, "what's your probably cause?"

Cops, "We have a tip from a very reliable source that the owner is in possession of illegal guns and drugs"

Does the judge issue the warrant? He shouldn't. Would a liberal judge who is against gun ownership be more likely or less likely to issue a warrant? Hard to tell. If he did issue a warrant, this would be a time for the ACLU to get very involved.

Now do you get where I'm coming from? I'm not saying the warrant would be legal, but would the cops be able to get one? If they did, would the homeowner be legally obligated to let them search? I believe they would, and they'd have to get it sorted out later in court.
 
My answer to the question in the original post, police seek permission to search absent proper warrant, PISS OFF, followed by please leave.
 
unless they come back with a warrant which says that refusal to let them search constituted probable cause that the home owner was hiding something.
Click to expand...

I DID read it. Not once, not twice, but at least THREE times now. The quote above clearly shows that the author thinks, believes, subscribes to, (insert synonym of your choice here), that it is possible for refusal to grant permission to a search, itself BECOMES the basis for probable cause to conduct said search, or to obtain a warrant to conduct said search.

Such a belief is false. Pure. Simply. False. I don't want to keep slamming this home constantly, but it WAS WRITTEN, and IT IS FALSE. What you say NOW about some kind of tipoff to the police being the basis, and that it could be fabricated by rotten cops that is true. But that is not what you originally said. Again, clearly you said refusal to search ITSELF becomes the basis of probable cause. You even gave the reasoning behind it when you said that refusal implies there is something to hide.

So please, unless you can somehow show me that it wasn't written and that I just imagined reading it, or you can show me that refusing permission to search is evidence that something will be found, then please just stop. The hole is getting deeper.

I do agree with what you are saying now, just not what you said before.
 
Then, just maybe, then, the ACLU will untie their aprons, put on a pair of pants, and step up to the civil rights plate.
Click to expand...

From the Fox news report on the searches,

The American Civil Liberties Union went door to door in a Ward 8 neighborhood. They're warning people not to voluntarily let police search their home for guns under a new plan police launched this week.
Click to expand...

Admittedly the ACLU would have to improve to be merely bad on the 2nd amendment, but they're still ok on warrantless searches, even when guns are the target.
 
Brett Bellmore closed with:

Admittedly the ACLU would have to improve to be merely bad on the 2nd amendment, but they're still ok on warrantless searches, even when guns are the target.

---------------------------------------

Re ACLU being "O.K. on warrantless searches, even where guns are the target", for how long, and or to what extent. This, by the way, is NOT to denigrate some of the valuable work done in the past, possibly in the present also by the ACLU, however respecting their positiions, as I understand them relating to firearms/gun rights, the dichotomy is indeed great. I do not quite understand how they can act in a manner which undermines any particular constitutional right or constitutionally recognized right, yet still claim as they do, to be suporters of individual rights.
 
I still am at a loss as to what the difference is between an invasion to render someone unarmed by a DCPD uniform and a Soviet or North Vietnamese uniform is and why one of them is tolerated.
 
SSilicon wrote:
I DID read it. Not once, not twice, but at least THREE times now. The quote above clearly shows that the author thinks, believes, subscribes to, (insert synonym of your choice here), that it is possible for refusal to grant permission to a search, itself BECOMES the basis for probable cause to conduct said search, or to obtain a warrant to conduct said search.

Such a belief is false. Pure. Simply. False. I don't want to keep slamming this home constantly, but it WAS WRITTEN, and IT IS FALSE. What you say NOW about some kind of tipoff to the police being the basis, and that it could be fabricated by rotten cops that is true. But that is not what you originally said. Again, clearly you said refusal to search ITSELF becomes the basis of probable cause. You even gave the reasoning behind it when you said that refusal implies there is something to hide.

So please, unless you can somehow show me that it wasn't written and that I just imagined reading it, or you can show me that refusing permission to search is evidence that something will be found, then please just stop. The hole is getting deeper.

I do agree with what you are saying now, just not what you said before.

OK, we now agree. I also explained that I should have written my statement differently, but sometimes we must read things in context. So, in order to patch this up, let me rephrase the statement for better clarity:

The cops would not be doing anything illegal when they come to ask permission to search. However, if the cops use the refusal as a basis to suspect the home owner is hiding something, and they somehow convince a judge to issue a warrant for a search, that would be illegal. So I guess you win on a technicality because I should have used different wording to express my point. But the above statement was the point I was attempting to convey.
 
The article linked and posted below made me smile. It looks as if our masters in government in Boston and Washington, D.C. are getting a little flak from the peasants. Cripes, even the formere "Cocaine Mayor" of D.C., Marion Berry is against the "voluntary searches" in D.C. Also, civil rights groups were handing out signs to for residents to place in their windows which basically are telling the government to go pound sand. Maybe the flame of liberty isn't dying out as fast as I thought it was. This is great news for freedom and civil rights.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=1051

It’s not working, much to the displeasure of the Boston cops.

“Boston police officials, surprised by intense opposition from residents, have significantly scaled back and delayed the start of a program that would allow officers to go into people’s homes and search for guns without a warrant,” reports the Boston Globe. “The program, dubbed Safe Homes, was supposed to start in December, but has been delayed at least three times because of misgivings in the community. March 1 was the latest missed start date.”

It should be dubbed homes outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment. But thankfully some residents and community groups have a handle on the scheme, designed to get people accustomed to surrendering their liberty. “One community group has been circulating a petition against the plan. Police officials trying to assuage residents’ fears have been drowned out by criticism at some meetings with residents and elected officials.”

“Police would ask parents or legal guardians for permission to search homes where juveniles ages 17 and under are believed to be holding illegal guns,” the Globe continues. “Police would only enter homes into which they have been invited and, once inside, would only search the rooms of the juveniles.”

Bostonians are not buying it, though. It is not so much the flimsy rules about what is to be searched. It is rather the very idea of allowing police to enter without justification coupled with a search warrant issued by a judge.

Meanwhile, in the District of Criminals, the cops are having difficulty with an anti-Fourth Amendment scheme of their own. “D.C. police are going door-to-door Monday in one of the city’s crime-plagued neighborhoods, asking residents for permission to search their homes for guns and other illegal contraband,” reports ABC News 7. “The program, called the Safe Homes Initiative, will offer homeowners and renters limited amnesty for possessing any contraband found by police.”

Notice the identical name with the striking difference that the district scheme will snoop out “other illegal contraband” as well. Of course, this could be almost anything in your home, epsecially considering the fact police departments now strive to hire cops with the IQ average of a dullard, unable to tell rosemary from marijunana and table salt from cocaine.

In an effort to soften people up — in other words, brainwash those least able to resist, the kids — the D.C. police “department initiated its program by distributing literature at police stations and Boys and Girls Clubs to gauge public interest. It plans to begin the searches in two weeks.”

“Police spokeswoman Traci Hughes said the Safe Home program attempts to reach parents or guardians who think or know their children have guns and will offer amnesty for certain gun- and drug-possession charges,” reports the Washington Times.

For “certain gun- and drug-possession charges,” in short for none, as the point will be to show off the program’s smashing success and the number of criminals apprehended.

In response, the ACLU dispatched workers to hand out window signs. “To the Police: NO CONSENT TO SEARCH OUR HOME,” the signs declare.

Of course, this will surely anger the police and the government, under orders to induce compliance and obedience in the masses, beginning with the children at their Boys and Girls Clubs. As Orwell knew, subserviance to the state begins with the little ones.

“D.C. Council member Marion Barry said the plan violates the Fourth Amendment, which bars illegal search and seizure. He also said it infringes on parental responsibility.”

It looks like our rulers will have to go back to the drawing table on this one. Or they may be obliged to engineer another 9/11 or Katrina event to break down the will of the people, most who simply want to be left alone without police intervention and the intrusions of the state.

 
Also looks as if Boston is having a tough time with their voluntary searches. I have a question. If they take the gun, but don't take the gang member off of the street, isn't he going to want another gun? How will he get one? Maybe he'll commit another crime to get money to buy one in the black market. Maybe he'll break into someone elses home and steal one. Maybe he'll kill a rival gang member and take his gun. It seems to me we are so focused on the guns, that our law enforcement and public officials have gone bananas and are now willing to overlook criminals for the sake of getting a gun or two. What has happened to America? Thank God people are seeing through this and are refusing to cooperate. It's just like a back ground check. If you stop a felon from purchasing a gun through the legal channel with a background check, but you don't prosecute him for committing another felony by attempting to buy a gun, he is left on his own to get a gun through the "illegal" channels, of which, there are quite a few. So, have you really prevented such a person from getting a gun? You can't say one way or the other, but the chances are high that he'll get a gun anyway. We know that from common sense just by looking at how many criminals have guns already. This isn't rocket science we're dealing with here.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/03/25/police_limit_searches_for_guns/

Police limit searches for guns

Opposition from residents is strong; Invited into homes without warrants

By Maria Cramer
Globe Staff / March 25, 2008


Boston police officials, surprised by intense opposition from residents, have significantly scaled back and delayed the start of a program that would allow officers to go into people's homes and search for guns without a warrant.

The program, dubbed Safe Homes, was supposed to start in December, but has been delayed at least three times because of misgivings in the community. March 1 was the latest missed start date.

One community group has been circulating a petition against the plan. Police officials trying to assuage residents' fears have been drowned out by criticism at some meetings with residents and elected officials.

Officers may begin knocking on doors this week, officials said yesterday, but instead of heading into four troubled neighborhoods, as they had planned, officers will target only one, Egleston Square in Jamaica Plain, where police said they have received the most support.

Police would ask parents or legal guardians for permission to search homes where juveniles ages 17 and under are believed to be holding illegal guns. Police would only enter homes into which they have been invited and, once inside, would only search the rooms of the juveniles.

The goal, said Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, would be getting weapons off the streets, rather than making arrests.

But critics say that the searches are unconstitutional and that police will not guarantee that residents would face no criminal charges if guns or drugs were found.

Commissioner Edward F. Davis has been taken aback by the criticism. Davis promoted Safe Homes as a voluntary program that would help overwhelmed, frightened parents and guardians by removing guns from their homes without fear of prosecution.

"I would say that the police commissioner has been a bit surprised by those that are not in favor," Driscoll said. "We're genuinely trying to save lives."

But for many of the 100 people who packed the Roxbury Family YMCA last Thursday to talk about the plan, the goal of the program was overshadowed by tactics they called invasive and misleading.

"Police are like vampires. They shouldn't be invited into your homes," said Jamarhl Crawford, chairman of the New Black Panther Party in Roxbury, who moderated the meeting.

"Vampires are polite; they're smooth," he said in an interview the following day. "But once they get in, the door closes. Havoc ensues."

Other comparisons have been no more favorable.

"The community doesn't want this," Lisa Thurau-Gray, managing director of the Juvenile Justice Center at Suffolk University Law School, said at the meeting. She likened the police persistence to a sexual aggressor who refuses to stop assaulting a victim despite her pleas. "What part of no don't they understand?" she said.

Police officials have said the searches would be based on tips from the community, including neighbors, school officials, and even the parents of the child. The officers searching homes would be members of units that patrol schools and who have visited the houses of teenagers as part of Operation Homefront, which is meant to help build better relationships between troubled children and their families.

If police were to find a gun in a home, they would keep the discovery confidential under most circumstances, police have said.

Officers would not tell officials at the child's school or public housing authorities, unless they believed the discovery amounted to a "public safety emergency," which Driscoll said would happen if police found a plan to use the gun at school or a hit list.

A child would not be charged with gun possession if a firearm were found. But police have said that if the firearm were connected to a crime, charges against the child could be filed.

Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who has attended meetings about the plan, said those warnings are unnerving.

"People on the street may say: 'This is great. I'm letting them in,' " she said. "But those are the people I'm concerned about, because they haven't been educated about the hazards."

She said residents of public housing could risk losing their homes if police reported finding a firearm to housing authorities.

Supporters of the program said they are fully aware of the risks of the program and frustrated by the critics, who they believe are misinforming the public.

Police "would support any family that cooperated with the police and oppose their eviction," said Bob Francis, chairman of the Academy/Bromley/Egleston Safety Task Force, a neighborhood group that represents parts of Jamaica Plain and Roxbury.

"There wouldn't be any report that that gun was found on the property," he said.

True-See Allah, a former gang member who now works for the Nation of Islam, said people who worry that their children may face a jail sentence if a gun is found should consider the alternatives.

"It's one year to 18 months versus trips to Mount Hope Cemetery every year," said Allah. "Eighteen-month sentence versus death."

His organization supports the program as long as police are honest about their motives, said Allah, assistant to Don Muhammad, minister of Muhammad's Mosque Number 11 in Dorchester.

Allah acknowledged that his group is in the minority within the community. "Sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular and I think that's where we are today," he said.

Maria Cramer can be reached at mcramer@globe.com.
 
As I had said in an earlier post, my response to a polite inquiry from "the man" for permission to search my home, resdence or pup tent, absent proper warrant, would range, depending on circumstances, from an equally polite No, feel free to come back with a proper warrant to PISS OFF. End of story.
 
I think most people in "totaliarian" type areas like DC or even some other urban areas do not think they can oppose the government. The Government thinks this way and the schools pretty much indoctrinate students to think this way. Even if the police search the non-gun owner homes they have started a precedent they may think they can continue somehow. I don't pretend to know what they are thinking, doing this in the face of the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps it is a childish tantrum?

edit to add: Few urbanites are raised with the fortitude to ask - "do you want bullets first?"
 
Last edited:
"It's one year to 18 months versus trips to Mount Hope Cemetery every year," said Allah. "Eighteen-month sentence versus death."
Click to expand...
The Democrats, after the Civil War, couldn't keep Black people from voting with poll taxes, literacy tests, and outright terrorism by the KKK, so instead they apparently switched to felony convictions.
 
It doesn't work that way. Withholding permission to search is not, and CANNOT ever be considered in itself probable cause. This is already well established. If that weren't the case, police would ALWAYS have the right to legally search and without a warrant. Think about it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that works in most of America but it is different in the Democrats bastions of power...

I remember when the NYPD was doing searches of people getting on the subways. One officer was being interviewed and asked about the system. He stated how anyone could refuse a search, they just couldn't get on the subway. He went on to mention they could force a search should probable cause be present. The interviewer, a radio talk show host named Lionel who is a staunch Libertarian and now on Air America, asked what would constitute probable cause. The cop responded "refusing the search and turning around to leave."

Lionel was actually a prosecutor at one time and was simply stunned at the response. That's NYC though!
 
"Police are like vampires. They shouldn't be invited into your homes," said Jamarhl Crawford, chairman of the New Black Panther Party in Roxbury, who moderated the meeting.
Click to expand...

As much as I despise the New Black Panther Party and think likening police in general to vampires is not a good thing, particularly for the black community which is the victim of the majority of crime out there, he has a point.

How much immunity do you really get when you let the police search? What is the search limited to? Can you say at any point "That's it, get out"?

There are some things that may be done with the best intentions which are still wrong when looked at in the context of liberty and freedom. Just as Freedom may mean being free to starve if you don't help yourself it may also mean having to deal with the thug under your roof yourself by at least calling the cops yourself.

How "voluntary" are these really going to appear when a group of officers with guns and badges are banging on every door in a building "asking" to be allowed to search...
 
One might hope that such an overt act by the DC police by attempting to subvert the will of the court in light of their impending likely loss might just cause the SCOTUS to move a little quicker on this one...
 
From the link Sundog provided we read this:

Believing that safety takes precedence over constitutional issues, some 5,000 public housing tenants banded together and signed a petition requesting that the raids continue. They then contacted the American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities, a Washington-based organization that supports "communitarian" beliefs -- the balance between individual rights social responsibility. Explained one tenant: "Sometimes you got to sacrifice your rights to save your life." The alliance hired the high-powered Washington law firm of Jenner. & Block to represent them in a new civil suit.



Sacrificing your own rights is one thing. Getting the government to use it's force to sacrifice other peoples rights is despicable. Thank God our founders were wise enough to see the dangers of "majority rules" as a blanket form of government. Contrary to what some public schools might teach, we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic, that's based on democratic principles, but our constitution is supposed to keep the majority from voting away the rights of the minority. This is precisely what the Bill of Rights is all about. It's a limit on government power so that the government cannot, even through the will of the majority via voting, oppress, suppress, or INFRINGE on the rights of the people.

Many people who live in our largest cities have come to rely on big government to provide so many aspects of their lives that they are willing to give up their rights to have the government take care of them. That is a sad statement on life in some parts of America today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top