Was searching for Ithaca 37 info and found this article about roadblocks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gentlemen , what we have here is a failure to communicate . Would you believe that I just made that up ? Oh well . Anyway what we REALLY have here is a failure to appreciate . The rights that this country gives every citizen are basicly of the same cloth as The Ten Commandments . Be nice to others and follow the Golden Rule . Corny huh ? Well it worked at one time .
Now people challange the system on nit picking points and bend the rules and sue when they don't get something for nothing . There are so many people looking for something for nothing AND courts that grant it that we are in a state of constant turmoil .
We constantly state that we have 20,000 gun laws on the books . 20,000 ? We need about two . Lady Liberty has bent over backwards so damn far that she has fallen over and people still walk over her .
The cops are just following orders ( where have I heard that before ) so we can't say that they started this Gestapo crapola . They have orders to stop all cars on I-10 and check for drivers licenses they do it or find another job . When orders like this are given it's because so many people are taking advantage of the freedoms afforded every person here . We all must take abuse from the law because there are those that have no respect for it .
Klinton is giving over a billion dollars to stop the flow of cocaine in to the U.S. What a concept . Maybe if he can get The Arabs to cut back on oil we can dramatically cut down on speeding .
It's gonna be up to the people to stop a lot of this stuff . A woman was on the radio a while back saying she saw a guy selling guns out of the trunk of his car outside of her window . Did she get a plate number ? NO . Did she do anything ? NO .DUH!
Neighborhood watch is one thing but nothing beats patrols . Why don't we have more of them ? Because it "smacks" of vigilantism . Anyone know what vigilant means ? It worked in The Old West . Why ? Because there was very little law . Why do we need it now ? We have too much law .

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA GOA
 
RWK,

You know your comments sound awefully silly to most of us. Why? Because the courts have obviously ruled many times in direct contradiction to the Constitution and to legislated laws. Anyone who owns a firearm knows that and has seen it in action. Though in most cases the Court simply doesn't hear Constitutional challenges.

I'd agree with you on the point that roadblocks by the police are probably not a federal issue, or a Constitutional issue in that police are employees of the State. Just you're not going to be able to convince people that a decision is correct by appealing to the rulings of the Court when we live in a modern post-Constitutional age.
 
RWK states:

"Some of you may remember random gate checks at military installations to uncover contraband and stolen property."

Indeed I do remember such things. The deal is that at times like that, there is "no expectation of privacy" and therefore, a search is legal.

This concept is what also makes a search by customs officials upon entering the country legal, searches of people visiting people in prison and jails, etc.

It's *very* different from being stopped while driving down a street, violating no laws, and being searched.

You'll note that on the cop tv shows, the cop often asks if he can search the car and the driver, astoundingly enough, says 'Yes.' and the cops finds drugs, guns, etc.

Then again, as a cop friend is fond of saying: "Criminals is stupid."

Owen
 
RWK,

If you read that link I posted, you will find many court decisions cited in the brief. While the brief in whole may not be binding, the cases cited within it certainly are. Are you, like 99% of society, simply dismissing the binding decisions of these (to use your words) "final arbiter"?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RWK:
This "tyranny of the democracy" is an old and well-discussed issue.[/quote]

You're right, and this is exactly why we do NOT live in a democracy.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> The crux is straightforward, however. We all give up some freedom to enjoy the benefits of a democracy. Some people may not like this, but it is the heart of our democratic political approach, dating from the ancient Greeks and the Magna Charta.[/quote]

You are right and wrong in both the same sentence. Have you forgotten that the founding fathers created a constitutional republic? And that said constitution is meant to guarantee it's citizens a republican form of government? The heart of the problem is that voters, legislators, and courts all continue to insist that we are a democracy, and therefore "tyranny of democracy" is acceptable. It is not acceptable. We live in a republic, where individual freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, which in turn should empower the states, and ultimately the individual "people" to resist such tyranny and live in freedom.
 
Re all the comments on the link Mr. Volk was interested enough to provide, instead of shouting to/at each other, how about raising some hell with "elected things", at all levels, or at least, at the "offending levels".

Other than the above, were the events depicted in the last couple of hundred pages of Unintended Consequences to actually take place, whose fault would it really be, seems an entirely appropriate question. Any objections?
 
Alan,

"....the events depicted in the last couple of hundred pages of Unintended Consequences..." **** We are not there yet but we seem headed in that direction. When safety checkpoints evolve into gunsweeps, the fuse will truly be lit. There will be hundreds of thousands of instant felons out here in Kali next year for starters. Folks moving their banned weapons to a safe location will be VERY.... edgy.... **** The police who take part in these roadblocks will have to think long and hard about their constitutional duties, I have thought long and hard about mine....domestic enemies and such. Of course, it would be better to remember the domestic enemies who voted for the bills and gave the street cops their marching orders. **** Recalling my training and seeing roadblocks in a military context, the police will sooner or later discover the need for a very large defensive perimeter around the blocking units....it would require a LOT of troops to prevent a roadblock squad from....coming to harm....
 
Alan,

I, personally, was never shouting to any here.

But for reasons such as you suggest(re at the "offending members") is just one reason why the TRT was formed.
 
Rights versus priviledges? We may have a right to use roadways, but we only have a priviledge to drive motorized vehicles on those roadways. That is why we have driver's licenses. So it is the right to drive on a roadway that is the priviledge. As part of those priviledges, law enforcement can verify DLs, driver intoxication, etc. They cannot randomly search vehicles, however, as mentioned above. That is a violation of illegal search and seizure because random checks eliminate the probable cause aspect necessary to legally begin a search of a vehicle.
 
Gopher .45, are you postulating that the public roadways are just giant sidewalks, and we have the right to walk or bicycle on them all we want, but that the state has the ultimate authority to license the use of roadways for motorized travel, up to, and including the complete prohibition of the use of public roadways for motorized travel? If you truly believe that driving upon the public roadways is not a right, you must acknowledge that the state has the absolute power to prohibit driving under all circumstances, without redress.

I would draw your attention to the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived. [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.[/quote]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.[/quote]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.[/quote]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business. Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.[/quote]

So, we've established that locomotion on the public roadways via motorized vehicle is, indeed, a right. With that, it is easy to see that this right cannot be licensed (as can no other right.) For if you license a right, failure to obtain said license before exercising the right becomes a crime. It is unconstitutional to convert a right into a crime. To wit:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.[/quote]

and

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.[/quote]

and

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights. Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.[/quote]

It's really very simple, yes?

I am not advocating that we treat the public roadways in a manner that eliminates all regulation. Basic traffic rules are appropriate, and could still be enforced without the need for licensing, provided a violation actually occured.

It's the basic premise of liberty: leave me alone (that means completely alone; no licensing, no tests, no safety checks, no check points, no friendly chats) until I've done something wrong. Then, and only then, should the government even presume to have the authority to approach me in any way about my rights.

[This message has been edited by deanf (edited September 03, 2000).]
 
deanf('s),
"It's the basic premise of liberty: leave me alone (that means completely alone; no licensing, no tests, no safety checks, no check points, no friendly chats) until I've done something wrong. Then, and only then, should the government even presume to have the authority to approach me in any way about my rights."

Amen. Another one understands completely.
:cool:
 
Well, the principle of prior constraint seems to be gone and dead these days. Ever think about the constitutionality of "crime prevention" programs? I'm talking about legislated, funded and enforced programs. Like the "Drug War". Is that an example of prior constraint?

[This message has been edited by sensop (edited September 04, 2000).]
 
Good question, sensop & a tough one in my mind.

Although I don't want a drunk driving, I could argue (perhaps with not too much heart in it) that until the drunk actually causes damage, he/she shouldn't be prosecuted as he hasn't done anything wrong. But, that kinda falls into the "whack-o aspect" of my own arguement/s. Same would go for some yahoo shooting a 30-06 into the air on New Years Eve - till a bullet actually hits someone, should he be allowed to do something this dumb & potentionally threatening to others? I'm not for it.

Each are technically prior contraint/restraint, but I think reasonable safeguards against actions that are fairly immediately threatening.

I'd think that many community policing programs may fall into the same ballpark. Crime prevention programs such as scribing the serial number onto your stereo, ins & outs of decent lighting around your home/trimming bushes to not provide for burgler cover, etc. - the more non-intrusive
aspects of not being an easy target, etc. are all well & good. I could see that those even as tame as "neighborhood watch" could go Gestapo quickly if taken to an exaggerated limit (say I decided to jog in another neighborhood where I'm not know .... they gonn adrop a dime & I get frisked 'cause I took a wrong turn?)

I am torn on some of this & it's not that I don't know where I stand, but moreso those fine lines as you brought up. One thing though - just because it's legislated & funded doesn't cut it in my book. Just as with SCOTUS upholding many precidences re roadside sobriety checks, et al ... I think many of their decissions are whacked.

I'm not for all LEOs sitting in the squad room till they get a call that a crime's gone down, but I do believe full-heartedly that the other extreme is just as, or more damaging to our society.

As with the WoDs, too much potential for abuse & intrusiveness into our society far outweighs any good that could have come from it.
 
I remember my father telling me not to worry about about justice going wrong in this country because it is better to let ten guilty men (or women) walk free than to falsely imprison one innocent person. Today we see people's possessions impounded and their freedom to travel and associate limited on a suspicion. The career criminals walking the street are not nearly as bothersome (to me) as the taxpayers that are harassed and locked up. :mad:

[This message has been edited by sensop (edited September 04, 2000).]
 
"discover the need for a very large defensive perimeter around the blocking units..."

Read "snipers."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top