Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Al foil with the chainmail shorts out tazers.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
NYPD "Scan and Frisk" machine sees guns under clothes
- Thread starter EMNofSeattle
- Start date
Al foil with the chainmail shorts out tazers.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
If I remember correctly you posted a case in Alabama(?) that said exactly what you are saying.
The Florida judges seemed to rule differently, although they allow some CC and OC for hunting etc. This case was a man on public transportation, where CC permit and CC are required.
Looks like different states will rule differently, our state law on showing upon demand to officer is very similar to Florida, I would hope our state would rule similarly.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I like this idea, but I fear the courts will give it little validty. The scanners and groping for a certain type of travel look in the same non-public places. My money says the special needs exception to the warrant clause is where the courts might [STRIKE]create[/STRIKE] find another loophole where rights don't exist.
Separately, interested readers might care to look into the whole expectation of privacy test. The court manufactured it. I came across this last year. At either Volokh Conspiracy or FourthAmendment(dot)com, I forget. A legal researcher found SCOTUS, in a particular case, first created a strawman argument that traditionally courts reviewed the 4A against a (trespassing?) standard. Then created the expectation of privacy test to supplant that earlier strawman standard. The researcher went looking through earlier cases to find the (trespassing?) standard. But, he couldn't find anything substantial--this is how he identified the strawman argument.
The 4A doesn't say citizens have a right to privacy. It says we have a right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. Some months ago I finally saw an excerpt of a legal article or paper orienting on the word secure.
My point is that government agents costumed in black robes are the source of the privacy angle. I'm personally pretty suspicious about it.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Politically correct euphemism for those with special needs is an apt application to government.
eye95
Well-known member
The case IIRC was in Georgia. Georgia's law is written in such a way as the carry, regardless of license, is a crime. One can then defend himself in court by producing a license. Also, if produced at the time of a stop and presented to a reasonable LEO, arrest can be avoided.
A guy got on a train after an officer spotted him holstering up at his car. The cop popped him. The defendant claimed that the officer had no RAS for the stop since he couldn't know whether or not the carrier had a license. The court disagreed, saying that the mere act of carry was RAS of a crime, since the presence of the lack of a license is not an element of the crime, only a defense to it.
In Alabama, CC without a license is the crime, so carry, in and of itself cannot provide RAS. The lack of a license is an element of the crime, so the officer must also have RAS that the carrier has no license.
Every carrier should check his State law to determine if the lack of a license is an element of the crime (good law) or merely a defense to the crime (bad law).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
carolina guy
Regular Member
Do you know if the GA law has been tested post McDonald/Heller?
MKEgal
Regular Member
In NYC, that's pretty much everyone, unless they're wearing a gov't uniform.JoeSparky said:
And notice it only shows one side of the guy's body. What about front or back, or the other side?
And does it only show metal objects, or any difference in temperature?
WI law says that if the officer is "acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority" someone who is carrying concealed (or in an area where a license is required) a licensee must present carry & driver's licenses.sudden valley gunner said:
Complete the phrase...: "against unwarranted search or seizure", which appears to apply here, since the police are seeing things not exposed to public view. Sorta like the TSAsses.Citizen said:
marshaul said:
carolina guy said:
Clothes with micro wires woven in?Tolerance said:
I like the chainmail idea. Aluminum is light & easy to work, & with power tools to help make the rings that's pretty quick.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Well, if you're going to correct somebody, you gotta at least get it right. "...against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated."
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
The law changed a few years ago; at this time "unlicensed possession" is now an element of the crime and must be proven by the police/prosecution rather than an "affirmative defense" which must be presented by the defendant at time of trial. In simpler language, carry is now a presumed legal activity, similar to driving a car and officers may not legally demand authorization to carry without a reason to suspect illegality.
That does NOT mean that officers know this, or are required to operate with that assumption.
Edited to add:
According to the older edition of State Code 16-11-126:
(a) A person commits the offense of carrying a concealed weapon when such person knowingly has or carries about his or her person, unless in an open manner and fully exposed to view, any bludgeon, metal knuckles, firearm, knife designed for the purpose of offense and defense, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument of like character outside of his or her home or place of business, except as permitted under this Code section.
Note that the paragraph makes carrying concealed illegal. The exemption comes later in the old law.
OCGA 16-11-126
(h) (1) No person shall carry a weapon without a valid weapons carry license unless he or she meets one of the exceptions to having such license as provided in subsections (a) through (g) of this Code section.
Note that the way this is now written, the illegality is not being exempted by (a) through (g) and the officer must properly have some articulable and particularized reason that something in (a) through (g) must have been violated.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Thanks for the information. Good to know that Georgia corrected a law that, when implemented as written, abridged the hell outta the Right.
But, it does illustrate the significance of HOW a law is written. Everyone should check their State's law and make absolutely certain that they know whether the mere act of carry is a crime for which a license is a defense or if unlicensed carry is the crime. It makes a world of difference. Laws like the former are, IMO, unconstitutional. Every effort should be made to get them off the books.
Oh, and aren't discussions of the law that actually have law cited informative and helpful? Others can learn from the practices they see in this thread. [hint, hint]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
But, it does illustrate the significance of HOW a law is written. Everyone should check their State's law and make absolutely certain that they know whether the mere act of carry is a crime for which a license is a defense or if unlicensed carry is the crime. It makes a world of difference. Laws like the former are, IMO, unconstitutional. Every effort should be made to get them off the books.
Oh, and aren't discussions of the law that actually have law cited informative and helpful? Others can learn from the practices they see in this thread. [hint, hint]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
OC for ME
Regular Member
Does this mean that charges can not be filed post arrest, or that a LEO must have RAS via another "offense" to check for a endorsement?
Fixed a hole in the law that "criminalized" OC in those political subdivisions that ban OC if you inadvertently "openly displayed" your firearm while retrieving your billfold at the gas pump.
If you have a valid endorsement you may have a opportunity to display it later. This would save you the $35 if the LEO is not a revenue collector and is a peace officer. M.U.L.E.S. will inform the LEO that you have a valid endorsement if they run your DL. In MO "sterile carry" is not unlawful if you are in a jurisdiction that does not ban OC, or provide for OC via a endorsement, and you are not engaged in a activity that requires a valid DL.
The question remains, does "shall not apply to" force a LEO to have RAS to check for a valid endorsement simply cuz he sees your gat.
eye95
Well-known member
The law "does not apply" if you have a license, therefore, IMO, not having the license is part of the offense, so that carry, in and of itself, would not provide RAS.
That was IMO. The O of the NY court system could depart dramatically from the O that I have expressed.
That was IMO. The O of the NY court system could depart dramatically from the O that I have expressed.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
WI law says that if the officer is "acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority" someone who is carrying concealed (or in an area where a license is required) a licensee must present carry & driver's licenses.
I think many laws are worded the same including our state. Our state has said that our version of the 4th, Article 1 Section 7 of our state constitution, provides greater protection.
So I am fairly confident, they would rule similarly to Florida. Yet our Supreme court has recently eroded some "pretext" stop protections we had.
Too easy to fix, http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/08/jay-leno-on-top-gear-uk-shoot-speed-camera/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0XtNGuijqc&feature=player_detailpage#t=94s
\\Legendary talk show host Jay Leno views speed cameras as one of the reasons the UK no longer feels like a free country. Appearing Sunday on the top-rated BBC show Top Gear, Leno suggested that as a visitor, the number of cameras in England is overwhelming. He also suggested that US drivers have a much less tolerant attitude toward photo enforcement.
"See in L.A., people would say, 'why not just shoot them out?'" Leno said. "In L.A., a day doesn't go by you don't see a styrofoam cup stuck over the lens of the speed camera."
The line about shooting speed cameras drew both laughter and great applause from the crowd. Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson even appeared momentarily surprised at his counterpart's suggestion of vigilantism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0XtNGuijqc&feature=player_detailpage#t=94s
\\Legendary talk show host Jay Leno views speed cameras as one of the reasons the UK no longer feels like a free country. Appearing Sunday on the top-rated BBC show Top Gear, Leno suggested that as a visitor, the number of cameras in England is overwhelming. He also suggested that US drivers have a much less tolerant attitude toward photo enforcement.
"See in L.A., people would say, 'why not just shoot them out?'" Leno said. "In L.A., a day doesn't go by you don't see a styrofoam cup stuck over the lens of the speed camera."
The line about shooting speed cameras drew both laughter and great applause from the crowd. Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson even appeared momentarily surprised at his counterpart's suggestion of vigilantism.
Last edited:
nonameisgood
Regular Member
There are half a dozen cameras on top of private fences in my neighborhood. They are pointed down the road and apparently watch every car that passes. I'm trying to decide how beat to disable them without trespassing. I'm thinking black clothes and a bright NV light source and a can of spray paint.
Tolerance
Regular Member
Paintball marker?
Fairly powerful laser pointers can be purchase for low cost
Laser pointers of <5mWatt or more can temporarily blind and may even permanently damage cctv cameras. Like the ones used in the "inside man" movie, personally I prefer the cap over doing this for obvious reasons.
This is safer for the time being and they are extremely easy to make. Plans are online and cost less than 30 bucks to make.
http://hackedgadgets.com/2008/02/21/ir-leds-used-to-defeat-security-cameras/
A guide to making headbands with infrared lights on that will hide your face from surveillance cameras.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOH9XhsP3iI
I have seen lasers used to "dazzle" security cameras before but they normally use visible light and need pinpoint accuracy to be effective. I had never thought about using an array of IR LEDs (infrared light emitting diodes) to create a permanent result that would not be noticeable to anyone else around.
Original Version, Translated version
"IR.ASC is an infrared light – to the device before Divining infrared surveillance cameras. There is no special technical knowledge of each reconstructed. The device emits infrared light from the infrared images from surveillance cameras disturbs. The face of the person is monitored by a light ball over. Since the whole interaction in a non-visible spectrum (at frequencies between 780nm and 1mm), the man noticed nothing of it and he sees neither the infrared emission of radiation surveillance camera nor by the IR.ASC "
Last edited:
nonameisgood
Regular Member
I have to be in NYC for a seminar I'm teaching in April. I'm contemplating how to break that commitment, but since I'll be very near the Holland Tunnel, I'll go to NJ and dash across for my 3 hours. Man, I never thought I'd look forward to NJ.
I am meeting up with a friend who is a NJ city cop and paramedic. She can't carry when she is on the ambulance because one of the hospitals doesn't allow off-duty police to carry. Now, that is f'd up.
NYers have a saying: "There's nothing west of the Hudson worth seeing." My dad used to tell me, "and make sure they continue to believe that, so they will stay out of Texas."
I am meeting up with a friend who is a NJ city cop and paramedic. She can't carry when she is on the ambulance because one of the hospitals doesn't allow off-duty police to carry. Now, that is f'd up.
NYers have a saying: "There's nothing west of the Hudson worth seeing." My dad used to tell me, "and make sure they continue to believe that, so they will stay out of Texas."