Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: D.C. Mayor, Police Chief Announce New Anti-Gun Plan

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    So I guess if you don't consent to the search, you get put on that 'special' list....

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    Someone commented on the article itself and was explaining that there were no handguns in the homes; after all, they're illegal, right?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I just saw this on Fox 5

    This is almost as dumb as banning guns in DC.

    Unreal!!!!!

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Seems to me Boston (or maybe Massachusetts) tried to institute this a few months ago. I'll have to do some research to see what became of that.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    The article didn't say what would happen if you didn't "consent" to a search. It just says that if they find anything that they will confiscate it... Hmmmmm.

    They want to get guns off the street... Then why are they going door-to-doortrying to pry them out of the homes of the citizens?

    So, we have resorted to Door-to-door confiscations now, without there even being a "natural disaster" to blame. This is in the name of crime reduction.These nightmares arelike dropping a frog in the water and bringing it to a boil.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    The article didn't say what would happen if you didn't "consent" to a search. It just says that if they find anything that they will confiscate it... Hmmmmm.

    They want to get guns off the street... Then why are they going door-to-doortrying to pry them out of the homes of the citizens?

    So, we have resorted to Door-to-door confiscations now, without there even being a "natural disaster" to blame. This is in the name of crime reduction.These nightmares arelike dropping a frog in the water and bringing it to a boil.
    The news report basically made it appear that it was completely optional.

    It was for the the olderpeople who knew theiryounger residents were armed and they had no ability to disarm them.

    So it was like.. "We are doing the people a favor"

    But I am confident that if anything illegal was located... a search warrant would be obtained and they would be back.

    The police chief also stated that the guns would be ran and any returning to a crime wouldcause them to start a criminal investigation and return to investigate. I am very confident that a search warrant would be obtained for the house.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Voluntary searches are just one step away from involuntary searches.

    It looks like the next long train of abuses and usurpations has left the terminal.

    "Your attention please. The next long train of abuses and usurpation will be departing from common sense and heading to tyranny in ten minutes."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    pay no mind to the filled holes in the back yard

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    The police chief also stated that the guns would be ran and any returning to a crime wouldcause them to start a criminal investigation and return to investigate. I am very confident that a search warrant would be obtained for the house.
    But having a gun in the house, unless it's a disabled shotgun/rifle, is a crime.

    Can you say "Catch-22"?
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Oh ya!!! You have to love it!

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I'm sure that the areas they are targeting contain a diverse mix of white, black and hispanics residents across all socio-economic levels. Otherwise it would be discriminatory and totally un-PC.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    Adrian Fenty is a ****** bag. I cant wait till he gets nailed for banging a hooker or gets caught smoking crack. Speaking of hookers, I love the Spitzer scandal. Here's a guy who trie to take guns away from law-abiding citizens 'for the kids'. He was was probably doing that prostitute 'for the kids' as well.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    Whoops. My browser kept saying error so I kept trying to post and i guess it posted every time.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    Whoops. My browser kept saying error so I kept trying to post and i guess it posted every time.
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum3/8785.html
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    http://bpdnews.com/safehomes/safehomes.pdf]Boston Safe Home Initiative (part of Operation Homesafe) was targeting juveniles with firearms in "troubled" neighborhoods there. We were discussing this at work yesterday as it came up in another news story. This was a stupid idea full of potential loopholes then, I can only imagine how bad the DC version is. Here are some of things brought up by the conversations on the Boston version:
    1. Police show up with a detective and two officers in plain clothes and explain the need to search your house because neighbors/friends/school agents are worried about your child with access to illegal firearms
    2. ANY adult present in the house can authorize the search. This includes a visiting friend that is 18 and not aware of the impact of what he is doing
    3. Consenting person MAY provide a scope of where to search. From what I've seen, it appears that you must choose to limit the scope of the search or the default is the entire house
    4. Any illegal firearms that are not linked to a crime may be forfieted without charges, but crime guns will invoke immediate charges.
    5. It is up to the officer if they decide to press charges for any additional items they find. This is a big loophole for abuse if drugs are found (leverage?)
    6. The officers will do their best not to break anything or leave the place in shambles, but they are not responsible for accidents in the thorough search

    Reading the details in the flyer on the initiative made my skin crawl and I hoped that Boston would set an example of how NOT to deal with crime in the community by going door to door. I guess I should have expected DC to pervert an already poor example of police policy even further!

    I hope someone in DC stands up to the political stupidity!!! But then again they do keep re-electing Marion Barry!
    [/font]

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    151

    Post imported post

    Strikes me the DC local govement is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they're promising amnesty for any weapons found, but apparently, the amnesty is only for what would otherwise be an illegal possession charge. But if the gun turns out to be dirty, amnesty goes out the window.

    And yeah, the searches might be "voluntary" now, but how long do we think it's going to be before DCPD starts submitting applications for search warrants using the fact that the resident/homeowner refused to submit to a "voluntary" search to claim probable cause?

    And I'm going to take an absolutist position on this one.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated [...]
    Nowhere does the IV Amendment say that the consent of the resident/homeowner causes a search that would otherwise be unreasonable to cease being unreasonable.

  18. #18
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    coltcarrier wrote:
    http://bpdnews.com/safehomes/safehomes.pdf]Boston Safe Home Initiative (part of Operation Homesafe) was targeting juveniles with firearms in "troubled" neighborhoods there. We were discussing this at work yesterday as it came up in another news story. This was a stupid idea full of potential loopholes then, I can only imagine how bad the DC version is. Here are some of things brought up by the conversations on the Boston version:
    1. Police show up with a detective and two officers in plain clothes and explain the need to search your house because neighbors/friends/school agents are worried about your child with access to illegal firearms
    2. ANY adult present in the house can authorize the search. This includes a visiting friend that is 18 and not aware of the impact of what he is doing
    3. Consenting person MAY provide a scope of where to search. From what I've seen, it appears that you must choose to limit the scope of the search or the default is the entire house
    4. Any illegal firearms that are not linked to a crime may be forfieted without charges, but crime guns will invoke immediate charges.
    5. It is up to the officer if they decide to press charges for any additional items they find. This is a big loophole for abuse if drugs are found (leverage?)
    6. The officers will do their best not to break anything or leave the place in shambles, but they are not responsible for accidents in the thorough search

    Reading the details in the flyer on the initiative made my skin crawl and I hoped that Boston would set an example of how NOT to deal with crime in the community by going door to door. I guess I should have expected DC to pervert an already poor example of police policy even further!

    I hope someone in DC stands up to the political stupidity!!! But then again they do keep re-electing Marion Barry!
    [/font]
    The immunity they talk about is just if you have a gun. You will not be charge with having the gun.

    If the gun was used in a crime, you will be charged. If they find something else that is illegal, you will be charged.

    One article - do not know if it is the one linked above - said they will get a warrant based on anything else found that is illegal.

    This is really nothing new from what I have experienced from MPD. They are looking for any reason to search your car or person, why not your house.

    I need a license to do this much fishing.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Perhaps the vagueness is intentional. Don't let the people know what their rights are during these voluntary searches, and then they can be charged however the DA feels. Is anyone going to have the money to fight it legally? Nope.

  20. #20
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Perhaps the vagueness is intentional. Don't let the people know what their rights are during these voluntary searches, and then they can be charged however the DA feels. Is anyone going to have the money to fight it legally? Nope.
    There is nothing to fight here. MPD is acting within legal limitations.

    Law Enforcement currently has legal standing to walk up to anyone and ask to search person or property.

    The only "fight" should be these people exercising their rights and say "No". Or better yet "Oh Hell, NO!"

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    possumboy wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Perhaps the vagueness is intentional. Don't let the people know what their rights are during these voluntary searches, and then they can be charged however the DA feels. Is anyone going to have the money to fight it legally? Nope.
    There is nothing to fight here. MPD is acting within legal limitations.

    Law Enforcement currently has legal standing to walk up to anyone and ask to search person or property.

    The only "fight" should be these people exercising their rights and say "No". Or better yet "Oh Hell, NO!"
    Exactly.... no law says someone cannot ask you for permission.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Exactly.... no law says someone cannot ask you for permission.
    Nor for "papieren, bitte?"

    Better, LEO should not speak to a presumed citizen but in the line of duty and with RAS. Y'all (that's second person plural, for the crackers) are truly hardening my heart with such oblivious toadying.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Now, lets assume someone's kid has a NFA item in the house, maybe a MAC-10 they bought off a some corner van.

    The "DC Police" might not charge them, but you can bet your ass the ATF would go after them. And then, wouldn't anyone in the house be liable for charges as unregistered NFA items encompass anyone "around" them?

  24. #24
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    "Arthur B. Spitzer, legal director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the program is "a very bad idea." He said officers might act so aggressively that residents feel coerced into letting them in."

    Noooooo really the cops might do that? No way, I'm sure they will word the request in a soothing voiceand explain all the legal ramifications of your consent. Monkeys out my butt....







    On common sense: Randy Wayne White wrote in his novel Captiva [/i]“It is a character standard from folklore in which “good old common sense” is an essential bedrock ingredient. But too often “common sense” is a safe harbor of ignorance and an excuse for intellectual laziness. They don’t need the facts because they already know the truth—their common sense has spared them the effort of investigation or thought.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  25. #25
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Exactly.... no law says someone cannot ask you for permission.
    Nor for "papieren, bitte?"

    Better, LEO should not speak to a presumed citizen but in the line of duty and with RAS. Y'all (that's second person plural, for the crackers) are truly hardening my heart with such oblivious toadying.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******
    There is a big difference between the demanding of the search/papers, over just asking.

    I do not like being stopped and asked to provide anything. I've been detained a few time because of my refusal to provide ID and/or allow a search.

    That does not change the fact that under our current laws, we cannot prevent this type of crap from happening.

    What we need to fight for is LEOs to immediately break off the encounter if the person is within their rights to deny. If the ACLU is really concerned of rights being violated, they should "fight" for monitors to assist and provide the CITIZENS with their rights.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •