-
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.
D.C. Mayor, Police Chief Announce New Anti-Gun Plan
- Thread starter bohdi
- Start date
Notso
Campaign Veteran
imported post
So I guess if you don't consent to the search, you get put on that 'special' list....
So I guess if you don't consent to the search, you get put on that 'special' list....
xd.40
Regular Member
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?
Someone commented on the article itself and was explaining that there were no handguns in the homes; after all, they're illegal, right?
Flintlock
Regular Member
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.
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.
imported post
Flintlock wrote:
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.
Flintlock wrote:
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.
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
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."
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."
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.
I_Hate_Illinois
Regular Member
imported post
Adrian Fenty is a douche 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.
Adrian Fenty is a douche 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.
I_Hate_Illinois
Regular Member
imported post
Whoops. My browser kept saying error so I kept trying to post and i guess it posted every time.
Whoops. My browser kept saying error so I kept trying to post and i guess it posted every time.
AbNo
Regular Member
coltcarrier
Campaign Veteran
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]
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]
Euromutt
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.
possumboy
Regular Member
imported post
coltcarrier wrote:
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.
coltcarrier wrote:
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.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
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.
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.
possumboy
Regular Member
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
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!"
imperialism2024 wrote:
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!"