NYPD "Scan and Frisk" machine sees guns under clothes

[Tolerance]

How about the fact that anyone who has this used on them is being Irradiated? And considering that Terahertz, the kind used, radiation can split your DNA in half like a zipper I think they would be dumb to try this... I may just have to fly to NYC to get irradiated by accident and then sue for assault to my DNA :lol: :banana:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-waves-tear-apart-dna/
Source ^

 

[marshaul]

How about the fact that anyone who has this used on them is being Irradiated? And considering that Terahertz, the kind used, radiation can split your DNA in half like a zipper I think they would be dumb to try this... I may just have to fly to NYC to get irradiated by accident and then sue for assault to my DNA :lol: :banana:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-waves-tear-apart-dna/
Source ^

Supposedly, this particular devices only passively captures emitted radiation, rather than actively generating and observing reflected radiation.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Courts have a real knack for siding with police and government; my money says there's a good chance a court would side with police.

I've been speaking of jurisdictions where licensed concealed carry is almost non-existent. For example, NYC, Maryland, Illinois. It might play out differently in a place like AZ or VA where licensed CCW is a lot more common. Instead of RAS for a crime, a court might find justification for a police demand to see a CCW license. But, then again, maybe not. Wasn't it Georgia or something where a federal court said a CCW license provided an exception to the state prohibition on CCW, meaning the cop had RAS of a CCW offense, justifying a Terry Stop even if the person was licensed to carry concealed?

First your point about the courts, is one that I not only agree with but have made that same point time and time again using different language of course.

As for AZ no CCW/CPL required anymore, which is part the reason I have thought about moving there.

 

[carolina guy]

Take a looksie at this

NYPD has a new machine intended to find Concealed weapons take a look at the picture too, this is not an officer based system, it's a frikin' machine set up on the side walk, this clearly to be a checkpoint style tool.

scary stuff if ya ask me.

Sounds like the kids will have to adopt a new fashion that includes aluminum foil and other strips of metal.

 

[Steeler-gal]

Take a looksie at this

NYPD has a new machine intended to find Concealed weapons take a look at the picture too, this is not an officer based system, it's a frikin' machine set up on the side walk, this clearly to be a checkpoint style tool.

scary stuff if ya ask me.

I think I've seen this before. They don't need it now that they've outlawed all pistols. No one will be carrying in NY any longer.

 

[marshaul]

Sounds like the kids will have to adopt a new fashion that includes aluminum foil and other strips of metal.

I was just thinking how I need a hip new look.

 

[MAC702]

My thought was to carry a right angle tool hidden. On that crappy image it would look the same as a firearm. Have that happen enough and you might have some nice lawsuits assuming you survived, considering that it is NYC.

And the nine innocent bystanders next to you. Thanks a lot.

 

[OC for ME]

There is a difference between what you do in public that is visible to all and what you have going on under your clothes. If what you say is carried to its logical extreme, you would have no expectation of privacy for your body under your clothes. Folks would be free to "scan" your naked body under your clothes, simply because you are walking about in public. I don't think so.

I agree completely if the citizen is being scanned (to mean that terahertz "waves" are being transmitted). However, it seems that we emanate terahertz waves and the article is reported to detect those emanated waves. Bis difference in the eyes of the law. Well, I hope so.

<snip> I've been speaking of jurisdictions where licensed concealed carry is almost non-existent. For example, NYC, Maryland, Illinois. It might play out differently in a place like AZ or VA where licensed CCW is a lot more common. Instead of RAS for a crime, a court might find justification for a police demand to see a CCW license. But, then again, maybe not. Wasn't it Georgia or something where a federal court said a CCW license provided an exception to the state prohibition on CCW, meaning the cop had RAS of a CCW offense, justifying a Terry Stop even if the person was licensed to carry concealed?

I have always agreed with your contention. If the language used in a CCW law provides for a affirmative defense then the request for your CCW is likely lawful. If the language used in a law states that a CCW prohibition does not apply to a CCW holder, then I think that there is no RAS. This is where the driving without a license argument comes into play. A cop cannot simply pull over folks to check for a license. Cops must assume that you do have a license until you violate a law where they will have the authority to stop you and then check your license. In MO a CCW endorsement does not provide a exception, the respective laws do not apply.

IANAL

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I agree completely if the citizen is being scanned (to mean that terahertz "waves" are being transmitted). However, it seems that we emanate terahertz waves and the article is reported to detect those emanated waves. Bis difference in the eyes of the law. Well, I hope so.

I have always agreed with your contention. If the language used in a CCW law provides for a affirmative defense then the request for your CCW is likely lawful. If the language used in a law states that a CCW prohibition does not apply to a CCW holder, then I think that there is no RAS. This is where the driving without a license argument comes into play. A cop cannot simply pull over folks to check for a license. Cops must assume that you do have a license until you violate a law where they will have the authority to stop you and then check your license. In MO a CCW endorsement does not provide a exception, the respective laws do not apply.

IANAL

Florida law says like my state, that you must present your papers upon demand. The Supreme court ruled similar to what you are saying, that without proof of violation of law, they cannot demand to see your permission slip, even if they see you are concealing because they can't by mere observation see you don't have papers.

 

[eye95]

OC:

If it is not readily visible to the naked eye, or, at most, to the lens-enhanced eye, it is not "in public" and a reasonable expectation of privacy is retained.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

Florida law says like my state, that you must present your papers upon demand. The Supreme court ruled similar to what you are saying, that without proof of violation of law, they cannot demand to see your permission slip, even if they see you are concealing because they can't by mere observation see you don't have papers.

One thing that could affect that is whether having your license is an affirmative defense or keeps concealed carry from being a crime in the first place. Courts have ruled that if having the license is an affirmative defense, the officer may ask to see them. Heck, he can arrest you for concealed carry and let you assert your affirmative defense in court!

Know your State law. Ask the specific question: Is all concealed carry illegal, with the license being an affirmative defense, or is the law written so that only CC without a license is illegal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

OC:

If it is not readily visible to the naked eye, or, at most, to the lens-enhanced eye, it is not "in public" and a reasonable expectation of privacy is retained.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

No argument from me.

I'm simply using the information, re the technology, to point out that scanning (transmitting) and passive receiving are two different things technically. I think that a court will also agree. As I posted earlier, if a citizen is compelled to be scanned or "observed" then a court will likely hold that a 4A violation has occurred.....I hope. Just cuz we can't see these waves with our own eyes does not mean that I too cannot procure a passive terahertz receiver and observe my fellow citizen. If I have the capacity to passively view your terahertz wave emanations then there should be no 4A violation.

I will state that i will research these waves and search for any countermeasure(s) that are low cost and easy to implement.

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-tiny-low-cost-terahertz-imager-chip.html

 

[marshaul]

I will state that i will research these waves and search for any countermeasure(s) that are low cost and easy to implement.

Tin foil.

If it's opaque to light and it's opaque to RF, it's opaque to tetrahertz radiation.

Just because the government spends millions of dollars on it doesn't mean its practical, or remotely elite. :lol:

 

[Citizen]

First your point about the courts, is one that I not only agree with but have made that same point time and time again using different language of course.

As for AZ no CCW/CPL required anymore, which is part the reason I have thought about moving there.

Thanks. I totally forgot.

 

[nonameisgood]

Tin foil.

If it's opaque to light and it's opaque to RF, it's opaque to tetrahertz radiation.

Just because the government spends millions of dollars on it doesn't mean its practical, or remotely elite. :lol:

Sequins.

 

[marshaul]

Sequins.

I was thinking that, but most are plastic.

 

[carolina guy]

Sequins.

Chainmail.

 

[eye95]

Chainmail.

How would forwarding a letter so as not to bring about bad luck....

Oh...nevermind...
________________________

As seen on TV, from the makers of Alumawallet: Alumasuit!
________________________

BTW, any measures that defeat the scanning would be considered, by bloombergian thugs, as RAS for a pat-down. "Man, that guy is just plain invisible on my scanner." "Grab him! He's hiding something."

 

[Tolerance]

How would forwarding a letter so as not to bring about bad luck....

Oh...nevermind...
________________________

As seen on TV, from the makers of Alumawallet: Alumasuit!
________________________

BTW, any measures that defeat the scanning would be considered, by bloombergian thugs, as RAS for a pat-down. "Man, that guy is just plain invisible on my scanner." "Grab him! He's hiding something."

Just make a cloak of that emergency blanket stuff and then tell them that you are invisible and that they can't search what they can't see

 

[carolina guy]

How would forwarding a letter so as not to bring about bad luck....

Oh...nevermind...
________________________

As seen on TV, from the makers of Alumawallet: Alumasuit!
________________________

BTW, any measures that defeat the scanning would be considered, by bloombergian thugs, as RAS for a pat-down. "Man, that guy is just plain invisible on my scanner." "Grab him! He's hiding something."

More than likely...been trying to workout how to incorporate a built-in taser/capacitor with a suit of chainmail. "Pat this down...hehehe"