Search and Seizure in Private Homes.......

[Maenad]

OK, so I seem unable to post in a forum that the powers that be do not frown on, so I will explain my choice of the Constitution forum for this thread. We do have an Amendment prohibiting search and seizure without probably cause, and the private home is sacrosanct according to the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

So, THIS post came up in the Gun forum. I am flabberghasted that this kind of gestapo thinking exists in America today.

Nope, If I firearms were banned there would have to be search and seizures of private residences to retrieve all firearms. That would be the only way it would work.

I also don't see how it would even be effective in ridding the land of guns since it is highly likely that gangland arsenals are not housed in suburbia. Am I the only one who sees scenes of Nazi Germany, knocks in the middle of the night, and book burnings here?

 

[tessaesque]

I don't think Capster was supporting the use of such search and seizures, I think he was merely stating that the government would be incapable of removing all guns without such measures.

Based on my observations, I tend to agree. People aren't going to just hand over their weapons because the government, in a reactionary and extreme move, decided to outright ban them. The 2nd amendment is entrenched in our culture. Otherwise law-abiding citizens would likely blanch at the idea of being made to give up their guns, which they largely view as a self-defense tool, especially given how easily criminals can obtain guns on the black market.

 

[tech30528]

Can you imagine the carnage that would ensue? People understand their rights as they are stated in the Constitution. If law enforcement forcefully entered homes there are going to be some conflicts. We can assume that in the end the police are better armed, but that would not prevent many of them and many civilians dying in these conflicts. And how many LEOs would have to die before the rest would refuse orders to do this? My bet is not many. Of course, the government would place the blame on the homeowners, but that wouldn't get much traction with others who are homeowners, or for the police who are homeowners as well.

In order to do this the people being sent to confiscate weapons would almost have to be non locals. Local authorities would see homeowners as their neighbors and psychologically it would be difficult to separate themselves in order to carry out their orders. So where would that leave us? It would be gun owners protecting themselves against invasion by foreign troops. And then you have the homeowner who bails out of their home and makes a couple of phone calls. Once others in the community hear that there are boots on the ground going door to door they (the troops) would be fighting an uphill battle, the first front being the homeowners they came to relieve of their weapons and the locals who would be hunting them.

Think that's a little over the top for your Brady Bunch peaceful neighborhood? Well, maybe it would be. But not everywhere. Where I live, where houses are spread out thru the mountains, where there are groups that have organized for emergency response (there are over 100 in our county who get much of their training thru FEMA) this would be seen as an invasion and attrition would be high. Considering the two fronts law enforcement would be facing and the ability of those hunting them to strike from a distance the LEOs would be overrun in short order. I'm not advocating this. As it is the local volunteers work hand in hand with local law enforcement. We don't want this conflict. What it would amount to is another unfunded mandate from the federal government, except this one isn't about money, it would be about the lives of civilians and law enforcement alike. What then? Drone strikes?

 

[ttwtt78640]

OK, so I seem unable to post in a forum that the powers that be do not frown on, so I will explain my choice of the Constitution forum for this thread. We do have an Amendment prohibiting search and seizure without probably cause, and the private home is sacrosanct according to the 4th Amendment.



So, THIS post came up in the Gun forum. I am flabberghasted that this kind of gestapo thinking exists in America today.



I also don't see how it would even be effective in ridding the land of guns since it is highly likely that gangland arsenals are not housed in suburbia. Am I the only one who sees scenes of Nazi Germany, knocks in the middle of the night, and book burnings here?

Assuming that you purchased your "now banned" firearm from a FFL dealer then there is gov't paperwork to support that probable cause warrant that you may still own/possess that now "illegal" firearm. First, of course, this is all theoretical since no such ban is likely to be imposed; as the last AWB and large capacity magazine ban laws did not apply retroactively, they only applied to new manufacture and sales. Second, Dianne's dreamy, compulsory gun "buy back" nonsense is even less likely to pass Constitutional muster (or the House). You are correct in assuming that our Constitution should prevent our congress critters (and president) from going rogue, but I put nothing "off the table" after seeing PPACA be declared OK (by 5/4 of our nine robed umpires) by allowing "taxation" based on what one did not choose to spend their income on.

 

[tech30528]

They are going to have to be very careful with whatever they decide to do. If they impose a tax that is more than gun owner will accept there will be a resounding "no" from gun owners who will be standing as a large block thru organizations like the NRA. In that case they would have to be willing to enforce their new laws. That could be, for lack of a better term, a "trigger point". The federal government has been able to get away with what they have (including assuming powers not granted to it by the Constitution) because nobody has challenged them on it. But in this case I would expect resistance from a large somewhat organized group.

I would not put it past the Obama administration to retroactively ban anything. They have afterall imposed retroactive taxes.

 

[SMTA]

Assuming that you purchased your "now banned" firearm from a FFL dealer then there is gov't paperwork to support that probable cause warrant that you may still own/possess that now "illegal" firearm. First, of course, this is all theoretical since no such ban is likely to be imposed; as the last AWB and large capacity magazine ban laws did not apply retroactively, they only applied to new manufacture and sales. Second, Dianne's dreamy, compulsory gun "buy back" nonsense is even less likely to pass Constitutional muster (or the House). You are correct in assuming that our Constitution should prevent our congress critters (and president) from going rogue, but I put nothing "off the table" after seeing PPACA be declared OK (by 5/4 of our nine robed umpires) by allowing "taxation" based on what one did not choose to spend their income on.

Not necessarily.

Once purchased through a FFL, I can resell the weapon to anyone that I choose with no records or paperwork.

Hence, the search warrant would be invalid as issued, and the owner would have no duty to cough up the buyer's name.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not necessarily.

Once purchased through a FFL, I can resell the weapon to anyone that I choose with no records or paperwork.

Hence, the search warrant would be invalid as issued, and the owner would have no duty to cough up the buyer's name.

I never implied that they would find it or could hold you accountable for not having it. As you say, you are under no obligation to account for your property, merely to let them look about for the specific items sought by the warrant.

 

[tech30528]

I never implied that they would find it or could hold you accountable for not having it. As you say, you are under no obligation to account for your property, merely to let them look about for the specific items sought by the warrant.

Yup. Followed by a public campaign of distrust for the government. I think that might be interesting actually, considering how good the government is at dividing people in to groups and having them fight out imagined battles while the government profits.

 

[Maenad]

Assuming that you purchased your "now banned" firearm from a FFL dealer then there is gov't paperwork to support that probable cause warrant that you may still own/possess that now "illegal" firearm. First, of course, this is all theoretical since no such ban is likely to be imposed; as the last AWB and large capacity magazine ban laws did not apply retroactively, they only applied to new manufacture and sales. Second, Dianne's dreamy, compulsory gun "buy back" nonsense is even less likely to pass Constitutional muster (or the House). You are correct in assuming that our Constitution should prevent our congress critters (and president) from going rogue, but I put nothing "off the table" after seeing PPACA be declared OK (by 5/4 of our nine robed umpires) by allowing "taxation" based on what one did not choose to spend their income on.

Well, you have a computer, so in like vein that would mean there is probable cause to suspect you of using the internet for terrorist activity. And you have a car, so that is probably cause to think you are transporting illegal arms or smuggling in illegal aliens.

Probable cause entails far more than just having a receipt for a gun. If you look into what it has taken in the past for there to be probable cause you would know how flimsey your 'probable cause' is. Can you see the fallacy in your thinking? Likely not because those with the gestapo model in their heads do not.

 

[Maenad]

I never implied that they would find it or could hold you accountable for not having it. As you say, you are under no obligation to account for your property, merely to let them look about for the specific items sought by the warrant.

In order to get a warrant, there must be probable cause. Searching for 'specific items' means they ransack your house. "Looking about" would entail going through your desk, your personal items, even your underwear drawer. THIS is what was happening when the Constitution was formed. I cannot even begin to imagine what would follow.

 

[Maenad]

Can you imagine the carnage that would ensue? People understand their rights as they are stated in the Constitution. If law enforcement forcefully entered homes there are going to be some conflicts. We can assume that in the end the police are better armed, but that would not prevent many of them and many civilians dying in these conflicts. And how many LEOs would have to die before the rest would refuse orders to do this? My bet is not many. Of course, the government would place the blame on the homeowners, but that wouldn't get much traction with others who are homeowners, or for the police who are homeowners as well.

In order to do this the people being sent to confiscate weapons would almost have to be non locals. Local authorities would see homeowners as their neighbors and psychologically it would be difficult to separate themselves in order to carry out their orders. So where would that leave us? It would be gun owners protecting themselves against invasion by foreign troops. And then you have the homeowner who bails out of their home and makes a couple of phone calls. Once others in the community hear that there are boots on the ground going door to door they (the troops) would be fighting an uphill battle, the first front being the homeowners they came to relieve of their weapons and the locals who would be hunting them.

Think that's a little over the top for your Brady Bunch peaceful neighborhood? Well, maybe it would be. But not everywhere. Where I live, where houses are spread out thru the mountains, where there are groups that have organized for emergency response (there are over 100 in our county who get much of their training thru FEMA) this would be seen as an invasion and attrition would be high. Considering the two fronts law enforcement would be facing and the ability of those hunting them to strike from a distance the LEOs would be overrun in short order. I'm not advocating this. As it is the local volunteers work hand in hand with local law enforcement. We don't want this conflict. What it would amount to is another unfunded mandate from the federal government, except this one isn't about money, it would be about the lives of civilians and law enforcement alike. What then? Drone strikes?

That is a chilling scenario. 50 years ago, I would have said it would never happen in America. But 50 years ago, I don't think Barack Obama had been born yet, or was maybe just a toddler jet setting through his beloved third world. There would be carnage where I live as well due to many people hunting game for food, and a lot of them would not have enough to eat without the game they hunt. Many a freezer in KY is laden with that nice deer, wild bird, etc. It is just beyond belief that we have people in this country today who think home invasions by the government would be acceptable.

My experience with law enforcement when I had a break in a few years back is that law enforcement wanted me to have my gun in hand because I could not verify the intruder had left my home. They kept me on the phone until the officers arrived and then told me when to lay it down. I really can't see law enforcement in this scenario. Neither can I see Americn solders, because they have been sworn to uphold the Constitution and killing their fellow citizens is an aversion to them. It would be foreign troops. I just can't imagine any American in an authority position to take part in something like this.

 

[SMTA]

In order to get a warrant, there must be probable cause. Searching for 'specific items' means they ransack your house. "Looking about" would entail going through your desk, your personal items, even your underwear drawer. THIS is what was happening when the Constitution was formed. I cannot even begin to imagine what would follow.

If all guns were outlawed, having one registered in your name would be probable cause.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well, you have a computer, so in like vein that would mean there is probable cause to suspect you of using the internet for terrorist activity. And you have a car, so that is probably cause to think you are transporting illegal arms or smuggling in illegal aliens.

Probable cause entails far more than just having a receipt for a gun. If you look into what it has taken in the past for there to be probable cause you would know how flimsey your 'probable cause' is. Can you see the fallacy in your thinking? Likely not because those with the gestapo model in their heads do not.

Slow down there skippy, note that my post refered to a banned gun, not just any gun. It is not necessary to suppose any planned criminal use of a banned item, simply possessing it is then an illegal act.

 

[Maenad]

Slow down there skippy, note that my post refered to a banned gun, not just any gun. It is not necessary to suppose any planned criminal use of a banned item, simply possessing it is then an illegal act.

Well it doesn't matter. You are still advocating home invasions which is unconstitutional.

I have posted and read forums for 9 years and I have never seen such a suggestion as yours. FWIW, the same theory you put forth about possession of guns would also apply to possession of cannabis. As it is no one can breach your home to see if you have cannabis in it without probable cause. Simply possessing cannabis is illegal. So, there would be a lot of liberals in boiling hot water if this precedent were ever set. Moreover, once they had breached the home, anything in plain view is fair game, so you better stash your roach clips and other items, liberals!

 

[Maenad]

If all guns were outlawed, having one registered in your name would be probable cause.

No, it would not. Say you have a receipt for last week's loaf of bread lying around your house. Do you still have it?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well it doesn't matter. You are still advocating home invasions which is unconstitutional.

I have posted and read forums for 9 years and I have never seen such a suggestion as yours. FWIW, the same theory you put forth about possession of guns would also apply to possession of cannabis. As it is no one can breach your home to see if you have cannabis in it without probable cause. Simply possessing cannabis is illegal. So, there would be a lot of liberals in boiling hot water if this precedent were ever set. Moreover, once they had breached the home, anything in plain view is fair game, so you better stash your roach clips and other items, liberals!

Again, attention to detail is not your strong suit. Do you often buy your weed from the fed's approved sellers? Note that I said a firearm purchased from a FFL (Federal Firearms Licenced) dealer, not a punk down the block. The FFL dealer sale requires a paper trail of firearms sold, thus the gov't may use that as "evidence" to attempt to "retrieve" a banned firearm. I do not advocate that policy, I oppose that policy, but I was simply pointing out possibilities for obtaining a legal search warrant. There is probable cause to suspect that a gun bought legally, but which was later banned, could remain in the possession of its original purchaser; no more and no less.

 

[Maenad]

Again, attention to detail is not your strong suit. Do you often buy your weed from the fed's approved sellers? Note that I said a firearm purchased from a FFL (Federal Firearms Licenced) dealer, not a punk down the block. The FFL dealer sale requires a paper trail of firearms sold, thus the gov't may use that as "evidence" to attempt to "retrieve" a banned firearm. I do not advocate that policy, I oppose that policy, but I was simply pointing out possibilities for obtaining a legal search warrant. There is probable cause to suspect that a gun bought legally, but which was later banned, could remain in the possession of its original purchaser; no more and no less.

You know, I still have the paperwork on the first car I owned which was purchased back in 1967. It was registered and licensed to me. So, I guess that serves as probable cause from some hair brained thing. You are being completely ludicrous.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

OK, so I seem unable to post in a forum that the powers that be do not frown on, so I will explain my choice of the Constitution forum for this thread. We do have an Amendment prohibiting search and seizure without probably cause, and the private home is sacrosanct according to the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1] ​

So, THIS post came up in the Gun forum. I am flabberghasted that this kind of gestapo thinking exists in America today.

Nope, If I firearms were banned there would have to be search and seizures of private residences to retrieve all firearms. That would be the only way it would work.

I also don't see how it would even be effective in ridding the land of guns since it is highly likely that gangland arsenals are not housed in suburbia. Am I the only one who sees scenes of Nazi Germany, knocks in the middle of the night, and book burnings here?

What makes you think that any government agency or agent that refuses to obey the Second Amendment can be trusted to obey the Fourth Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution?

 

[CalGun]

That is from the same guy who suggested we need more gun control in our society because someone dropped a gun in a theater and left it behind. Some kids turned it in - and for that one person's failure he calls for restrictive gun laws. Some people you just can't help no matter how hard you try.

OK, so I seem unable to post in a forum that the powers that be do not frown on, so I will explain my choice of the Constitution forum for this thread. We do have an Amendment prohibiting search and seizure without probably cause, and the private home is sacrosanct according to the 4th Amendment.



So, THIS post came up in the Gun forum. I am flabberghasted that this kind of gestapo thinking exists in America today.



I also don't see how it would even be effective in ridding the land of guns since it is highly likely that gangland arsenals are not housed in suburbia. Am I the only one who sees scenes of Nazi Germany, knocks in the middle of the night, and book burnings here?

 

[CalGun]

Not in every state. Congrats to you - mine had to go down in the boating accident.

Not necessarily.

Once purchased through a FFL, I can resell the weapon to anyone that I choose with no records or paperwork.

Hence, the search warrant would be invalid as issued, and the owner would have no duty to cough up the buyer's name.

 

[CalGun]

I don't believe Law Enforcement or even our military would enforce such unconstitutional laws. Oh there are probably
some but I think even higher up members of the services both civilian and military would refuse.

They'd have to bring in Chinse peace keepers. I hope they stay with the blue helmets - it helps.

 

[Fisher]

I am sure if there were such a program of rounding up guns by warrant (which is silly to even consider), my local police department might go after the known druggies, but otherwise would pursue it with all the enthusiasm they did when forced to try to entrap the gays who were using the woods behind the Mayor's neighborhood as a cruising spot---something all the newbies had the task to carry out when nothing else was going on and the Court threw the book at them with huge $10-$25 fines to teach them.

 

[iliveonramen]

. Am I the only one who sees scenes of Nazi Germany, knocks in the middle of the night, and book burnings here?

I think you are the only one. The Nazi's built an autobahn as well before we built an interestate system. Fortunately the fact Nazi's did something and we do it too doesn't lead to a Fascist Dictatorship.

 

[tech30528]

I think you are the only one. The Nazi's built an autobahn as well before we built an interestate system. Fortunately the fact Nazi's did something and we do it too doesn't lead to a Fascist Dictatorship.

There is more than one way to a fascist dictatorship.

 

[SMTA]

No, it would not. Say you have a receipt for last week's loaf of bread lying around your house. Do you still have it?

Yes, it would. You know nothing about probable cause and warrants.