Senate Bill 1018

[Jamie6.5]

Well, we all put up with metal detectors and having someone running a wand all over our body at the court house and sporting events, emptying our pockets and putting our shoes in a plastic container, having our travel bags gone through and x-rayed , and now they're going to x-ray each passenger at the airports, and they do this why ???

Because those areas/activities have been deemed "high risk"/"high probability" targets of/for nut jobs to do heinous things with bombs and/or guns.

Do you want driving classified as such? I realize the lethality of the average motor vehicle going 60mph. And Kip Kinkel probably could have done more damage with his mom's car as the students got off the buses that morning, but,...

Random search is possibly the greatest threat to the liberties we enjoy as Americans. Please apply the principle to gun ownership for just a minute. The Aussie's currently have this provision in their gun laws. If you are a licensed gun owner, the Gov't has the right to send the local constable over to your house to inspect your firearms and related inventory, (no self loaders, hi-caps, pistols etc.) check your storage methods (safe, gun locks etc.). Your gun ownership license gives them that right. No probable cause needed.

Say the AWB is reinstated. Do you want the police to be able to set up road blocks around gun ranges and stop every car coming/going to check for semi-auto pistols and ARs etc? Do you want to have to carry documentation that you purchased it/them before the ban was implemented? Do you want to have to register them to have the serial number on file so that when you're stopped in a roadblock you can prove the date of purchase?

You are advocating for a law that is at the top of a VERY slippery slope. Try to look at the application of random search to your daily life as a gun owner, or contractor or say a computer owner/user/net surfer.
What if they want to come in your house and dissect your hard drive to see if you are the one that wrote the latest virus threat,...
No warrant, no probable cause. They know you have the tools and an internet connection,...

I say again, be careful what you wish for!

 

[Chee-to]

a Constitutional perspective. the government can make no laws that inhibit an individual's liberties- except to ensure them. it's a child's parents' job to police their children, NOT the government. don't you ever wonder where these laws came from, and why they haven't existed for most of our country's history? you must have had a public education.

there's no point getting into these petty side debates. we're probably not going to agree on the color of the sky at this point, if only for spite.

yup, public schools all the way, my folks couldn't afford the private schools you must have gone to, lucky you. My argument is based on reality, yours on how you believe it should be. In the real world driving is considered a privilege, in your world there should be no restrictions on driving, it's a God given right, no license, no insurance, no control over drunk driving, or speed restrictions, legal to drive at any age, if it's OK with the parents, in fact no traffic laws that may inhibit an individual's liberties to do what ever the driver wants to do according to the drivers sensibilities. In my world the sky is blue or gray according to the weather, I haven't the foggyist what color it is in your world. We do agree that this debate is silly and is going nowhere.

 

[Karma]

So is your position , the first ten amendments and laws that control behavior aren't necessary, and we should be able to run around and do what ever we want to do when ever we feel like it, whether it harms someone else or not, no rules, sorry but that's called anarchy, you may have to look that up also. As far as making love to your wife is concerned, that may or may not be covered under the pursuit of happiness, only you can determine that.........

Nope, that isn't my position. It is the founding father's position that the bill of rights wasn't necessary. The Constitution isn't a document that gives us rights. It lays out the very limited powers of the government! Any government power not included in that document does not exist legally! Yes, the government has taken liberties that they don't have, but only because we have allowed them to. The Bill of Rights are amendments to the constitution because they were added after the original draft in spite of the belief of the founding fathers that it was unnecessary.

No, we can't do whatever we want. We can't cause injury to others with out actions. The Constitution covers this. Now you show me how police stopping every car regardless of cause fits this. Of course if a person is swerving while they drive, the police would have the suspicion that he is in fact engaged in a activity that is harmful to others. Police stopping me for no reason when I have done nothing wrong is a violation and frankly not what the police are there for.

Here you go, this guy says it pretty well

"The Constitution creates and empowers the federal government. Since, unlike any other government ever created, ours only exists by virtue of this document, it only has the powers specifically listed in it. That's very different from a document like the Magna Carta, which took an existing government which had no limitations, and declared "this you may NOT do."

The body of the Constitution does not confer the power to stifle speech, favor or outlaw any religion, search citizens and homes, forbid firearms, or coerce confessions, so the prohibitions on those actions (inter alia) was technically unnecessary.

Likewise, the States themselves were still sovereign entities, the political equal of any nation on earth, prior to the Constitution (see Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation), and the body of the Constitution did not explicity change that, so it was technically unnecessary to include the 10th Amendment.

However, it was felt that they wanted to make it crystal clear that the federal government was to be limited in scope, becoming involved only in matters external (treaties and war), and intra-state disputes, all other matters being "off-limits."

Not just the Framers, but the citizens that voted on the Constitution had just fought a war to rid themselves of an all-powerful unlimited government. They wanted to be clear they weren't creating another in its place.
Source(s):
http://www.knowourconstitution.com"

 

[Karma]

In my world the sky is blue or gray according to the weather, I haven't the foggyist what color it is in your world. We do agree that this debate is silly and is going nowhere.

I made my last post before I saw this. You are right about us not agreeing. In your world, the government controls us, in my world we control the government. Good luck keeping your "rights" in your world.

 

[Chee-to]

Because those areas/activities have been deemed "high risk"/"high probability" targets of/for nut jobs to do heinous things with bombs and/or guns.

Do you want driving classified as such? I realize the lethality of the average motor vehicle going 60mph. And Kip Kinkel probably could have done more damage with his mom's car as the students got off the buses that morning, but,...

Random search is possibly the greatest threat to the liberties we enjoy as Americans. Please apply the principle to gun ownership for just a minute. The Aussie's currently have this provision in their gun laws. If you are a licensed gun owner, the Gov't has the right to send the local constable over to your house to inspect your firearms and related inventory, (no self loaders, hi-caps, pistols etc.) check your storage methods (safe, gun locks etc.). Your gun ownership license gives them that right. No probable cause needed.

Say the AWB is reinstated. Do you want the police to be able to set up road blocks around gun ranges and stop every car coming/going to check for semi-auto pistols and ARs etc? Do you want to have to carry documentation that you purchased it/them before the ban was implemented? Do you want to have to register them to have the serial number on file so that when you're stopped in a roadblock you can prove the date of purchase?

You are advocating for a law that is at the top of a VERY slippery slope. Try to look at the application of random search to your daily life as a gun owner, or contractor or say a computer owner/user/net surfer.
What if they want to come in your house and dissect your hard drive to see if you are the one that wrote the latest virus threat,...
No warrant, no probable cause. They know you have the tools and an internet connection,...

I say again, be careful what you wish for!

You do realize flying is still safer than driving, even in wake of Sept. 11. Even with all the driving restrictions there's about 39,189 fatal vehicle crashes a year in the US, with about 44,000 total killed. Tell you what, I'll put up with a little inconvenience if it would save lives, especially kids, but that's just me...
I'm just not into all the conspiracy theories about how sobriety checks will lead to jack booted thugs at my door confiscating my guns. As far as a new AWB being reinstated that would make your current weapons pre-ban, and worth up to twice as much, remember how that worked ?

 

[Jamie6.5]

Apparently Chee-to, you are willing to grant random search powers to local and state law enforcement. You feel that the cause is just,...

Who's cause will be the next one accepted? Maybe Brady.org's?

I feel that NO cause justifies random search. Especially since it is spelled out in the Constitution.
No probable cause? NO SEARCH! No warrant? NO SEARCH!

I guess we'll have to leave it there.

 

[ZachS]

I feel that NO cause justifies random search. Especially since it is spelled out in the Constitution.
No probable cause? NO SEARCH! No warrant? NO SEARCH!

 

[Redcap]

I feel that NO cause justifies random search. Especially since it is spelled out in the Constitution.
No probable cause? NO SEARCH! No warrant? NO SEARCH!

That's about it.

 

[Scott]

Could you imagine a stop on the 205 bridge to check for drunk drivers? I don't agree with it. I hate drunk drivers as much as the next but forcing everbody to mandatory checkpoints is not the answer plus the amount of tax dollars that cost. Maybe everbody should have a device put in their car to start it? Would that be fair? I don't condone random searches because of a possible maybe this one car. I do agree driving is a driving is not a right but random searches in not a right of the government as well.

 

[The B]

Maybe everbody should have a device put in their car to start it? Would that be fair?

FAIR?? what's "fair" about making ANY new law?? fair for the government- they get to screw me out of more freedom either way- but what do you and I get? a big truck load of BUBBLEGUM.


and what about us guys that don't drink at all? why should i be forced to put out MORE money for a device that doesn't apply to me? and why should i pay MORE for a new truck that features a state-mandated device that doesn't apply to me?

 

[The B]

you guys need to start thinking with your liberty caps on.

 

[Chee-to]

Because those areas/activities have been deemed "high risk"/"high probability" targets of/for nut jobs to do heinous things with bombs and/or guns.

Do you want driving classified as such? I realize the lethality of the average motor vehicle going 60mph. And Kip Kinkel probably could have done more damage with his mom's car as the students got off the buses that morning, but,...

Random search is possibly the greatest threat to the liberties we enjoy as Americans. Please apply the principle to gun ownership for just a minute. The Aussie's currently have this provision in their gun laws. If you are a licensed gun owner, the Gov't has the right to send the local constable over to your house to inspect your firearms and related inventory, (no self loaders, hi-caps, pistols etc.) check your storage methods (safe, gun locks etc.). Your gun ownership license gives them that right. No probable cause needed.

Say the AWB is reinstated. Do you want the police to be able to set up road blocks around gun ranges and stop every car coming/going to check for semi-auto pistols and ARs etc? Do you want to have to carry documentation that you purchased it/them before the ban was implemented? Do you want to have to register them to have the serial number on file so that when you're stopped in a roadblock you can prove the date of purchase?

You are advocating for a law that is at the top of a VERY slippery slope. Try to look at the application of random search to your daily life as a gun owner, or contractor or say a computer owner/user/net surfer.
What if they want to come in your house and dissect your hard drive to see if you are the one that wrote the latest virus threat,...
No warrant, no probable cause. They know you have the tools and an internet connection,...

I say again, be careful what you wish for!

I just agree with the US Supreme Court ruling, that sobriety checkpoints are legal. they call it the "DUI exception" to warrant-less search "the ends justify the means." We put up with it at airports because nobody wants to get blown out of the sky. In 2006, around 20000 people died in the US in alcohol-related traffic crashes and the number has increased each year since. These deaths constitute almost 40 % of the total accidents. More people have been killed on US soil by drunks then terrorists could ever hope to accomplish. My best friends daughter, my god daughter, was killed by a friggin' drunk on Christmas eve 2001. Ya I believe it's a just cause, and I'll put up with it even if it only saves one kid, maybe someone's son or daughter on the NWFA forum. Looks like I'm the only one here that thinks this way, and I could really give a good flying fcuk . Hug you kids before you ever send them out, it my be your last chance...............Screw it I'm outta here !!

 

[Jamie6.5]

My sympathies to you and your God-daughter's parents. I can think of nothing a parent could have to endure that is more heinous than losing a child. My father lost 2, and hopefully I won't lose mine before I check-out.

But,... according to this: http://www.duicentral.com/dui/the_dui_exception.html
Excerpt:

"In 1984 in Berkemer v. McCarty, the United States Supreme Court fooled around for about 20 or 30 pages of opinion and finally concluded that there was apparently a DUI exception to the constitution."

So this law has been around since 1984. Your God daughter died needlessly 17 years after the SCOTUS approved it.
You are making a great case for the parallel between this and the average gun law hysteria. It obviously hasn't done any good. You have spent many minutes since this thread started telling us about all the deaths by DUIs, since you've been aware, and '84 was 26 years ago!
I hate to tell you this, but this law, much like gun laws based on hysteria and detrimental to the law abiding citizen, obviously aren't the answer.
Arguing for this is like arguing for Chicago's gun laws.
When/if there is one that works, I might consider the argument for them. In the meantime, I'll continue to advocate for probable cause protection!

 

[Karma]

I just agree with the US Supreme Court ruling, that sobriety checkpoints are legal. they call it the "DUI exception" to warrant-less search "the ends justify the means." We put up with it at airports because nobody wants to get blown out of the sky. In 2006, around 20000 people died in the US in alcohol-related traffic crashes and the number has increased each year since. These deaths constitute almost 40 % of the total accidents. More people have been killed on US soil by drunks then terrorists could ever hope to accomplish. My best friends daughter, my god daughter, was killed by a friggin' drunk on Christmas eve 2001. Ya I believe it's a just cause, and I'll put up with it even if it only saves one kid, maybe someone's son or daughter on the NWFA forum. Looks like I'm the only one here that thinks this way, and I could really give a good flying fcuk . Hug you kids before you ever send them out, it my be your last chance...............Screw it I'm outta here !!

Man, it sucks that you lost people close to you because of a drunk driver. I am truly sorry. I have lost loved ones because of drunk drivers also. It also sheds some light on why you feel the way you do.

A lot of people including kids die of gun shots every year also. I guess a warrant less search for guns would be appropriate because the ends justify the means? I don't think so. Bad things are going to happen in life. There are going to be drunk drivers no matter what you do. There are murders everyday with guns in spite of the laws to prevent them. Taking freedoms from everyone isn't going to change that.

 

[Trlsmn]

For those in favor of this legislation forget about the drunk driving angle as this is not what this law is about, this law is about infringing on your rights to go about your life as a free person without giving the police the right to pull you over for zero reason and question you like are guilty in spite of your constitutional protections.

I'm not an alarmist or a conspiracy theorist but this is police state powers, only a fool would give up these rights willingly. These laws have been struck down as unconstitutional, that is why they are not legal.

This law legalizes police abuse and takes away your rights to challenge this abuse in the court system. These type of laws have been continually struck down by the Supreme Court for a reason.

 

[LogicBomb]

they could end the repeat drunk drivers by drive drunk, lose your car...no car no repeat offenders. I used to drive towtruck and ive cleaned up the messes left by drunk drivers it aint a pretty sight...now if you are busted driving on a suspended license you lose your car to impound for 30 days and the total cost to get your car back is about 1k...why dont they appily the same law to drunk drivers?

I want to be secure in my person and papers and I say NO to random stops and searches