Should gun owners have privacy rights?

[Dave Workman]

Should gun owners have privacy, be secure from searches?

An intriguing story in yesterday's Mint Press News, asking whether the Fourth Amendment applies to gun owners, coincidentally appeared as a Seattle Times reader, weighing in on a weekend story about firearms injuries in Washington, suggested that "unscheduled warrantless visits" by law enforcement to the homes of gun owners "Sounds like a good idea to me."


<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Caveman Jim]

Stupid question, every legal American citizen is entitled to it, why is this even up for debate???
Oh, the Seattle times says so, right!!!!

 

[Dave Workman]

Stupid question, every legal American citizen is entitled to it, why is this even up for debate???
Oh, the Seattle times says so, right!!!!

Well, Jim...if you read the column, you'll see that it is very much "up for debate" in the Soviet of Seattle and elsewhere....

 

[Caveman Jim]

To me it is not up for debate, those who make it so are unAmerican.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

The Mayor of Seattle signed on to a bill last year in the legislature that would have allowed this. When he was hammered about it he claimed that he endorsed it without reading it first. I don't know which is worse, trying to dismiss the 4th amendment or not considering bills important enough to read before signing them.

 

[RicInOR]

The idea of "privacy" is not going to be won. What you do in the public square is public.

The thought however is the right to be free from unreasonable searches.
Searches have been determined to include being questioned in an official capacity.
If the government knows where you are and where you go, they have searched you. If they know who you have talked to, they have searched you.

I strongly believe the most important issue is keeping the government (especially the feds) out of our lives. They should direct the country, like a rudder on a ship. Minimal intrusion.

The 4th amendment gets violated all the time. Those of us who are citizens must continuously oppose any and all intrusions. [1] You have heard it said, All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The idea that our actions are "private, - that is they should be unknown to the government is something we can argue for. This is one of the reasons the War on Terror and it's Patriot Act were/are "evil"
Plenty of news on the Homeland Security / NSA. There shouldn't be any debate ... but still these intrusions happen.


As for " "unscheduled warrantless visits" by law enforcement " that should clearly be protected by the 4th.
But if "they" want to argue in favor of this - then apply it to ... POT - ensure it can not be accessed by minors. - Kitchen knives, they are stabby. - transfats, high sugar content food, prescription drugs, to check your pillows to ensure the warning labels are still present. - Bibles, those do not preach tolerance or inclusion. Photographs, do you have any child porn? No R-rated movies available to children. Is your whisky in a whisky safe?





[1] Ask someone of brown skin about "stop and frisk" in NYC.
I don't have brown skin, and I am not in NYC. But their loss of protection means I have lost protection.

 

[GunnyG]

The Mayor of Seattle signed on to a bill last year in the legislature that would have allowed this. When he was hammered about it he claimed that he endorsed it without reading it first. I don't know which is worse, trying to dismiss the 4th amendment or not considering bills important enough to read before signing them.

As I pointed out over there, this wasn't/isn't the first time they've tried to do that:


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/6396.pdf, Pg.7, lines 19-21: " ... (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;... " -- By Senators Kline, Fairley, Kohl-Welles, and McDermott, Read first time 01/13/10.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/5475.pdf , Pg.7 lines 22-24: " ...(c) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection; ..." -- By Senators Kline and Kohl-Welles, Read first time 01/26/2005.

The obvious conclusion is that Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles are evil, and that Sen McDermott and Mayor Murray are/were their useful dupes.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

The obvious conclusion is that Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles are evil, and that Sen McDermott and Mayor Murray are/were their useful dupes.

^^^^^

 

[GunnyG]

FWIW, you don't need to be a paid ST subscriber to comment in their forums, or to rate the comments made there.

I generally use Chrome Incognito to avoid the "limited number of views" message they put up
;-)

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

The idea of "privacy" is not going to be won. What you do in the public square is public.

The thought however is the right to be free from unreasonable searches.
Searches have been determined to include being questioned in an official capacity.
If the government knows where you are and where you go, they have searched you. If they know who you have talked to, they have searched you.

I strongly believe the most important issue is keeping the government (especially the feds) out of our lives. They should direct the country, like a rudder on a ship. Minimal intrusion.

The 4th amendment gets violated all the time. Those of us who are citizens must continuously oppose any and all intrusions. [1] You have heard it said, All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The idea that our actions are "private, - that is they should be unknown to the government is something we can argue for. This is one of the reasons the War on Terror and it's Patriot Act were/are "evil"
Plenty of news on the Homeland Security / NSA. There shouldn't be any debate ... but still these intrusions happen.


As for " "unscheduled warrantless visits" by law enforcement " that should clearly be protected by the 4th.
But if "they" want to argue in favor of this - then apply it to ... POT - ensure it can not be accessed by minors. - Kitchen knives, they are stabby. - transfats, high sugar content food, prescription drugs, to check your pillows to ensure the warning labels are still present. - Bibles, those do not preach tolerance or inclusion. Photographs, do you have any child porn? No R-rated movies available to children. Is your whisky in a whisky safe?





[1] Ask someone of brown skin about "stop and frisk" in NYC.
I don't have brown skin, and I am not in NYC. But their loss of protection means I have lost protection.

I really liked what you had to say here. especially this, "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Thanks for that simply profound thought of the day.

 

[AnonMohegan]

I'm pretty surprised to this question here. Of course gun owners are entitled to privacy. The 4th amendment of the constitution doesn't say anything like "Citizens are protected from unlawful and unreasonable searches... unless they own a firearm." Owning a firearm does not give the government reasonable suspicion that a crime has been commited and allow the search gunowners homes.

Rights are definitely being taken away slowly and under the disguise of better protecting U.S. citizens, but I feel our constitution has little to no room for interpretation. It's the cornerstone of our country, you can't just go and add/remove/change pieces of it. You can't give up one right to create a new one (that's really just taking away more rights)

 

[GunnyG]

I'm pretty surprised to this question here. ...

The question isn't being asked in this forum, but it is being bandied about in the city that's most responsible for keeping the WA gov't out of their bedrooms, their body and their stash/medicine cabinets.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Should those individuals with medical Marijuana cards be subject to random home searches to insure that kids aren't raiding their stash?

 

[AnonMohegan]

Yea, I'm not terribly thrilled with how Seattle runs the state. Everyone's voice matters but the bread winners are louder. Then you consider that seattle has the largest population and promotes liberalism, the current system doesn't necessarily allow for equal representation. Don't think there's a state that has such a political difference from one side to the other. Seattle seems to be hardcore democrats while the rest of the state seems more independent, but leaning right

Overall WA is more conservative than most states but that doesn't mean we can afford to be complacent. While drunk driving is horrible, I do respect WA for ruling DUI checkpoints unconstitutional because their a violation of privacy, and a stop without reasonable suspicion. So while Seattle tried to support DUI checkpoints in the late 80's, most of the state saw it as a step towards taking away our freedoms and stood up against it. Our state currently has laws that strongly favor the 2nd amendment. Overall I think we're well balanced.

 

[RicInOR]

How about privacy when it comes to lost or stolen guns?
You could argue, this is a form of registration. And we know the Supreme Court ruled that Felons do not have to comply with gun registration laws. Why should the rest of us?

This story is out of PA

<broken link removed>

Under Pennsylvania law, only the Legislature can enact firearms laws for the entire state or approve special firearms provisions for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

But 30 smaller cities, boroughs and townships enacted their own laws governing lost and stolen firearms after the Legislature failed to pass a law in 2008, according to CeaseFirePA, an advocacy group aimed at combating firearms violence. Allentown and Wilson are the only Lehigh Valley municipalities in the CeaseFirePA tally that have passed laws on missing firearms.

 

[GunnyG]

How about privacy when it comes to lost or stolen guns?
You could argue, this is a form of registration. And we know the Supreme Court ruled that Felons do not have to comply with gun registration laws. Why should the rest of us?

This story is out of PA

<broken link removed>

I touched on a facet of this, in the ST comments.

Stolen cars are are frequently used in crimes, but how often are the owners held liable for the third party misuse of that stolen property?

I'm willing to guess that it is a big fat Ø.

Gun owners deserve the same consideration.