ANTI-STATE•ANTI-WAR•PRO-MARKET Pushback Against Federal Roadside Checkpoints Increasing… By Bob Adelmann… The New American” ~ The Resistance – LewRockwell.com…..
With some 60 cities participating in federal checkpoints, pushback from citizens and local police and sheriff’s departments is increasing. In its defense, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said in an e-mail:
Each year, close to 10,000 people die in drunk driving crashes: 27 people a day, or one person every 53 minutes, according to [our] data.
To better understand the issue, the agency has regularly conducted its National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drugged Driving in communities across the country for over 40 years. The survey provides useful data about alcohol and drug use by drivers, and participation is completely voluntary and anonymous. More than 60 communities across the country will participate this year, many of which participated in the previous survey in 2007.
Two-Thirds of Americans Live in the 4th Amendment “Exemption Zone”
Posted on January 6, 2014
© Josh Sager – January 2014
Last week, Judge Edward Korman—a Reagan appointee to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York—confirmed that federal authorities can search the electronic devices of any American within 100 miles of any border without the need to obtain a warrant.
The Abidor et al v. Napolitano et al case, which Judge Korman just dismissed in favor of the government, focused upon warrantless searches of laptops without suspicion at the border. In this case, an American student was stopped at the border after traveling to several Middle Eastern countries and was forced to unlock/surrender his laptop computer. Despite the fact that nothing illegal was found on the computer, it still took nearly two weeks for Abidor to recover his laptop (which held the only copy of his thesis paper).
by Doug Book, editor
Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even
if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “…must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.”
Bill of Rights — what \”Rights?\”
Dan Miller\’s Blog ^ | December 5, 2013 | Dan Miller
Posted on Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:14:19 PM by DanMiller
The Bill of Rights has been around for a long time. Some complain that it gets in the way of the Government, but that\’s its purpose.
With an ever expanding Federal Government, can the Bill of Rights still get in its way? Or is the Government more effective in getting in the way of the Bill of Rights?
POLICE ENTERING HOMES TO MAKE SURE GUNS ARE STORED SAFELY? IF THIS POLITICIAN HAS HIS WAY… (Gunny G: AND WHAT THE FOLKS OUT THERE THINK ‘BOUT THIS !!!!!)
POLICE ENTERING HOMES TO MAKE SURE GUNS ARE STORED SAFELY? IF THIS POLITICIAN HAS HIS WAY
.theblaze.com ^ | Nov. 11, 2013 | Fred Lucas
Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 12:36:39 PM by moonshinner_09
A Massachusetts politician has put forth a proposal to allow local police to enter homes without a warrant in order to inspect whether gun owners are properly storing their firearms.The idea was floated by Swampsott Selectman Barry Greenfield, who expressed frustration about the Newtown school massacre in the neighboring state of Connecticut and in other cases where people have obtained their parents’ guns to carry out shootings.
“We need the ability to enforce the state law,” Greenfield said, according to the Swampscott Patch.
The town of Swampscott reportedly has about 600 gun owners. Under Massachusetts law, it is “unlawful to store or keep any firearm … in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.”
Greenfield said he spoke with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan about inspecting homes for proper gun storage.
But Selectman Glenn Kessler said there are questions about the constitutionality of the proposal and wants input from law enforcement, legal counsel and town residents. There will likely be a meeting to solicit town input, the Patch reported.
Washington state considered a similar law earlier this year, according to Boston Herald columnist Michael Graham.
“Then some lawyer heard a rumor about some ‘Second Amendment thingy’ and it went away,” Graham wrote.
“This isn’t a Second Amendment issue. It’s a Fourth Amendment one — unreasonable search and seizure,” Graham continued. “If Swampscott residents who don’t own guns sit back and allow this to happen, they’ll be playing their role in the famous parable of Martin Niemoller: “First they came for the gun owners, but I didn’t own a gun …”
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com …
AC Daily Updates on August 7, 2013 in 4th Amendment, Big Brother, Issues 0
Reason ^ | July 31, 2013 | J.D. Tuccille
Posted on Monday, August 05, 2013 9:15:09 AM by bamahead
The Fourth Amendment protects us from random invasions of our homes by police, right? We know we’re secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects” unless the cops demonstrate probable cause to a judge and get a warrant. Except… Except when they don’t. The fact of the matter is that police have a lot of leeway to bust your door down and take a look around if they fear that waiting for a warrant could lead to loss of evidence or danger to people.
Or lead to something, anyway. That end run around the Fourth Amendment is called “exigent circumstances,” and nobody really seems to be sure where it starts and stops. Except for the police. They know it when they see it.