Feds Convinced Police To Use License Plate-Scanning Tech At Gun Shows (foxnews.com) 277
Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike quotes the Wall Street Journal:
Federal agents have persuaded police officers to scan license plates to gather information about gun-show customers, government emails show, raising questions about how officials monitor constitutionally protected activity. Emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show agents with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency crafted a plan in 2010 to use license-plate readers -- devices that record the plate numbers of all passing cars -- at gun shows in Southern California, including one in Del Mar, not far from the Mexican border. Agents then compared that information to cars that crossed the border, hoping to find gun smugglers, according to the documents and interviews with law-enforcement officials with knowledge of the operation...
[T]he officials didn't rule out that such surveillance may have happened elsewhere. The agency has no written policy on its use of license-plate readers and could engage in similar surveillance in the future, they said. Jay Stanley, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the gun-show surveillance "highlights the problem with mass collection of data." He said law enforcement can take two entirely legal activities, like buying guns and crossing the border, "and because those two activities in concert fit somebody's idea of a crime, a person becomes inherently suspicious."
[T]he officials didn't rule out that such surveillance may have happened elsewhere. The agency has no written policy on its use of license-plate readers and could engage in similar surveillance in the future, they said. Jay Stanley, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the gun-show surveillance "highlights the problem with mass collection of data." He said law enforcement can take two entirely legal activities, like buying guns and crossing the border, "and because those two activities in concert fit somebody's idea of a crime, a person becomes inherently suspicious."
Ghostplate (Score:2)
The Road Warrior cover consists of a PDLC membrane. When power is applied, the PDLC membrane switches to a completely transparent state and remains so until the current is suspended.
Would it be OK (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe people should take their licence plate off their cars and toss them in the trunk when they go to places where licence plate readers are being used. It's ridiculous and impractical to have to even consider protecting privacy participating in a legal activity on private property.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drug smugglers & cartels may not kill with it, but they will kill for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The government used it to cause Andrew Sadek to be killed [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly. You could drop half a ton of the stuff on someone, for example.
It's the surveillance, not the thing surveilled. (Score:2)
If you're upset that plate scanners are being used for mass surveillance, that's fine. If you're upset that plate scanners are being used for mass surveillance of a legal activity you really care about, you're part of the problem.
Don't make me quote Martin Neimoller at ya.
Just like 1960 (Score:5, Informative)
Congrats: 99.99% off-topic (Score:2)
First of all: this is a story about surveillance, not about the 2nd amendment. Go whine about sidearm ownership somewhere else.
Second: Once again, somehow the concept of "arms" gets limited to rifles and pistols. Why do you all forget to bitch about not being allowed open-carry crossbows, or about not being allowed to set up a battery of TOW or FOG-M missile launchers in your back yard? Do you really think even your 37 semi-automatics (with the hack installed to make them fully automatic) are a match
Re: (Score:2)
You can photograph anyone or anything in public. All that bluring of number places is done by tv producers and google maps engineers as more of a general liability protection. It does get into murky waters when law enforcement does it. But if I setup a camera and wrote some software to capture plate numbers and I was doing so from a public road, that is totally legal. I could then sell that info to law enforcement.
Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Its a question of resource commitment. When surveillance was expensive, both in cost and manpower, law enforcement naturally had to limit their monitoring to only the big fish and the big crimes. Having a couple of cops on a stakeout is expensive. Having a police helicopter track a fugitive is very expensive. And so on.
What we are seeing now is that the cost of throwing up a few thousand cameras and drones is (relatively) cheap. The military hardware from the Iraq drawdown is also putting a lot of previousl
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The plate scanners are hunting for the strawman purchasers, free types and as a general list of who is armed. A gun owner in 2016 is most likely a gun owner up until they die. A few years of scanning plates wi
Re: Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement (Score:2, Insightful)
This country was founded after a revolutionary war that was started over aerious rights violations. Those rights violations, which are well documented, look minor in comparison to the ones going on today.
Unlike the colonists, we do have a method of changing that short of violence. We have not done so and our government seems hell bemt on making sure we don't. That is not going to end well.
Re: (Score:2)
> You can photograph anyone or anything in public
Ironically, copyright prohibits sale in a large number of cases. Did you catch a billboard in your photo? Whoops.
Relevant: http://www.wipo.int/export/sit... [wipo.int]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It also wasn't designed NOT to have big government and taxes.
This is what you get for turning the Founding Fathers into religious figures and the Constitution into religious text. We should have had at least half a dozen constitutional conventions since 1789.
Re: (Score:2)
Our failures have usually been failures to adhere to principle and earlier law. e.g the Civil War combined both sides' worst factions' legal abuses (expanding slavery's presence and reach, even with bounty hunters going North, and exorbitant tariffs really for private purposes). Also the funny money business has clearly been problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
You can hardly blame anyone, since the Founding Fathers didn't adhere to their own "logic" and "principles".
This is why, if you're really going to have the consent of the governed, you've got to give those people a way to provide consent (ie: constitutional conventions). The world is very different today than in 1789.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't find the argument that "people were better in 1789 than they are today" very compelling. Either you believe in the consent of the governed or you don't.
Maybe one of the reasons for that "indoctrinated society" is that there are no longer any consequences for citizenship in the form of meaningful participation. Voting for candidates that are pre-chosen for their w
Re: (Score:2)
The Federal government's military powers comes from else where in the Constitution.
Denouncing Surveilance (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if technically true — the best kind of correct — the same folks, who usually denounce any and all "unwarranted surveillance", are surprisingly silent about this one. Silent or even approving, thus exposing themselves as hypocrites.
But I doubt, this is even technically true — though this monitoring does not, as you say, directly violate the Second Amendment, that's not the accusation. All other objectionable surveillance and recording is usually denounced on the Fourth Amendment grounds [intelligen...aredus.org] — like NSA's snooping of your e-mails or phone-records [npr.org], it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.
Moreover, the very "crime", that this effort was supposed to catch/prevent — transport of the legally purchased guns across the state-lines into areas, where they are illegal — should not be a crime to begin with (unlike the terrorism NSA is after). Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights and ought to be protested and denounced at any opportunity far more noisily than the marijuana prohibition or "gay marriage" inequality.
Distinction without difference. You can not have a weapon without buying it first. 3D-printed guns my tail — many States ban even swords and brass-knuckles, hand-made or purchased! Were we to apply this standard to the First Amendment, for example, we'd say, you have the right to speak (to yourself in the shower), but not giving a speech, nor to sell or buy a book or a magazine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
American Law and constitution doesn't apply to Mexico the border that was being crossed.
I've seen enough border patrol shows to see that some Americans struggle with that concept entering Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
You can not have a weapon without buying it first.
Not correct. You can make any standard firearm at home - rifle, handgun, shotgun, completely legally. You don't need a license unless you start selling/transferring, or if you're making full-auto/destructive device weapons.
And for that matter, states often don't ban the outright ownership of the swords,brass knuckles, etc. Instead the public possession of them is outlawed. In Minnesota, I can own an auto-knife/switchblade.sword. But I can't carry it in public.
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite true. A zip gun is not a legal gun unless it has a trigger. If you have to hit the end of the nail with a handheld hammer it is illegal. Pinball plunger is similarly not a legal gun ('other gun' in ATF weasel speak).
Also local 'no questions asked' gun buy backs are limited to county residents and have a 3 gun limit (so 'some questions'). 'Profit' is tough to pull off in a worthwhile way, still a $300 dollar stop isn't bad, hit all six locations it's an $1800 day for a $25 piece of black pipe/$2
Re: (Score:2)
Yep — as I said, that prohibition is in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Emphasis mine:
Re: (Score:2)
But I doubt, this is even technically true — though this monitoring does not, as you say, directly violate the Second Amendment, that's not the accusation. All other objectionable surveillance and recording is usually denounced on the Fourth Amendment grounds [intelligen...aredus.org] — like NSA's snooping of your e-mails or phone-records [npr.org], it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.
Actually, the fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure, so absent a seizure as in the case of the NSA collecting records, scanning license plates may not violate the fourth. At any rate, the police observing and collecting information in plain view in public would not, IMHO, be unreasonable since you have no expectation of privacy in public.
Moreover, the very "crime", that this effort was supposed to catch/prevent — transport of the legally purchased guns across the state-lines into areas, where they are illegal — should not be a crime to begin with (unlike the terrorism NSA is after). Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights and ought to be protested and denounced at any opportunity far more noisily than the marijuana prohibition or "gay marriage" inequality.
The question is not can certain weapons be banned, but where to draw the line.
Re: (Score:3)
Unreasonable search is unconstitutional by itself — nothing needs to be seized to violate the Constitution.
NSA has never seized anything either.
Wherever you choose to draw it, any such line will be unconstitutional — unless a new Amendment is passed to clarify the Second.
But, as I pointed o
Re: (Score:2)
NSA has never seized anything either.
They collected records, which could be considered a seizure.
Re: (Score:2)
Not by anyone with a regular English dictionary [princeton.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
This line of thinking ends where everyone is tracked everywhere, at all times. You need to stop with the blanket 'if its in public, its fair game' that applies to the public, it does not necessarily apply to police at all times everywhere.. Police need actual CAUSE to cast their gaze in this manner, not just fishing. Its one thing to se
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why I donate to the ACLU and not the NRA - even as a firearm aficionado with a large collection.
But when it comes to defend the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the ACLU counts 1, 3, 4, 5,....
Which is why I'll never give them a fucking dime.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm the police were monitoring the MEXICAN BORDER and associating that with gun show visits. So please argue that selling guns to Mexican drug gangs should be legal and is somehow protected by our constitution. This is not in any way mass surveillance. It is investigating specific behavior relating to a specific crime. We know US weapons are making their way across the border. This is the police looking at an obvious route. This information is also hard to abuse because as you will likely agree the act of g
Re: (Score:2)
it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.
Doubt it. Observation of activities in a public space is not "search". As to"unreasonable" I'd wonder more about the use of tax dollars than anything else - unless LEOs have knowledge of a possible threat.
The Bill of Rights yields an undefined result (Score:2)
Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights
State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons can be perfectly Constitutional, but if they try to ban other kinds of weapons they're arguably not.
First of all, the Bill of Rights was *designed* to prevent the federal government from intruding on the power of the states. It was not designed to prevent individual states from passing their own laws. The battles at Lexington and Concord were fought when the Redcoats moved to seize gunpowder stored by *the militia*, after all. The idea was some federal government
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as a leftist and a liberal, there is much hypocrisy on the left, particularly on the gun issue, but also on many others. After all, the last thing many so-called liberals want are liberal gun laws. The urge to ban and prohibit is essentially a conservative urge, and antithetical to liberalism. And indeed, gun rights had been a liberal cause since the first gun laws were passed, right after the American Civil War. Now we live in a kind of Reverse-World, where conservatives champion the expansion of
Re: (Score:2)
If it should be illegal for the police to take photographs of license plates in public, should it also be illegal for citizens to take photos of public infrastructure in public [slashdot.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
we need license plate & facial recognition monitoring of abortion clinics too
Re: (Score:2)
Talking about plate readers and long term databases, reporting it is then freedom of the press and freedom of speech and after speech.
The US has so many really good protections against gov overreach and tyranny thanks to its past with direct rule.
Re:Gun smuggling? (Score:4, Informative)
US law enforcement should work for US interests.
Well they do, the problem is that the current government doesn't work for US interests. This is where I'll remind you that the Obama administration was running guns to Mexico, and them ending back up in the US in the hands of criminals or cartel members illegally in the US. [judicialwatch.org]
Re: (Score:2)
*cough*bullshit*cough* The stated purpose of the program was to track the guns however no attempt was made to do so. Moreover, it was a shittier, greatly expanded version of a Bush program that was explicitly shut down because it didn't work. It's not like the Obama administration was releasing faulty mexican crime gun statistics at the same time this program was going on or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
And Mashiki fails to note that they were doing so in order to track the process and thus improve their ability to make arrests.
You mean they were not tracking the process, ignoring informant information, and not doing any arrests. And according to the FOIA requests, the Obama administration went even further and blocked agents from actively perusing investigations against solid leads. Did not inform the Mexican government unlike the Bush administration did, illegally engaged in straw sale purchases, and in the end was so shitty that they "lost" thousands of weapons. [thehill.com] Openly discussed and/or blocked ATF lab reports which showed tha
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you have no credibility. Stupid shit.
Says the AC who can't actually answer to any of the questions, but tries to deflect. Note that in your other "case" that people were prosecuted for it...oh of course not. Which is why you show yourself as an actual partisan hack.
Re: (Score:2)
BULLLSHIIIIIT!
The Bush era program, Operation Wide Receiver was a quarter the size in scope, made actual attempts to track the guns with tracking devices, and was shutdown explicitly because it failed miserably.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to pull you head out of Obama's ass. I realize you like the taste of his prostate, but that's no excuse.
http://www.theblaze.com/storie... [theblaze.com]
Second, Wide Receiver, though flawed, was more of a gun-tracing operation than a gun-walking program. Gun-tracing involves putting specific safeguards in place to track firearms, such as RFID chips perhaps with video or aerial surveillance. Gun-walking is what happened in Fast and Furious, where ATF agents sold thousands of guns without a reliable way to recover them, apparently just hoping for the best.
Some of the guns from Wide Receiver were implanted with RFID chips and were actively tracked electronically. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Phoenix also implemented aerial surveillance tactics in an attempt to follow the weapons.
However, problems reportedly arose due to poorly implanted RFID chips which were forced into the guns, bending the antennas and decreasing their effectiveness. Cartels and straw purchasers also eventually came up with creative ways to shake tracking maneuvers and overhead surveillance, such as driving in loops for hours until surveillance planes had to refuel.
Those in charge of Fast and Furious took no similar steps to strengthen their chances of recovering walked guns other than recording the serial numbers before watching them disappear in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
In fact, ATF agents involved in Fast and Furious have previously testified that they were ordered to stand down and not track the weapons even when interdiction was possible and instead “took notes” and let the guns walk across the Mexico border. Watch some of ATF whistleblower John Dodson’s Congressional testimony:
You are, however, correct that most of the guns were not recovered. Which is exactly why it was shut down. They tried something, it failed miserably, they stopped.
Argument from fear (Score:2)
... of all the "constitutionally protected" activities which may be subject to surevillance, many people outside the USA would consider that there might just be an argument for paying some passing attention to the collection of lethal weapons by people so obsessed by them that they go to shows to drool over them and defend their right to own them on the basis that they might need them to overthrow the government at some point.
That's an argument from fear, you're basically saying that we should take peoples' rights away because something *might* happen.
It's prudent to look ahead in time to try to predict dangers and other bad situations, but you also need to keep track of the probabilities.
Your argument conflates the *possibility* of future problems with their *likelihood*.
That's fine, it's a valid argument to make, but we have limited resources and a variety of future dangers. There are many, many more likely dangers to which we
Re: (Score:3)
You fail to recognize the real problem. Gun ownership isn't a big problem for the government at this point in time. Considering that we're now running somewhere in the neighborhood of 19 trillion in debt and accelerating the train towards it's inevitable derailment. In the future it will eventually come to the point where the government will not be able to pay the interest on the debt that it is amassing and refuses to deal with. When the day comes that they can no longer write those checks they dispense
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I'd never actually looked at the stats but you are right that the US has more murders per capita than Australia. Just under 4 per 100,000 population versus 1 for Australia according to the UN. Mexico however is running close to 16 per 100,000 and Brazil nearly 25 per 100,000. I did notice however that nearly 1 in every 6 women in Australia experiences rape. I find that to be astonishingly high for such a highly functional and free democracy. Of course we know here that when you go to grab a w
Re: (Score:2)
It's prudent to look ahead in time to try to predict dangers and other bad situations, but you also need to keep track of the probabilities.
OT, but that's pretty much my response to people who say they are buying a handgun for self defense when, after considering demographics, the odds of someone in their household using the handgun to commit suicide or spousal homicide are higher than the odds of their being shot by someone outside the home.
Shouldn't we attend to the big dangers first?
Absolutely. For the vast majority of readers of this website, attending to the big dangers first pretty means getting all of your cardiovascular risk factors under control before spending dollar one on a g
Anonymous assembly (Score:2)
That's an argument from fear, you're basically saying that we should take peoples' rights away because something *might* happen.
What right is being taken away here? To not be observed in public is NOT a right. There is no right to not be under surveillance in public that I can find in any Constitution. Do you wish to initiate that right?
The right to assemble anonymously.
Look it up, Supreme court has recorded opinions on this, and Google is your friend.
Re: (Score:2)
There you go again. Using facts and reasoning to back up your argument. These guys hate that.
Re: (Score:2)
To be remotely fair, gun shows can be a great place for people who are collectors to find items for their collections, just like any other flea market type sales event with a specific focus.
Although, IMHO, like collections of anything else the internet has kind of reduced the usefulness of gun shows -- web sites like Gunbroker make it far easier to find very specific models a collector may want.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's also the fact that the mere concept of the 2nd Amendment being an individual right is a recent invention [politico.com] basically paid for by the weapons industry. Gotta create them markets somehow, and what better way than overturn basically 190 years of legal precedent in the courts and sew paranoia about race and the government?
BULLSHIT
Complete, utter BULLSHIT.
Explain why, in the midst of a bunch of amendments clarifying INDIVIDUAL rights, would there be one about a collective right?
Explain how " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" places limits on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's one REASON among many for the right, not a fucking LIMIT.
Remember, everyone, that the first act of totalitarian governments is the taking away of arms from the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, everyone, that the first act of totalitarian governments
And yet the rest of the world is just fine and our governments are far less totalitarian than the "kill a US citizen without due process at the pen wave of the president" government the USA has.
Re: (Score:2)
Complete, utter BULLSHIT
So when was the first time SCOTUS determined it was an individual right? What did they say before then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember back in the fifth grade I wrote a story that had two people arguing. One of them sued the other, but I didn't know how "sue" was spelled, since it certainly wasn't the same as someone's name. I chose to go with "sew" as well, since it matched the pattern of "blew", "new", or "stew".
I'm sure my teacher had the same laugh at my expense as you just did with Baloo. :^)
Re: (Score:2)
You might enjoy this poem. [inria.fr]
Apparently it was adapted from this original. [idallen.com]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There's also the fact that the mere concept of the 2nd Amendment being an individual right is a recent invention basically paid for by the weapons industry
No. The Second Amendment was proposed, talked about, debated, and eventually ratified by people who EXACTLY considered it to be about protecting (not creating - you don understand how the Constitution works, don't you?) the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights to help you understand their thinking about this, as well as other familiar ones (like the freedom to speak, assemble, etc).
The col
Re: (Score:3)
No. The Second Amendment was proposed, talked about, debated, and eventually ratified by people who EXACTLY considered it to be about protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights to help you understand their thinking about this, as well as other familiar ones (like the freedom to speak, assemble, etc).
Interesting.
Was the article wrong when it said "From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960."
Was the article incorrect when it stated "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Con
Re: (Score:3)
Apples & oranges.
"Law review articles" =/= "...mountains of letters, transcripts,
Re: (Score:2)
There are nearly enough guns in civilian hands currently to arm every man, woman, and child in the US. Even if everyone was on-board and willingly turned in firearms, it would still be decades before significantly more than half were turned in just due to the sheer numbers involved and the size of the nation, so you'll have some areas gun-free and some not for decades, and criminals will simply go to the places where victims are unarmed.
I don't doubt that this is a major issue. Interestingly, the percentage of US citizens who are gun owners seems to be at an historic low, while at the same time the number of guns owned by those who do own guns has increased - about 20% of gun owners seem to be owning more tha 65% of all the guns out there. I guess if we could convince those 20% to dispose of their firearms, that would get us over the 50% mark pretty quick!
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
...about 20% of gun owners seem to be owning more tha 65% of all the guns out there.
But those are the ones who would most resist any disarmament campaign. Besides, there are many gun owners who have weapons that have never been registered, either because it's not required (long guns in most States and home-built firearms) or because they've made a conscious decision to avoid letting the government know whether or not they own firearms or how many/what kind.
To copy the Australian model in the US would require the mass violation of a number of other civil rights covered under the 1st, 2nd,
Re:To be fair... (Score:5, Informative)
But if you still don't have the energy to use Google, here are some of the founders talking about how they see the matter - as both the federal, and individual state constitutions were being ratified and as they talked with others on the subject. These guys talked specifically and frequently - in correspondence, in the Federalist Papers, and before congress and their state legislatures - in terms that aren't in any way vague. People with an agenda to revise history and strip away your constitutionally protected rights will, of course, pretend they aren't good enough researchers to read what these men had to say both personally and officially. For example:
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I am not totally convinced. Each one of the quotes to me seem to be quotes in support of bodies like the 13 state militias, in contrast to the federal governments' potential standing army, or at least they can be read in that way. To think that they unambiguously support the idea of individual citizens regularly carrying handguns seems a bit disingenuous.
Why did the house adopt the wording “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, t
Re: (Score:3)
Each one of the quotes to me seem to be quotes in support of bodies like the 13 state militias
It is explained in US Code.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Every able-bodied male US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 are unorganized US militia members (the 'females in the National Guard' thing is a bit confusing) whether they know it or not.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I am not totally convinced. Each one of the quotes to me seem to be quotes in support of bodies like the 13 state militias
If that's how it seems to you, it's because you're still deliberately not reading the words in front of you. There's a reason I saved the last two quotes for last, because they're so succinct. Especially important: while the founders considered states' rights to be vital (another area in which current politics has hugely over-reached), there were some areas considered to sacrosanct that it was worth building nation-wide, at-all-levels-of-government prohibitions against government infringement into the nati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, you can't ignore the preamble to the Bill of Rights which states that the bill of rights is a list restrictions on the government. The list of rights is not a grant of rights to individuals or an empowerment of any level of government. That's why you have language such as "shall not be infringed," or "shall pass no law."
There's a very good article that discuses the history of the 2nd amendment and why it's worded the way it is at constitution.org [constitution.org]. English history is quite informative on the 2nd amend
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be true if gun-toting Americans obeyed the constitution and learnt military discipline and tactics, which is what the second amendment really means.
The Second Amendment means no such thing and says no such thing. It says that even if we DO have a standing military, that doesn't mean the existence of such can allow the government to infringe on the people's rights to keep and bear arms. As mentioned above, the people wrote the amendment couldn't have been clearer on the subject. The problem here is that you don't know how to read - history, or the amendment itself. You also completely fail to understand the structure of the constitution. That Bill of R
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, there were shameful anti freedom of speech laws found constitutional for many decades until as late as the 1960s. Is our erstwhile friend a fan of thise decisions over newer freedom of speech ones?
In the 1910s(?) the court approved a law outlawing pamphlets urging using legal means to resist the draft (for WW I) because speech stepped on Congress' power to raise armies. The opinion author (who came up with the phrase you have no right to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater) disregarde
Re: (Score:2)
The failure to state it properly has caused a great deal of harm
No, the people who skew, ideologically, towards an ever-expanding tyrannical nanny state choose to pretend they can't parse plainly written English or that reading the lengthier, plain-English supporting material from dozens of contemporary people (including those who wrote that simple sentence that you're pretending you can't read) are using the theater of that phony misunderstanding to try to shape the relationship between the citizens and government that work for them.
you should get over your psychosis for originalism and stand by something today
Let me guess - you think the First
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody claiming that the 2nd Amendment isn't confusingly worded has an agenda.
Who are you kidding? Nobody talks like this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You'd fail in English class.
It turns out that the following words also don't mean the same things today as they did when written:
regulated
Militia
security
State
people
"bear arms"
infringed
Every one of those needs to be defined.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, if you study English history and the Militia Act of 1661 you will start to understand why it's written the way it is.
Anybody claiming the nobody talked that way would fail in history class. You can improve your knowledge of history by reading this paper at constitution.org [constitution.org].
Re:What's the problem, really? (Score:4, Insightful)
False.
Gun shows are not exempt, nor are FFLs conducting business there (who are given an occasional OK to do business in a location other than their normal spot).
Private citizens who are not otherwise prohibited from buying/selling/owning a firearm are free to buy/sell in most locations. Parking lots, living rooms, gun shows. (Granted there may be state requirements as to the requirement of a background check for private transactions, and many transactions are prohibited when both persons are not in their state of residence (without a bg check)).
Which again, is nothing unique to a gun show.
Most reports of mental health issues are not enough to get added to a DB which a NICS check will pick up on and prevent the purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
See e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and here: http://www.governing.com/gov-d... [governing.com]
Some states don't require background checks {see http://www.governing.com/gov-d... [governing.com]
It's clear that gun shows are venues that concentrate and facilitate non-dealer gun sales. Therefore (despite nitpicking that doesn't affect the essence of the issue) the net effect of gun shows really is to facilitate gun sales that bypass background checks. That alone makes them eligible for police scrutiny.
Therefore it'
Re:What's the problem, really? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not a loophole. You don't need a gun show for a private purchase, it's your right as an individual and you can do it anywhere. That said, most gun shows today are cognizant of the media frenzy over their labeled "loophole" so the promoters no longer allow tables to be rented to private collectors. That means most transaction on the floor of the show will go through an FFL and background check.
Certainly there may be folks walking through the show with a weapon for sale privately, but let's face it, it's not easy for a private individual to carry too many.
I would also like to comment that as Americans, it is our duty to make sure we don't sell to someone who has nefarious tendencies. As an FFL, I am happy to log and transfer a weapon for a private sale. It literally takes minutes for the background check. If I was a private seller, I would gladly pay the transfer fee to know there was a paper trail, for my own liability.
Re: (Score:2)
There are really excellent reasons to view this possibility to sell guns between citizens as a loophole.
Think of it this way: it's illegal so to sell prescription drugs (say Oxycontin) outside of licensed retail channels shops (chemists, apothecaries) especially if it's between private persons. Notwithstanding the fact that prescription drugs of course aren't illegal in and by themselves. Just like firearms.
As you say, the NICS is a simple process. Besides it
Re: (Score:2)
Most sales at gun shows do require a background check... There is a loophole to avoid them, and that is if you buy from a "private seller," that is, someone who isn't a licensed dealer. In that scenario, if they sell you a gun they legally own they are under no obligation to do any kind of background check and incur no liability if you turn out to be a madman intent on harm.
Originally, private sales were exempted from background checks because they were impractical, but I agree with the notion that sales at
Re: (Score:2)
Which becomes impractical automatically because how to you show a month, a year or a decade from now that the firearm you have was legally purchased? You either require the buyer keep their 'receipt' to prove it (god help you if you ever lose that piece of paper (which of course could never be counterfeited)) or you require some sort of database to be implemented which tracks all legal transactio
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
If you buy a firearm from a licensed dealer at a gun show, the dealer still must process a background check of the purchaser.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for explaining that. As you may have guessed I don't live in the US. So basically this stuff about checking for gun smuggling could be done via the 4473 form and border crossing data?
Re: (Score:2)
Not without a lengthy delay at the border.
The ATF is prohibited from creating a searchable DB from 4473 data, so in order to know if you recently purchased, you'd have to ask a few FFLs to go through their bound books... or rely on a state based DB which may contain this info (some states collect data on all purchases, some on only certain kinds of arms, most simply don't exist).
In the event a firearm is turned up, you can ask the manufacturer to look it up, they will point you to the distributor and then t
Re: (Score:3)
They have been caught with a searchable database of 4473 data multiple times, ordered to delete the database and data by federal judges. Then caught again with the database still containing data from earlier incidents (based on sale date). Nothing happens to anyone.
They likely got smart and have the Brits maintain the database for them now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, though given the 4473's remain with the FFL, the ATF would need to spend a good bit of time 'inspecting' and scanning the bound books to build such a thing, regardless of where it is stored.
Easier to work with states which require reporting of all transactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone performing illegal activity would have to be a moron to do it at a gun show. There are probably a dozen or more Federal Agents operating undercover at every gun show. If I was trying to buy guns to smuggle that would be the very last place I'd try it. Most of the people at gun shows are collectors or people just browsing.
Also 35% of attendees are LEO, not undercover (Score:2)
Aside from the ATF agents officially working the show, at least 35% of the attendees will be law enforcement of some type. Cops carry a gun (and often another backup gun) 24/7 and are required to have regular training, so they tend to be interested in the topic.
I used go own a gun forum for a certain brand of firearm. I'd say about 35%-40% of members were LEO. Wherever gun people gather at the range, the gun shop, the forum, a gun show, a training class - many of the people there are cops.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I know the number one gun smuggler is the Justice Department.
Re: (Score:2)
Back on topic. CA is one of the states that requires all transfers to go through a dealer. There are NO anonymous gun sales at CA gun shows.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'd imagine by recording the license plates, it may help them track down individuals who are likely selling weapons without a license. If you have the same guy showing up at every gun show in a given area, and he doesn't have an FFL or doesn't work for and FFL, he either *really* loves gun shows or is an illegal dealer.
And if you record every car at several newspaper office, and find out the same car went to all of them, and the owner of that car didn't go to journalism school, you can conclude he really loves divulging national secrets, or is an illegal reporter.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, you don't have to have a reason to own a weapon. It's still okay.
Re: Wouldn't it be easier and better... (Score:2)
Somehow none of the antigunners have managed to find and publicize this loophole despite years of trying. If a single leftist reporter hasn't found it, don't you think it's time to relegate it to the status of a myth... like "more guns more crime"?
Re: (Score:2)
We must pay more taxes so the Jihadists in Iran can get more money to use to fund terrorism against us. It's insane. We pay tax money to fund both sides in the war on ISIS. We funnel money to ISIS through Iran then we use more money to blow up the ISIS army we're funding. It's.....Orwellian.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no wrestling with it you dipshit. It just runs over you.
Re: (Score:2)
vote trump or lose your guns with just 911 to hopefully make it in time to save you
It is about time you people stop using the tired old rhetoric that some jackbooted individual is just going to turn up one day and take your guns away out of the blue due to no fault of your own. It ain't going to happen. There are enough of us progressive / liberal types that are gun owners (I own multiple) that believe in our 2nd amendment to keep our party in check.
Re: (Score:2)
Already happened [youtube.com]
Secretary Clinton thinks the Heller case was decided incorrectly and implied she would appoint justices to correct that mistake. The only question decided in Heller was whether the 2nd amendment protected the right to keep an operational handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense.