[TheForge] Criminal Background Check POL

Fri Jan 30 02:05:04 EST 2009

Lads:  One of the principal authors of the Constitution, Madison, was quite
explicit in Federalist #46 about militias and private gun ownership.  Its an
interesting read and does nothing for the collective rights theorists.

Bruce, you are mistaken on the 4th....there are numerous court decisions,
based on the 4th amendment grounds, in which it has been found that people
have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in not only their homes, but in
vehicles, planes, boats and rented rooms. One's permanent residence offers
the highest level of REP, though REP is not limited to it

 A REP typically will require a search warrant with attendant probable cause
shown, with exceptions made for searches incident to arrest, border
crossings and military posts, among others. LEOs are not free to conduct
warrantless searches of these conveyances and spaces at their whim.

One landmark case on REP is Katz v. US.  Another interesting read.....

Grant

-----Original Message-----
From: theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Peter Fels &
Phoebe Palmer
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:07 PM
To: Blacksmithing List Sponsored by ABANA
Subject: Re: [TheForge] Criminal Background Check POL

Well spoken Bruce;
Less tongue in cheek...
RE the 2nd amendment.
The British, during the revolution, had adroitly snatched a critical
armory early in the game, my historian bro-in-law tells me, leaving us
badly bent over. Once was enough.
Being, um, under-armed was a great disadvantage which the writers of our
constitution vividly remembered...in case it again became necessary to
to take up arms against a tyrannical government.
I think that's the context of the second amendment.
I think our govt needs to be a bit afraid and therefore solidly
respectful of it's citizens.  pf

Bruce Freeman wrote:
> Grant,
>
> While I applaud you for considering the unintended consequences of
> Peter's notion, I disagree with some of your conclusions.
>
> 1st Amendment specifies "speech" and does not say how that speech is
> conveyed.  Is shouting "speech"?  Is singing "speech"?  Clearly yes.
> It is a very short step to inclusion of telephone etc.  And the govt.
> has already curtailed radio and TV freedom of speech, so this merely
> bolsters Peter's notion.
>
> 3rd Amendment clearly refers to "soldiers", without distinction.  And
> even so, it does allow for lodging soldiers in your home in times of
> war.  THERE's the rub!  Are we at war or not, right now?
>
> 4th Amendment does NOT include vehicles of any sort.  If you park a
> mobile home and live there, it's your home.  If you drive it on the
> road, the police may search it, just like they can search your car.  I
> don't think they need even arrest you first, though I'm not certain of
> that.  Likewise, your motel room is not protected under the 4th
> amendment, except, perhaps, in the rare instance that you use it as
> your permanent home.
>
> 5th Amendment:  Your drug argument is specious.  Alcohol has been know
> for millennia, as have miscellaneous other psychologically active
> drugs.  However, it is the 4th amendment that applies here - "The
> right of the people to be secure in their persons..."
>
> So, let's look at the 2nd Amendment:
> "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."
> Clearly, this applies to a Militia, not to personal armament.  The
> concept is a town or county or state putting together a militia in
> which the people keep their weapons.  This does not include the
> concept of a personal article.  Also, what is a "weapon"?  Is an
> atomic bomb a weapon?  I don't think so.  So, where do we draw the
> line?  Currently, individuals are not supposed to own fully automatic
> weapons, though perhaps there are exceptions.  This is reasonable
> because a fully automatic weapon makes one man the equivalent of a
> large number of persons not so armed.
>
> In my opinion, there should be controls on hand guns (not that there
> aren't already) because they are by their nature principally designed
> for use for killing people in non-militia situations.  Furthermore, I
> believe the Federal government should be intimately involved in
> preventing interstate commerce of firearms where the recipient state
> regulates them.  NY City has had to sue dealers in southern states
> (successfully, I might add) because they were conspiring to move
> weapons to NY, against NY laws.  This should not have to be a civil
> action.  These are criminal actions and should be prosecuted under
> RICO.
>
> I really have no problem with reasonable hunting weapons, not that I
> want anyone pointing one at me.
>
> I fully realize others will disagree with my opinions.  I have
> entertained different notions of what I might consider "good policy"
> with respect to guns.  If you haven't read Robert A. Heinlein's early
> novel, "Beyond this Horizon," I suggest you do.  As a novel, it's
> mediocre, but it describes a society in which ordinary citizens
> usually carry guns, and duels are not uncommon.  It strongly advocates
> this policy.  But it also shows the consequences - "dueling" can be
> used to conceal murder.  The faster draw lives, the slower dies.
> Limited insurrections can easily occur, claiming many innocent lives,
> though the citizens themselves may very well put them down.  It also
> suggests that people would be more polite.  A very interesting
> concept, but I expect the death rate would be much higher than it is
> now.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Grant Marcoux
> <gblacksmith at alamedanet.net> wrote:
>> Peter:  An interesting idea that civil liberties are to be considered in
the
>> spirit or technology of the times, with the 2nd amendment applying only
to
>> muzzleloaders.  Applying that logic, you could argue:
>>
>> That the First Amendment applies to free speech that is written or
spoken,
>> but not broadcast or stored on electronic media.
>>
>> That the 3rd amendment only applies to being forced to lodge troops in
your
>> home, US soldiers are another matter, since the US Army didn't exist
then.
>>
>> That the 4th Amendment applies to the privacy of ones home, but not your
>> vehicle, travel trailer, RV, airplane or motel room, since those things
were
>> not invented yet.
>>
>> That the 5th Amendment states that you cannot be compelled to be a
witness
>> against yourself.  Using your logic, modern drugs could be administered
to
>> secure your cooperation, as these substances did not exist in the
Founders
>> time.
>>
>> This could be a long list!
>>
>> Pete, your argument is a classic example of hyperbole....adroit, but
>> misleading.  We love you anyway
>>
>> "They say we should register guns because we register dogs....well,
nobody's
>> going to register MY dog
>> and nobody's going to register my dog's GUNS either"
>>
>> Grant
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>> [mailto:theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Peter Fels &
>> Phoebe Palmer
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:02 PM
>> To: Blacksmithing List Sponsored by ABANA
>> Subject: Re: [TheForge] Criminal Background Check
>>
>>
>> Obviously, the registration of firearms is in contradiction to the right
>> to keep and bear arms against a possibly tyrannical govt, as per the
>> constitutional intent.
>> \As i've written before, this was in the context of the times.
>> So, inarguably, a citizen has the right to carry a hand made, muzzle
>> loading, black powder firearm anywhere, any time.
>> That will make most folks more respectful and polite...police included.
>>
>> Andrew Vida wrote:
>>> Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>>> The nasty principle here isn't that someone's out to get you.  It's
>>>> that once data is collected, it will be used, saved forever and used
>>>> in whatever manner looks good at the time, legal or illegal, ethical
>>>> or not, private or public good, profit or not.  There will always be a
>>>> justification available along the same lines as the recently
>>>> shitcanned DC cabal justifying torture because, well, you know, we
really
>>>> *really* needed to do it.
>>>       This is called "leverage".  Just look how it plays in politics.
>>> Someone runs for office that doesn't meet muster for some interest.  The
>>> next thing you know, that joint they spent a night in jail for back in
>>> '73 makes headlines.  Remember Gary Hart and "Monkey Business"?  Of
>>> course, in that case it was a good thing, but the principle is never
>>> good, as far as I am concerned.
>>>
>>>> OTOH, I have to have a license with a photo (but no fingerprints) to
>>>> own long guns.  At least it was a physical photo, not an automated
>>>> digital database photo.  (Not that it makes a lot of difference in the
>>>> long run.)
>>>       But do you have to register your arms in  the GWN?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Manage membership or unsubscribe at:
>>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
>>> theforge mail list group photo site is
>>> http://www.photoaccess.com
>>> Login:  blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
>>> password:  anvil
>>> ___________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Manage membership or unsubscribe at:
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
>> theforge mail list group photo site is
>> http://www.photoaccess.com
>> Login:  blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
>> password:  anvil
>> ___________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Manage membership or unsubscribe at:
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
>> theforge mail list group photo site is
>> http://www.photoaccess.com
>> Login:  blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
>> password:  anvil
>> ___________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Manage membership or unsubscribe at:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
theforge mail list group photo site is
http://www.photoaccess.com
Login:  blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
password:  anvil
___________