Mass. Police to enter homes sans warrant

[F3SS]

POLICE ENTERING HOMES TO MAKE SURE GUNS ARE STORED SAFELY? IF THIS POLITICIAN HAS HIS WAY…

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.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/11/police-entering-homes-to-make-sure-guns-are-stored-safely-if-this-politician-has-his-way/

Hey Questionmark, you in politics now? This is all you.

Here's my view. Fourth Amendment. Now go away.

Edited November 11, 2013 by F3SS

[Space Commander Travis]

It's the natural consequence of the National Security State. It's steadily coming to the stage where Public Safety, and the Authorities can interpret that in any way they want, over-rules any individual freedoms. I'm no lover of Guns, but this is the classic kind of thing that a government that's becoming steadily more and more authoritarian would be keen on doing, in the name of Protecting the Public.

[Kowalski]

This is absolutely unconstitutional and just plain wrong.

The Fourth Amendment:

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America.

Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its roots in English legal doctrine. Sir Edward Coke, in Semayne's case (1604), famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."^[2] Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained.^[3]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[regeneratia]

Get off the East Coast. They could not do this kind of invasion in Kansas.

In fact, did you know that if you own a business in Kansas, you don't have to pay income tax on that business? Tis true.

In my city, they can only use the Patriot Act IF they get a local judge to OK it.

Edited November 11, 2013 by regeneratia

[rashore]

Hey Questionmark, you in politics now? This is all you.

Here's my view. Fourth Amendment. Now go away.

Teehee, you should have put a poll on this one

I vote Fourth too.

[andy4]

Well in the article it says it's a proposal, so it hasn't happened, yet. It also says by Massachusetts law, that gun owners are required to secure their guns, and the proposal was to prove this, with those who own guns. But it's also in direct conflict with the fourth amendment, so I doubt if this proposal will actually happen.

[questionmark]

Well in the article it says it's a proposal, so it hasn't happened, yet. It also says by Massachusetts law, that gun owners are required to secure their guns, and the proposal was to prove this, with those who own guns. But it's also in direct conflict with the fourth amendment, so I doubt if this proposal will actually happen.

You mean that the FDA checks a doctor's supply of morphine periodically is also against the 4th?

[andy4]

You mean that the FDA checks a doctor's supply of morphine periodically is also against the 4th?

Not sure i get you here. Lol

Edited November 11, 2013 by andy4

[questionmark]

Not sure i get you here. Lol

If there is a law requiring dangerous items to be kept under control either controlling them is against the 4th (in my example morphine) or it must be permissible for the authorities to insure that the control stipulations are met.

Last I looked handguns were controlled items in all states and long guns in some states.

[F3SS]

I doubt this'll really happen but hey, it's Massachusetts. At least this isn't a federal proposal, yet. It's unconstitutional as can be though. See, if something does happen and an investigation ensues, the gun owner will be on the hook if his things were (un)secured counter to the existing storage laws. A comparison: It is illegal to run bare copper wire, or properly sleeved wire, from one electrical outlet to another straight across the room along the rug or stapled to a wall. Fair enough. However, that doesn't mean a county sheriff and building inspector should be paying me surprise visits to check on code violations inside my house. The consequence is that if my house catches on fire or someone is severely electrocuted I will be responsible. Insurance will tell me to get lost after the investigation turns up my shoddy work and the law will throw me in jail for said electrocution, deservingly. I see no difference between that kind of reasonable building code law and the reasonable gun storage law. I also see no difference in the how those laws should be managed. Check all the houses you want. You're not going to be able to prevent all stupid things and accidents from happening. The best we can do is simply hold a person responsible if they get caught by chance or stupidity. Searching houses is not going to accomplish anything more than violating peoples rights to sovereignty and wasting valuable law enforcement time that can be far better spent elsewhere.

[F3SS]

If there is a law requiring dangerous items to be kept under control either controlling them is against the 4th (in my example morphine) or it must be permissible for the authorities to insure that the control stipulations are met.

Last I looked handguns were controlled items in all states and long guns in some states.

You're better off using the argument that guns are meant only to kill. Dangerous items are just about anything. Morphine is as dangerous in the wrong hands as Lysol. Dogs, cats, ovens, coffee makers, tools, utensils, an unstable large tv, fireplaces... Anything is dangerous. That's why you have to just be careful with 'check-up' inspection laws. I'm sure the lawmakers would love to include the simple language of "dangerous things" but that's a very slippery slope. That's why so many of US are unwilling to give these guys an inch. They'll take the next mile, then state and then country.

Edited November 11, 2013 by F3SS

[lightly]

I don't like the idea of warrantless searches. But IF it passes.. It would make more sense for them to call first? .. rather than just assume you, or someone is home? Or bust down doors ?

so,, call an hour or so ahead of time to give us a chance to tidy up lol

Edited November 11, 2013 by lightly

[questionmark]

You're better off using the argument that guns are meant only to kill. Dangerous items are just about anything. Morphine is as dangerous in the wrong hands as Lysol. Dogs, cats, ovens, coffee makers, tools, utensils, an unstable large tv, fireplaces... Anything is dangerous. That's why you have to just be careful with 'check-up' inspection laws. I'm sure the lawmakers would love to include the simple language of "dangerous things" but that's a very slippery slope. That's why so many of US are unwilling to give these guys an inch. They'll take the next mile, then state and then country.

There are items classified as dangerous items and there are those that are not. And what is relevant is what the law qualifies them as, not what some idiot might use it for.

We are either consequent and control nothing, allowing each his nuke under the bed, or we control those items that are more likely used to cause harm.

So, if you want no controls be consequent and ask for no prohibitions of anything.

Edited November 11, 2013 by questionmark

[F3SS]

It's all about privacy though Q. Maybe I have nothing bad to hide or maybe I do. Maybe I don't want some cop I don't know rummaging through my house knowing where I keep my secret stash of money or maybe I don't want him to see the roach in my ashtray giving him reason to harass me in the future.

[acidhead]

You mean that the FDA checks a doctor's supply of morphine periodically is also against the 4th?

Your comparism is flawed. The doctor is issuing, through the use of the free market, a so-called controlled substance to the general public. Does the FDA enter the general publics private homes 'to check' for a supply of morphine simply because they were administered the controlled drug by a doctor?

[rashore]

If there is a law requiring dangerous items to be kept under control either controlling them is against the 4th (in my example morphine) or it must be permissible for the authorities to insure that the control stipulations are met.

Last I looked handguns were controlled items in all states and long guns in some states.

I understand where you are going with this... Doctors offices and pharmacies do fall under authority inspection, true. However, once the morphine is prescribed out and in the home- the authorities really can't walk into the house to see if it's being stored properly. Unless there is a report or a tragedy that requires investigation.

[questionmark]

It's all about privacy though Q. Maybe I have nothing bad to hide or maybe I do. Maybe I don't want some cop I don't know rummaging through my house knowing where I keep my secret stash of money or maybe I don't want him to see the roach in my ashtray giving him reason to harass me in the future.

I agree that there should be privacy for everybody, but if the law requires you to safe-keep your gun then it must be possible for the authorities to check on you whether you are doing it or not. Whether everybody gets checked or only those where there is a good reason to suspect that he/she has the gun in his/her nightstand instead of the safe as required by law is a different story. But they must be able to check.

[+and-then]

There are items classified as dangerous items and there are those that are not. And what is relevant is what the law qualifies them as, not what some idiot might use it for.

We are either consequent and control nothing, allowing each his nuke under the bed, or we control those items that are more likely used to cause harm.

So, if you want no controls be consequent and ask for no prohibitions of anything.

No, what is important is that this is America and we don't have to suffer search and seizure without a damned good reason - supplied by a judge. Most states already have laws about negligence that leads to death or injury. This is just a raw power grab attempt.

[andy4]

If there is a law requiring dangerous items to be kept under control either controlling them is against the 4th (in my example morphine) or it must be permissible for the authorities to insure that the control stipulations are met.

Last I looked handguns were controlled items in all states and long guns in some states.

Ohh ok, I got you. I'm just curious on how this proposal will turn out.

I'd be all for it, granted the citizens have no problem with the proposal.

[Kowalski]

Your comparism is flawed. The doctor is issuing, through the use of the free market, a so-called controlled substance to the general public. Does the FDA enter the general publics private homes 'to check' for a supply of morphine simply because they were administered the controlled drug by a doctor?

Good point and your right.

Next thing you know, he's going to be saying the FDA and police can enter our private homes, and "check" on our prescription drugs....

[questionmark]

Your comparism is flawed. The doctor is issuing, through the use of the free market, a so-called controlled substance to the general public. Does the FDA enter the general publics private homes 'to check' for a supply of morphine simply because they were administered the controlled drug by a doctor?

If you are somebody with a larger supply at home (i.e. terminal cancer patient) they can check its safe handling and keeping at any time even though you are the end consumer. And in cases where they suspect abuse it is also done.

[questionmark]

No, what is important is that this is America and we don't have to suffer search and seizure without a damned good reason - supplied by a judge. Most states already have laws about negligence that leads to death or injury. This is just a raw power grab attempt.

What you are trying to imply here is that some cop is going to bust down your door to see if your guns are kept safe, which is not what the law says. Its implication is that the police can go and knock on your door and ask nicely whether they can see if your guns are kept safe. You could send them away... which would mean that at some point of their choosing they might come back with a search warrant. (Sending them off is already enough for probable cause).

As I said, you either make no laws or you also supply the instruments to control them.

[acidhead]

If you are somebody with a larger supply at home (i.e. terminal cancer patient) they can check its safe handling and keeping at any time even though you are the end consumer. And in cases where they suspect abuse it is also done.

Then you agree your comparison was flawed? Yes.

An individual must have to be a suspect or a presumption of guilt in order for a legal search of their home.

Edited November 11, 2013 by acidhead

[Euphorbia]

What about people whom are not registered gun owners but have them anyway? Would they check everyone, or just the residences of those that are registered gun owners?

[andy4]

What about people whom are not registered gun owners but have them anyway? Would they check everyone, or just the residences of those that are registered gun owners?

I believe just those who are registered, to make sure they are kept securely. If its not registered, they won't know you have it, therefore no check of your house.