Umm, no- not yours

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://swampscott.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/selectman-wants-gun-safety-enforced

Selectman Barry Greenfield introduced an enforcement discussion Wednesday that he hopes will lead to the safeguarding of guns in town — keeping them out of the hands of children.

The selectman said state law requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable.

The problem, he said, is that police do not have the authority, granted by a local ordinance, to enforce the law and inspect the safeguarding of guns at the homes of the 600 registered gun owners in town.

The selectman said he has spoken with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan about this.

"We need the ability to enforce the state law," the selectman said.

Apparently, this fuckwit is unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment...

[beevul]

1. Of course...

"Apparently, this fuckwit is unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment..."

Of course he is.

Very few charged with exercising power on behalf of we the people, appreciate being told, reminded, or otherwise clued in to the fact that the power granted them by we the people has its limits.

[krispos42]

2. "We just want to register guns to keep them out of the hands of criminals"

"We pinky-swear that, once we know who has what, we won't expand the definition of 'assault weapon' and confiscate all the guns that are now illegal! And we super-pinky-swear you won't have to allow the police in your house to check on them periodically."


Once you create a definition of "assault weapons" in order to ban them, the natural, irresistible tendency is to expand the definition. And since the definition is arbitrary, the expansion is as well.

Once you create a database of all gun owners and all the guns they own, the natural, irresistible tendency is to use that database to control gun owners in their own houses, and to use the registry for confiscation when the definition of "assault weapon" changes.



And non-gun-owners will continue to be amazed at how political and organized gun owners are. "They're only like 35% of the population!" will be cried in despairing tones by people that are completely unaffected by the intrusive laws they support.

"The NRA only has 4 million members!" they say, confused as to why the 65% of Americans that don't own guns are not as motivated as the gun-owners are.

"Why don't they vote for their own best interests?" will be asked by people, who having just made the government intrude more deeply and directly into the lives of gun-owners, are puzzled as to why they vote Republican.

[petronius]

3. One of the other selectmen deserves an award for understatement:

"There are civil liberty matters to consider, he said." Really!? You don't say...

The two statements linked at the bottom of the article are interesting: Greenfield sounds like he's (quite rightly) backing away from the idea, but the town administrator seems to be weaseling in the direction of supporting the notion.

[Jenoch]

4. What is sort of interesting about this selectman's idea is that

in some Minnesota communities, the public works department can inspect a home to make sure the sump pump is not pumping water into the sanitary sewer system. Of course sump pumps and sanitary sewer systems are not mentioned in the constitution.

[petronius]

5. I did a little googling last night on the topic of building codes

and things like that, and everything I can find suggests that interior inspections of a home do require a warrant if the homeowner insists. 'Inspection' and 'search' are not different things as far as 4A is concerned. So I think those towns may be inspecting, but allowing the access is technically voluntary...

(Caveat: IANAL, not even close.)

[Jenoch]

6. It might be that nobody has taken the issue to court too.

I can think of another situation, but probable cause is involved. A Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Conservation Officer can enter a home without a warrant and inspect the freezer for poached game. They need to have a TIP (Turn in Poachers) from someone who has personally seen the over possession of fish and game in order to legally make that inspection. A cop needs warrant. A CO does not.

[petronius]

9. We have a pretty open-ended law like that in our CA fish and game codes as well,

but it specifically excludes "dwellings".

Section 1006. The department may inspect the following:

(a)All boats, markets, stores and other buildings, except dwellings, and all receptacles, except the clothing actually worn by a person at the time of inspection, where birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibia may be stored, placed, or held for sale or storage.

(b)All boxes and packages containing birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibia which are held for transportation by any common carrier.

I'm pretty a search of a home would require a warrant - a tip might get that started, but I really hope it wouldn't be enough.

A lot of people seem believe that game wardens have a lot more search power than other LEOs, based on 1006, but I think it's overstated. Still, I'd say even the current law goes too far: the mere act of hunting/fishing, or having hunting/fishing equipment in the field, shouldn't be enough to allow an involuntary search of anything, absent actual and reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. One should not be required to abandon an enumerated right (4A) in order to exercise the privilege of hunting or fishing...

[Jenoch]

11. The law is as I stated in Minnesota.

I guess the TIP (Turn In Poachers) provides enough probable cause. I don't know if the COs routinely get an order from a judge or not, but they do not have to. I used to work with a guy who was the Commissioner of MNDNR for 17 years.

[petronius]

12. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt your description of how it works in MN

I'm saying it shouldn't, in my opinion, be like that anywhere; an anonymous tip alone shouldn't be enough to even get a warrant, let alone justify a search of a home without a warrant. And even a tip from a fully-identified person should require a judge's oversight to evaluate the reliability of the tip and the informant.

Bottom line, I don't think that anyone's home should be entered/searched involuntarily without a warrant, by any type of LE, except in narrowly-defined exigent circumstances. And any search based on those exigent circumstances should subsequently receive some very squinty-eyed scrutiny from an impartial judge...

[Jenoch]

16. I'm fairly certain the search can

only be for over-limits/possession of fish and game. If they discover a meth lab, LE is SOL.

[ileus]

7. It's for the children....

Anything goes when that's the excuse.

[Ranchemp.]

8. What colossal stupidity.

He should retake his HS civics class and learn what the 4th Amendment is all about.
What court in the land would ever rule this constitutional?
Answer-None.

[Oneka]

13. Dont be too sure about that

On Thursday, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a 3 - 2 decision that police officers could enter a home for any reason or no reason at all - and homeowners had no right to object or do anything to block the entry.

http://www.examiner.com/article/indiana-supreme-court-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry-homes

[Ranchemp.]

14. I see this one going all the way to the US Supreme Court.

At least I would hope so.
Actually, I don't even seeing this ruling making it past the federal appeals court.

[Oneka]

15. The Indiana legislature passed a bill to solvethe issue

But getting through the indiana supreme court was unthinkable , until it wasnt.

[Eleanors38]

10. I'll ask a naive question: Can a law like this be passed without

an enforcement/inspection scheme? Can such a law be enforced after a "violation" goes down if it can be shown a gun was not properly stored (resulting in a theft or shooting incident)? I have in mind efforts to enforce texting while driving laws by determining usage after-the-fact of an accident.