beautifulnightmare
DENVER – A 23-year-old man who was beaten by three Denver police officers after he questioned their authority to search the trunk of his car says the Justice Department has decided not to charge any of the officers with civil-rights violations stemming from the case.

Alexander Landau tells The Denver Post that representatives of the department and the FBI told him Friday there was insufficient evidence to bring federal charges.

Yup, that sure looks like insufficient evidence to me.


For their part the cops involved claimed that this guy made a grab for one of their guns. For that they beat him with fists, flashlights and radios.

Then they tried to cover up the beating…because it was justified (or something).
Oddly, a jury didn’t agree and awarded the victim nearly $800,000.

Here’s some facts found at a law enforcement website: You don’t have to give police permission to search your car. You have the option to give limited permission to only search those parts ofthe car you specify.

Consent Searches
Extracting the rules from 17 Supreme Court decisions.



Warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable (Katz v. U.S.), but the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that a warrantless search may still be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if it falls within the guidelines of one or more of a limited number of exceptions. The standard exceptions include public or officer safety, search incident to arrest, fleeting targets, border search, booking search, inventory, probation and parole search, and consent.

“A search conducted pursuant to a valid consent is constitutionally permissible. One of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent. In situations where the police lack probable cause to arrest or search, a search authorized by a valid consent may be the only means of obtaining important and reliable evidence.” (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte)



If the cops say “Fine, we’ll just wait here until we get a warrant, or we’ll come back with a warrant” that’s coercive and even if you give permission at that point, the search is unlawful and anything they find is inadmissible as evidence. What they should say is “Ok, we’ll try to get a warrant and if we succeed, we’ll conduct a search then.”

On the other hand, if you have nothing to hide and don’t want to risk ending up looking like this guy, just let them do their search. There is nothing to be gained by standing on principle. I mean, it’s not like you got any Constitutional rights anymore.

The Good and Bad News About Consent Searches in the Supreme Court
Tracey Maclin* by SFLD
PDF

This is a comment I got on this same post today:

'I happen to be a lawyer who has written hundreds of search warrants in Kings County (Brooklyn), New York.

If the cops tell you “We’ll just get a warrant if you don’t consent,” the correct response is “Then go get a fucking warrant, pig scum.”

Obviously, I’m pissed and you probably don’t want to use that exact language but the fact is that any cop who SAYS such a thing does not have the goods for a search warrant because if he did he wouldn’t bother announcing it.

Lesson for all: If they bother to SAY things, they don’t have the ability to DO things. Refuse their requests as politely as you can. Telling them to fuck off is inviting trouble. Let the pig squeal and squeal, just don’t react.'
beautifulnightmare
http://youtu.be/8GiW_uJ4zFw
California Gun Control Law Press Conference - Gun Confiscation, Semi-

A national model for mental health care? Prop. 63

The new law would outlaw all semiautomatic weapons, criminalize anyone who has more than 500 rounds of ammo, and require a permit to buy ammunition in the future. California, which already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, is also looking at a proposal which would call for the immediate confiscation of 166,000 registered modern sporting rifles. This is why people are against Registration!

Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, unveiled the gun control package in a news conference Thursday at the state Capitol.

The package includes:
Banning the possession — not just manufacture and sale — of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

Making possession of hollow point bullets and similar “assault bullets” a felony.
Requiring anyone wishing to buy ammunition to first get a permit by passing a background check.

Requiring the registration and reporting of all ammo purchases. Limits the number of rounds anyone can have at one time to 500 rounds.

Requiring all gun owners will have to be licensed like drivers, and will be forced to carry gun liability insurance.

Banning any gun that has a detachable magazine, and requires a 100% prohibition of all fixed magazines greater than 10 rounds.

Making all previous grandfathered magazines become illegal, and it will become a felony if you keep one.

Prohibiting anyone barred from owning a weapon from living in a home where weapons are kept

Expanding the list of crimes that would bar a person from gun possession.
Letting the state Justice Department use money from the state’s Dealer’s Record of Sale system to eliminate the backlog of people identified as no longer allowed to own guns but not yet investigated and contacted by law enforcement. MORE

How Will They Confiscate Your Guns?
by John A. Sutter
in California


For decades I have heard gun owners claim that the government would never be able to confiscate our firearms because the government would lose too many men. The implication being, of course, that gun owners would actively resist confiscation, even to the point of shooting back. But I believe this thinking is outdated and doesn’t align very well with reality. But before you tell me how big your honor guard in Hell will be when that day comes, let’s think about how the government could really do it.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the government bans all civilian possession of firearms at the end of this month. Congress passes a total ban and the President cuts his own re-election throat by signing it. Gun owners get some grace period to turn them in, even beyond the deadline, without being charged with a crime. If we use Australia and Britain as examples there will still be a significant number of firearms that are not turned in. Some estimates put the Australian turn-in at less than 25% and the British faired only about 28%. But Australians and the British have long been used to obeying almost every gun control law. Not so the Americans. When laws are passed that we don’t like, we bite. We scratch. We vote. So here we sit after the guns have been collected and the amnesties have run out. Now what? Send out the personnel carriers, swat and shock troops to seize the guns from those militia “terrorists” who refused to turn them in? Don’t be silly.
The government has lots of records about you. If you purchased a firearm since 1968, chances are that they have some record of it somewhere. Most likely, it will take quite some time for them to compile all the serial numbers of “surrendered” guns (surrendered essentially at gunpoint) and cross off the ones you turned in. It’ll take more time for them to attempt to “clean up” their data. Say, about two years, maybe three. Add to that the hordes of people keypunching in hundreds of thousands of sales and registration records from hundreds of gun stores forced out of business. At some point the government decides they have something approaching a “good” database of unaccounted-for guns.
beautifulnightmare
Healthcare reform is a brilliant way to regulate/ban firearms without violating the Second Amendment.

For a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been forbidden by Congress from doing research on gun-control issues. Such piddling hurdles as federal law don’t matter to the Obama administration.



CDC: First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws


Summary
During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury.

Although firearms-related* injuries in the United States have declined since 1993, they remained the second leading cause of injury mortality in 2000, the most recent year for which complete data are available (1). Of 28,663 firearms-related deaths in 2000 — an average of 79 per day—16,586 (57.9%) were suicides, 10,801 (37.7%) were homicides, 776 (2.7%) were unintentional, and an additional 500 (1.7%) were legal interventions or of undetermined intent.

An estimated 24.3% of the 1,430,693 violent crimes (murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery) committed in the United States in 1999 were committed with a firearm (2). In the early 1990s, rates of firearms-related homicide, suicide, and unintentional death in the United States exceeded those of 25 other high-income nations (i.e., 1992 gross national product US $8,356 per capita) for which data are available (3). In 1994, the estimated lifetime medical cost of all firearms injuries in the United States was $2.3 billion (4).

Approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year in the United States, including 2 million handguns. In addition, estimates of annual secondhand firearms transactions (i.e., sales, trades, or gifts) range from 2 million to 4.5 million (5,6). Further, an estimated 0.5 million firearms are stolen annually (6). Thus, the total number of firearms transactions could be as high as 9.5 million per year.




With a wave of a hand, the CDC has simply redefined gun-control research so the ban no longer applies. They’re not researching guns; they’re researching alcohol sales and their impact on gun violence, or researching how teens carrying guns affect the rates of non-gun injuries. “These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances,” wrote National Institutes of Health (NIH) spokesman Don Ralbovsky.

As an attorney, part of my job is risk management – sit around and think big thoughts on how things could go wrong, and then plan accordingly. (Some of my less charitable friends describe it as “being paid to think of ways to screw things up.”)

Healthcare reform, which seems completely innocuous to gun rights at first blush, is a Trojan Horse. Of that, there can be no doubt. The only real question is whether our enemies will choose to use it as such. Given the string of court and legislative defeats the anti-gun groups have suffered, is there any doubt whether the Brady Bunch will pass up an opportunity to regulate firearms in this oblique manner?More
beautifulnightmare


Dateline: 09/26/99

When did this whole gun control debate start?

It could have started shortly after November 22, 1963 when evidence in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy increased public awareness to the relative lack of control over the sale and possession of firearms in America. Indeed, until 1968, handguns, rifles, shotguns, and ammunition were commonly sold over-the-counter and through mail-order catalogs and magazines to just about any adult anywhere in the nation.

However, America’s history of regulating private ownership of firearms goes back much farther. In fact, all the way back to…

1791
The Bill of Rights, including the Second 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.” gains final ratification.

1837
Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out.

1865
In a reaction to emancipation, several southern states adopt “black codes” which, among other things, forbid black persons from possessing firearms.

1871
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is organized around its primary goal of improving American civilians’ marksmanship in preparation for war.

1927
Congress passes a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons.

1934
The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulating only fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.

1938
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.

The History of Gun Control - FULL LENGTH

Gun control and what it leads to; put yourself back when in North America how free it was. What years notice how the media trains you and will not touch interesting topics take note of codex vitamin control take note of everything in your life. Notice how everything is terrorists, money, oil, drugs, Patriot Act or other acts.
beautifulnightmare
by Jack Minor
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is taking a rare step of allowing public comments prior to issuing a decision on a study that could result in outlawing certain types of shotguns currently available to citizens.

The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.MORE
thank you Eric

http://www.scribd.com/doc/90456283/012611-ATF-Stud...


http://www.scribd.com/doc/90456684/CRS-Gun-Control...
Displaying 1 to 5 of 11