TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
And they would have. They were actively searching for terrorists who had gunned down a cop and just murdered dozens of people.

Those events didn't obsolete the Constitution. Some of my teachers in NM believed in mass punishments if they could not identify the culprits when problems happened, too, but I hope that we as a society don't accept the same kinds of rules.

One is an active search in a defacto martial law situation. The other is group punishment in your elementary class.
It would be interesting to see the case law on active pursuit situations of this type.

Even if they needed a warrant without permission, remember all the constitution requires is a valid warrant. They could have a judge on speed dial or even on sight to order an immediate search warrant (or is it an arrest warrant in this context?). Boom, they can search.

Baloney. The constitution requires a search warrant to specify the particular place to be searched, so they'd either need a boat load of warrants, one for each residence, or a single phone book sized warrant listing every residence they planned to enter. Furthermore, since a warrant requires probable cause for each place to be searched, asking to search a whole neighborhood invalidates any claim to have probable cause. The Constitution doesn't allow police fishing expeditions.

Why are you so eager to support official law-breaking of the highest law in the land for mere expediency?

Edited to add:

Also, your "active pursuit" claim is ludicrous. You can't actively pursue someone when you have absolutely no idea where he is. And there is no "de facto" martial law, just real martial law. If martial law was appropriate for apprehending one dangerous criminal the entire country would be under perpetual martial law. The pretense of "de facto" martial law is nothing more than a smokescreen for illegal activity.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:And they would have. They were actively searching for terrorists who had gunned down a cop and just murdered dozens of people.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I'm talking about the Marathon Bomber. I don't know what you're referring to.

Then I'm confused because they murdered four people....a police officer and three other people by the two bombs they exploded...not "dozens." Saying dozens seems like you're trying to make more compelling your acceptance of illegal conduct by the authorities.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

n5wd wrote:

chasfm11 wrote: ...Of course, to find the now illegal weapons, the State is going to have to figure out where to look. A house to house search is probably not an option. Then again, that worked and was tolerated by the citizens of nearby Boston during the aftermath of the marathon bombings. Perhaps the citizens of CT are less inclined to do so.

Different situation entirely. Had the Boston bombing happened in, say, Fort Worth (about the same size, and much the opposite politically), you'd probably find the citizens of FW cooperating with the police, as well. But, once the fugitive was found, you don't think the Boston'ers would let the po-po just waltz through their house then, do you?

I figure the citizens of Connecticut would welcome a house-to-house search about as much as the folks in San Anotnio would assist "migra" (Customs/Border Patrol) looking through their homes and neighborhoods.

Well, I don't know what they'd do in Fort Worth, but they would have had to use force to get in my home if I lived in Boston. I wouldn't resist but I also wouldn't cooperate: they'd have to break the door down and physically drag me out while the cameras were rolling.

And they would have. They were actively searching for terrorists who had gunned down a cop and just murdered dozens of people.

I guess we're talking about different incidents, since in the incident I'm talking about two brothers were alleged to have killed THREE people with a bomb and a police officer in a robbery. The searches were entirely illegal as they not only had no warrants, they had zero probable cause and not even a reasonable suspicion that the criminal they were looking for was in any of the homes they forcibly removed residents from and searched....COMPLETELY ILLEGAL. They didn't even try to use a search dog, which I believe demonstrates that the whole exercise was a test and more about conditioning than finding a criminal. The reaction of the authorities was hysterical, damaging and costly to small business, had no basis or justification in law, and was completely ineffective, producing nothing but further erosion of our Constitutional rights and economic losses. They can't even claim it was justified by the results or that it saved a single person from harm. And in fact, their earlier botched arrest is why they were searching in the first place.

I fully expect they would have dragged me out and administered a beating. If everyone had taken a beating in defense of their rights and the law they might have slowed our descent into official lawlessness, but their passivity in relinquishing their rights out of fear has instead accelerated our descent, and this tactic will no doubt be used again, and again, until it becomes commonplace.

chasfm11 wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I'm not sure about the political calculus on that one. Some antis would no doubt applaud it, but if those raids end up killing someone, especially an innocent family member, the more rational people may consider the death penalty for having an unregistered gun a little harsh. I think they might have to throw something else into the mix to tarnish up their targets....just guessing, but the ole' standby seems to be "drugs." Anyway, unless they change the law and grant amnesty, those who didn't register can't register now without going to jail, so there there will be absolutely no incentive for people who hadn't registered to check into a jail cell with a confession.

In some neighborhoods in NE States, guns are as hated as drugs. There is also a general feeling that those in authority must be complied with. The unregistered gun owners obviously and clearly did not comply. Killing one of them during a raid, I agree, would bring on a whole additional set of circumstances but I suspect that the first few arrests will be engineered so that doesn't occur. It is a fairly simple matter to determine that someone is likely to have an un-registered now illegal weapon or component and to simply take them down on the street or at their place of work. Very few people have CC permits in CT so any firearm resistance to such an arrest would definitely be illegal and would work in the favor of the authorities, not the rebellious gun owner.

I said that it was going to be interesting. I truly believe that. It is definitely a standoff between the lawmakers and the unrepentant gun owners. It will be very difficult to come out of this with any sort of a good result. The real question is going to be - how bad does it get. I cannot imagine a capitulation by the CT lawmakers but that is possible. It is just not very likely.

I'll add that I lived in NJ and worked periodically in Southbury, CT. I got a chance to talk to some of the residents during the course of my travel there over many years. Hartford is very much like Boston. The outer areas are a little less so.

I don't think there is anyway to establish probable cause except in cases where someone is identified by a rat and as I point out above, that can work both ways. The law allowed people to remove guns from the state, so there should be a legal presumption that those who didn't register removed their guns from the state. Granted, some courts will probably ignore the Constitution but I think it's likely that at least one Court will object to such blatantly illegal searches. I think they'll keep the numbers secret, claim some kind of glitch, and "discover" that either their estimates of ownership were wrong and most everyone did comply, or that fixing the glitch "revealed" that the initial reporting was wrong and it turns out most everyone registered.

anygunanywhere wrote:Neighbors will rat on neighbors. Guaranteed.

Anygunanywhere

Oh, absolutely. But that doesn't work so much in favor of authority as you might think, as people like me just might starting "ratting out" their anti gun neighbors who have bragged about their "undetectable" hiding places.

chasfm11 wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Even Connecticut hasn't yet devolved enough for house to house searches for gun confiscation. Even the antis would be screaming because that kind of search would be tearing apart the homes of everyone not just the "gun nuts." I think once that point is reached most people aren't going to have much to lose and that's going to make house to house searches very dangerous for everyone involved.

A few years ago, I might have completely agreed with you. But then the atrocities committed by the TSA have occurred and the public has pretty much yawned. I still don't think that the house to house searches, on a totally random basis, would occur. As you point out, that is likely to affect individuals who don't have firearms at all and would be likely met with strong resistance. But I do expect arrests and would not be surprised if some of those are conducted by SWAT. More than a few of the "good people of CT" will applaud if it does.

I'm not sure about the political calculus on that one. Some antis would no doubt applaud it, but if those raids end up killing someone, especially an innocent family member, the more rational people may consider the death penalty for having an unregistered gun a little harsh. I think they might have to throw something else into the mix to tarnish up their targets....just guessing, but the ole' standby seems to be "drugs." Anyway, unless they change the law and grant amnesty, those who didn't register can't register now without going to jail, so there there will be absolutely no incentive for people who hadn't registered to check into a jail cell with a confession.

chasfm11 wrote:

n5wd wrote:

chasfm11 wrote: ...Of course, to find the now illegal weapons, the State is going to have to figure out where to look. A house to house search is probably not an option. Then again, that worked and was tolerated by the citizens of nearby Boston during the aftermath of the marathon bombings. Perhaps the citizens of CT are less inclined to do so.

Different situation entirely. Had the Boston bombing happened in, say, Fort Worth (about the same size, and much the opposite politically), you'd probably find the citizens of FW cooperating with the police, as well. But, once the fugitive was found, you don't think the Boston'ers would let the po-po just waltz through their house then, do you?

I figure the citizens of Connecticut would welcome a house-to-house search about as much as the folks in San Anotnio would assist "migra" (Customs/Border Patrol) looking through their homes and neighborhoods.

The mindset in Boston and much of the rest of the NE is far different than Fort Worth or even much more Liberal San Antonio. Honestly, I think that a house to house type search is that last thing that the CT politicians might try but I do expect some arrests for non-compliance before this is over. We'll see if they do that. I was surprised by the estimates of 1M guns and magazines affected. I suspect that the politicians in CT might get some "help" from D.C and NY. Both of them would rather see this battle fought in CT, I believe. Like the situation with the political recalls in CO, there is much more at stake than one State.

Even Connecticut hasn't yet devolved enough for house to house searches for gun confiscation. Even the antis would be screaming because that kind of search would be tearing apart the homes of everyone not just the "gun nuts." I think once that point is reached most people aren't going to have much to lose and that's going to make house to house searches very dangerous for everyone involved.

n5wd wrote:

chasfm11 wrote: ...Of course, to find the now illegal weapons, the State is going to have to figure out where to look. A house to house search is probably not an option. Then again, that worked and was tolerated by the citizens of nearby Boston during the aftermath of the marathon bombings. Perhaps the citizens of CT are less inclined to do so.

Different situation entirely. Had the Boston bombing happened in, say, Fort Worth (about the same size, and much the opposite politically), you'd probably find the citizens of FW cooperating with the police, as well. But, once the fugitive was found, you don't think the Boston'ers would let the po-po just waltz through their house then, do you?

I figure the citizens of Connecticut would welcome a house-to-house search about as much as the folks in San Anotnio would assist "migra" (Customs/Border Patrol) looking through their homes and neighborhoods.

Well, I don't know what they'd do in Fort Worth, but they would have had to use force to get in my home if I lived in Boston. I wouldn't resist but I also wouldn't cooperate: they'd have to break the door down and physically drag me out while the cameras were rolling.

http://bearingarms.com/connecticut-scra ... magazines/

Historically speaking, 90-percent or more of those required to comply with gun registration laws in the U.S. refuse to do so, and there is no reason to suspect that this registration attempt in Connecticut is any different. I’ve seen estimates of 1,000,000 firearm magazines that should have been registered under the law, but the state reports registering only 40,000… just 4 percent.