Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Impending gun control measures

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2

    Impending gun control measures

    Feinstein's new gun control bill would allegedly require legal owners of certain weapons to supply fingerprints . I suggest that this violates the fourth amendment , as requiring someone to provide information (be searched) without a warrant issued upon probable cause, that is, reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime. I would like to hear from everyone on this, especially lawyers.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    It is unlikely that a challenge on the grounds of violating the fourth amendment would succeed. Fingerprinting is already standard for application of concealed carry permits as well as purchasing a firearm in certain states such as California.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    6
    Feinstein=hypocrite

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    665

    fingerprinting

    Fingerprinting is considered a “search” under the 4th. Amendment. It is generally not seen as being a very intrusive search though. It is a quick process and it is not invasive (like taking a DNA sample can be). For this reason, it is always allowed when a person is arrested on probable cause to believe he has committed a crime. There are even circumstances where fingerprinting may be allowed where there is only reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been or is being committed (the same standard that permits a brief Terry seizure).

    See, for example, the following SCOTUS case which suppressed a fingerprint taken from a person who was detained, removed to a police station, and fingerprinted against his will without probable cause. The Court suppressed it as the result of an illegal detention, but it held open the possibility of fingerprinting with only reasonable suspicion:

    None of the foregoing implies that a brief detention in the field for the purpose of fingerprinting, where there is only reasonable suspicion not amounting to probable cause, is necessarily impermissible under the Fourth Amendment. In addressing the reach of a Terry stop in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972), we observed that “[a] brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” Also, just this Term, we concluded that if there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information. United States v. Hensley, supra, at 229, 232, 234. Cf. United States [Page 817] v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975). There is thus support in our cases for the view that the Fourth Amendment would permit seizures for the purpose of fingerprinting, if there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a criminal act, if there is a reasonable basis for believing that fingerprinting will establish or negate the suspect's connection with that crime, and if the procedure is carried out with dispatch. Cf. United States v. Place, supra. Of course, neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause would suffice to permit the officers to make a warrantless entry into a person's house for the purpose of obtaining fingerprint identification. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816-817 (1985)

    The key phrase here is: “if there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a criminal act, if there is a reasonable basis for believing that fingerprinting will establish or negate the suspect's connection with that crime, and if the procedure is carried out with dispatch.”

    You might convince a court that a new firearm purchaser is not “seized” nor “searched” by requiring fingerprints as part of a firearm purchase. However, merely owning a firearm is not reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed a criminal act. Therefore, no matter how quickly the process happens, I do not believe forced fingerprinting of current gun owners would be constitutional.

    There is also, of course, no offer of evidence from proponents of fingerprinting that there is a need for it….

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    497
    Assault weapons really should be banned. I have a friend who turned in his M60 and Mac10 to the police station. He knew it was the right thing to do after Sandy Hook.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Brady View Post
    Assault weapons really should be banned. I have a friend who turned in his M60 and Mac10 to the police station. He knew it was the right thing to do after Sandy Hook.
    The M60 and Mac-10 you refer to are both fully-automatic machine guns that are registered with the federal government and controlled by the ATF. They are in no way similar to semi-automatic firearms and possess absolutely no relevancy to the current debate surrounding firearms such as the AR-15 or magazines capable of holding eleven rounds of ammunition. This compare and contrast that you attempt is nothing more than a deliberate exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

    Your supposed friend deciding to turn his M60 and Mac-10 machine guns into the police also does not address the fact that he now has nothing to show for the approximate thirty to seventy five thousand dollars that he lost by giving up his privately owned collectibles. Unless he possessed them prior to 1986 when new ones were still being made available to the general public -and thus spent little comparatively- he is now out a considerable amount of money.

    Furthermore Brady neither you nor anyone have have been able to present a conclusive or coherent argument for why semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features are unsuitable for general ownership by the American public. You offer up statements about how they aren't suitable for hunting but this argument no longer possesses credibility after the Heller ruling spelled out that firearms ownership is linked to self defense. The argument is even further ruled irrelevant by the existence of configurations that comply with set standards for hunting firearms. Stories about how these firearms are used by mass killers also provides no evidence as to why they should be prohibited from general ownership as criminal use in general is not legal to begin with.

    Criminal misuse of a legal product is not sufficient reason to making it illegal. Goods such as electronics, jewelry and cash are often used to finance criminal deals especially when it is stolen from the homes of the rightful owners. But that is not sufficient reason to prohibit individuals in the general public from owning a diamond necklace or keeping thousands of dollars worth of cash on hand

    Furthermore mass killings with firearms that may be considered "assault weapons" are statistically minute compared to other murders so any such response is statistically disproportionate. The FBI has shown that such murders are overshadowed by deaths attributed to bludgeoning, stabbing, or the use of handguns.

    It is apparent that you do not possess an interest in the saving of lives Brady but rather seek to engage in political ideology and support standards that have been proven by others -such as other countries- to be impossible and out of touch with the supposed goal of reducing murder rates.
    Last edited by Xenamnes; 01-26-2013 at 11:10 AM.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    6

    Suggested Gun Law--Age 30 b4 being allowed to take guns home from shooting range

    Fact: People are not fully psychologically developed till the age of thirty.
    Fact: Most violent perps commit their first crime before the age of thirty.
    Fact: A person with psychological problems will fail psychological exams if given on or after the age of 30.

    Allowing people to use their weapons at shooting ranges should satisfy the need to own a gun in most cases.

    rawcell.com - Home of the Mobile Solutions! to sign "We the People" White House petition on gun control legislation to change gun ownership age to 30. (Take home age) they can still own gun till 30 but must keep them at shooting ranges. Exceptions made for military, police, security, and those with extensive and specific reasons for carrying a gun that have past an extensive psychological evaluation.

    Please Read & Sign & leave comments. Need 100,000 votes. Thx

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    By that same logic Wanfuse would it not be necessary to restrict military and police service to those that are thirty years old at minimum rather than allowing teenagers to join up and become educated in these fields? If the human mind is not properly mature until thirty years of age then would it not be prudent to restrict driver's licenses and access to motor vehicles until such a time?

    How would such a proposal address the number of firearms stolen from their legal owners and used to commit various crimes? What if those tasked with identifying mental illnesses are not of good mental health themselves? The Fort Hood incident was committed by an army major who was a psychologist and thus in charge of recognizing mental illness and thus with sufficient age and experience to make such determinations.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    The M60 and Mac-10 you refer to are both fully-automatic machine guns that are registered with the federal government and controlled by the ATF. They are in no way similar to semi-automatic firearms and possess absolutely no relevancy to the current debate surrounding firearms such as the AR-15 or magazines capable of holding eleven rounds of ammunition. This compare and contrast that you attempt is nothing more than a deliberate exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

    Your supposed friend deciding to turn his M60 and Mac-10 machine guns into the police also does not address the fact that he now has nothing to show for the approximate thirty to seventy five thousand dollars that he lost by giving up his privately owned collectibles. Unless he possessed them prior to 1986 when new ones were still being made available to the general public -and thus spent little comparatively- he is now out a considerable amount of money.

    There are only about 1300 M60s legally owned by private citizens. One sold 2 weeks ago in Colorado for $69,400.00 in "fair to poor" condition.

    I am having trouble believing somebody turned one in to the local PD to be destroyed.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991
    Frankenstein would have you believe that a Hi-Point 995 carbine is an "assault weapon"OH wait it is,has that nasty evil pistol grip.Hope she pis#$ed her self out of rage when at least 17 county sheriffs' in her state good as told her to go to H.E.L.L

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I am having trouble believing somebody turned one in to the local PD to be destroyed.
    Some people do have a conscience.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    497
    Josh Sugarmann, VPC executive director and author of the study states, "There is now a wider variety of assault pistols available on the civilian market than ever before. Able to accept high-capacity ammunition magazines filled with assault rifle rounds that can penetrate police body armor, concealable next-generation AK-47 and AR-15 pistols place law enforcement at an unprecedented risk. At the same time, assault pistols that defined the drug wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s, such as the UZI pistol and MAC-10, are being sold under federal law with no more restrictions than a traditional six-shot revolver.”
    VPC - New Violence Policy Center Study Warns of "Next Wave" of Assault Pistols for Sale in the United States (01/29/2013)

    Pistols with assault clips that can fire cop killer bullets should definitely be banned.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Brady View Post
    Some people do have a conscience.
    A conscience does not outweigh a significant economic investment during these difficult times. Unless there are accompanying pictures to support your claim that you would associate with a person who owns NFA-type firearms it is nothing more than simple and unproven internet chatter.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Brady View Post
    Josh Sugarmann, VPC executive director and author of the study states, "There is now a wider variety of assault pistols available on the civilian market than ever before. Able to accept high-capacity ammunition magazines filled with assault rifle rounds that can penetrate police body armor, concealable next-generation AK-47 and AR-15 pistols place law enforcement at an unprecedented risk. At the same time, assault pistols that defined the drug wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s, such as the UZI pistol and MAC-10, are being sold under federal law with no more restrictions than a traditional six-shot revolver.”
    VPC - New Violence Policy Center Study Warns of "Next Wave" of Assault Pistols for Sale in the United States (01/29/2013)

    Pistols with assault clips that can fire cop killer bullets should definitely be banned.
    Josh Sugarmann is hardly a reliable source to cite as he has been caught advocating the use of misinformation for the sake of achieving political goals as well as flip-flopping on issues along with admitting that the National Rifle Association is correct in its position of firearm control laws not working.

    Pistol variants of the AR-15 and AK-47 rifles are quite heavy and bulky in nature and nearly impossible for one to conceal on their person. They are difficult to aim accurately and are no more a danger to police than any other firearm. The simple fact that they can use rifle-caliber ammunition makes no difference in the matter as the Thompson Contender single shot can do the exact same thing.

    Furthermore semi-automatic Uzi and Mac-10 pistols are functionally no different from any other semi-automatic pistol and deserve no greater restriction. You are not capable of proving otherwise or you would have done so already. The only functional difference is their blowback operation vs. recoil operation but that affects nothing.

    If you wish to have a debate on the merits of firearm-control laws Brady then it is necessary to drop the hyperbole and address the matter in simple facts. Facts such as how Dianne Feinstein's bill would prohibit the ownership of olypmic target pistols due to location of the magazine. Facts such as how the so-called "military feature" of having a threaded muzzle has been incorporated on every hunting-type shotgun on the market for nearly the last three decades.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Brady View Post
    Some people do have a conscience.
    Where does "conscience" come into it? There has been exactly 1 crime committed with a legally owned automatic weapon since 1934.
    He could have sold the thing to Dick Cheney (who has the largest collection of fully automatic weapons in private hands in the US) and known it would never have been used in a crime. He could have sold the thing to a firearms museum.

    You are a liar, Brady.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •