3 Boxes of BS

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It isn’t just when it is convenient for the government to get a warrant, it’s all the time.

AS&E’s Reiss counters privacy critics by pointing out that the ZBV scans don’t capture nearly as much detail of human bodies as their airport counterparts. The company’s marketing materials say that its “primary purpose is to image vehicles and their contents,” and that “the system cannot be used to identify an individual, or the race, sex or age of the person.”

And the Airport Scanners weren’t supposed to be able to get that much detail or store images either — why don’t you try pulling the other leg!

“From a privacy standpoint, I’m hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be,” he says.

How about until there is sufficient enough evidence that I’ve committed a crime what is in my car, my house or on my person is none of your frakkin business Bub???

Technology will always advance but the principles of privacy and limited government reach will always remain the same.

That is why the fight for our rights has to be fought now and every day.

Please join the discussion.

I’m very conflicted about this news story in the local rag — the StartleGram — I mean the Star-Telegram

DALLAS — A five-day operation that targeted foreign-born gang members and their associates has resulted in the arrests of nearly 40 people from the Arlington and Fort Worth area, authorities with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Monday…

Some 105 people, including gang members from Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras, were arrested in the sting that ended Saturday, ICE officials said. Six are women.

The arrests include members of at least 29 gangs in the Metroplex, including several with ties to Arlington and Fort Worth. The operation ended a two-month investigation in which outstanding warrants were used to identify gang members and their associates

Some of the gang members were arrested on suspicion of various crimes, including home-invasion robberies, drive-by shootings, aggravated robbery, aggravated assaults and drug possession, officials said.

First up — Mr./Mrs./Ms. Anti, let’s stop saying that the 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) isn’t like other rights

Municipal respondents maintain that the Second Amendment differs from all of the other provisions of theBill of Rights because it concerns the right to possess a deadly implement and thus has implications for public safety.

Justice Alito puts paid to that rubbish quite well, doesn’ t he?

The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category. See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (“The exclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907 (1984),  which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large”); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 522 (1972) (reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 517 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 542 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that the Court’s rule “[i]n some unknown number of cases . . . will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets . . . to repeat his crime”); Mapp, 367 U. S., at 659. Municipal respondents cite no case in which we have refrained from holding that a provision of the Bill of Rights is binding onthe States on the ground that the right at issue has dis-puted public safety implications.

Second up,

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying Opinion of the Court of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Hmm, let’s see — very brief mention of who shouldn’t be allowed possession- I would hazard a guess it doesn’t come anywhere near to 10% of the gun owner population — even if you include all the current crops of criminal possessing firearms.

Then we also have this “aws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”. Don’t you think that if the court wanted to single out private sales of firearms, they could have said so?

Something like “hey, we strongly support the laws covering private sales of firearms!!!!!!” but they didn’t. Wonder why :>

Third,

An amicus brief submitted by 58 Members of the Senate and 251 Members of the House of Representatives urges us to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. See Brief for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison et al. as Amici Curiae 4.Another brief submitted by 38 States takes the same position. Brief for State of Texas et al. as Amici Curiae 6.

Not bad, Senator Hutchinson mentioned and Attorney General Greg Abbot mentioned — not the only mention of the State Brief written by Abbot. Good to know we have strong 2nd Amendment advocates around -Now if we can just get them working for Open Carry.

I’m not knocking the cops for trying to take care of a friend.

I am going to knock them for not following the law (and a major lapse in common sense) — when they tried to take care of a friend.

Female cop drinks too much — enough that she doesn’t appear able to walk on her own. She was argumentative with the off-duty cop who tried to take her home.

According to the Dallas Police Department, Officer Kelly Beemer was off-duty and heavily intoxicated when another off-duty police officer tried to help her into his personal vehicle.

When Beemer attempted to exit the moving vehicle, two officers who were on-duty came to the scene.

And the off duty cop didn’t think of taking her back up gun — lack of common sense and not following the law. A Cop is always on duty, right? That is what we are told, that is why they get to carry concealed weapons places we civilians can’t — like bars.

Beemer was seated in the back seat of Officer Zachary Helm’s squad car when she unfastened a revolver strapped to her ankle and fired into the back right floorboard, police said.

While the incident is being investigated, the two officers who assisted Beemer will be placed on restricted duty for neglecting procedure, failing to check Beemer for weapons prior to admitting her into the vehicle and failing to immediately notify their supervisor of the situation.

Even more importantly is the fact they failed to arrest her. I’m sure that if you or I were that drunk in public that we wouldn’t just get a ride home — they failed to follow the law

Beemer has been arrested for discharging a firearm within city limits, a Class A misdemeanor, which merits a maximum of one year in prison and/or a $4,000 fine.

Again, do you think the charge wouldn’t have been higher if it had been a civilian who’s firearm was over looked?

Chief of Police David Brown reacted to the incident and said he is “extremely disappointed by Officer Beemer’s conduct.”

I’m very disappointed in Chief Brown for not denouncing this in stronger terms. I’m very disappointed that the officers involved aren’t being charged with crimes. Didn’t they conspire to cover up a crime? Sure it is low level – just drunk in public — but that is the attitude of corruption and elitism the city does not need.

Please join the discussion.

Excuse me if I find it a little hard to believe –

Witness Anecdote #1

SAGINAW, Mich. (AP) – Police in Michigan say a 45-year-old woman with a cocaine habit let a 67-year-old man have sex with a 10-year-old girl she was caring for in exchange for the drug.

Angela A. Blackwell of Saginaw Township is charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct and pandering.

Police are searching for Johnnie L. Griffin on first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct and firearms charges.

Now, do you think that owning a firearm lead to drug charges or that the drug use/sale lead to the firearm charges?

This low life thug had sex with a 10 year old gir in exchange for drugs. And a woman who should have been watching out for the little girl sold her for a few hits.

This isn’t a “gun culture” problem, it is a problem with liberty. When you give people the freedom to choose, some of them will make wrong decisions. That is why we have the criminal code – It is my fervent hope that if these people are guilty, they get a very long stay in jail.

Then Witness Anecdote #2.

A Dallas mother is in custody after putting her baby’s life at risk in an attempt to prevent her car from being repossessed, police said.

As the repo man, Luke Ross, was backing out of the driveway, Gardner tossed her 1-year-old child through an open window into the back seat of the moving sport utility vehicle, according to police reports. State law prevents vehicles from being repossessed if someone is inside.

Now let the Red Curtain of Rage at a mother treating her child in such a manner subside.
Okay?

Now, As I see it there are 3 possibilities here.

1. She knew the car was being stolen/taken by someone she knew.
2. She knew the car was being stolen by someone she didn’t know.
3 . She knew the car was being repossessed.

In any case, what type of mother would treat her child that way over a car.

Now ask yourself just exactly how she knew about that law? Could be this isn’t her first brush with a Repo Man?

Could it be that she valued the SUV more then the life of her child?

Of course, there is more to the story.

When Ross saw the infant in the back seat, he immediately put the car in park and began to get out, the reports say. Then, police say, a 15-year-old boy armed with a 12-gauge shotgun came out of the house and fired one round into the air and another at Ross, striking him in the leg.

Ross, who ultimately repossessed the vehicle, suffered minor injuries in the shooting.

Police arrived at the scene shortly after and arrested Gardner and the teen, who was identified as Jessie Reyna. Both were charged with aggravated assault.

Texas State law is fairly clear on firearm laws

§ 42.12.  DISCHARGE OF FIREARM IN CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES.
(a)  A person commits an offense if the person recklessly discharges a firearm inside the corporate limits of a municipality having a population of 100,000 or more.

So, that is one violation of the law

§ 46.13.  MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD.
(a)  In this section:
(1)  ”Child” means a person younger than 17 years of age.
(2)  ”Readily dischargeable firearm” means a firearm that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.
(3)  ”Secure” means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.
(b)  A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:
(1)  failed to secure the firearm;  or
(2)  left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.
(c)  It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child’s access to the firearm:
(1)  was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2)  consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or property;

There is another violation of the law.

I’ll leave it to the imagination of my  readers (all 5 of you) to figure out why a 28 year old woman had an apparently unrelated 15 year old male minor in her house.

Time and time again when we look into “firearm related” crimes, we find other issues that are more correlated and causative then the firearm.

This also isn’t a problem with the “gun culture” is it a problem with liberty. This woman had the freedom to choose and she deliberately, knowingly and willfully endangered the life of her child.

It is the price we pay for freedom

There is no other way to express it. As much as it outrages us (some of us at least– others try to excuse the criminal behavior), we have to have the freedom to choose.

What is the alternative folks? To take away our liberty, our rights, our ability to choose until we can only do the good things?

That way lies tyranny and I, for one, don’t want to go down that path.

Please join the discussion.

Update — On our Baby Throwing Mama

A Dallas mother accused of tossing her infant baby into the back seat of a vehicle to keep it from being repossessed, has been transferred to the Kaufman County Jail to face outstanding charges there.

Krystal Gardner, 28, faces multiple traffic-related warrants in Kaufman County.

Here is a part that will make you go WTF??

The status and whereabouts of Gardner’s baby are not known. Child Protective Services said they did not take custody of the child and had no comment about the case.

CPS didn’t take custody of the child????

Why the Heck Not?

Update # 2

Thanks for the Link Tam

If you’ve came from View from the Porch, a quick comparison of our takes on the story will show why she is the Queen of Snark and I’m barely the Squire of Snooze.

Look around folks, feel free to comment — thanks for stopping by.

Reading through Dennis Hennigan’s article at Jurist, I re-read a statement made by Justice Breyer during the oral Arguments.
(I’ll link to the transcript instead of Hennigan’s article – statement found on page 14)

I’m trying to decide if he is pointing out the patent — let’s be polite and call it “inflation” of the numbers or if Justice Breyer truly believes what he said:

JUSTICE  BREYER: There are two ways. One is that — look at — all you have to do is look at the briefs. Look at the statistics. You know, one side says a million people killed by guns. Chicago says that their — their gun law has saved hundreds, including -and they have statistics — including lots of women in domestic cases. And the other side disputes it. This is a highly statistical matter.

Now, I wonder what brief Justice Breyer was reading.

The CDC’s WISQARS reports that there were 859,170 firearm related deaths. That includes suicides, justifiable homicides, legal intervention — everything.

Consider just homicides? 361,285 for the same period.

Oh, that period covered; try 1981 to 2006 – 25 years.

So, was Justice Breyer dissing on the antis for their numbers, having trouble with his numbers or just engaging in hyperbole in order to justify restricting a right that should not be infringed?

Please join the discussion.

Okay, Since I seem to be having to repeat myself in the comments I might as well get a post out of this.

Back in the post titled -More examples of “who are you going to call” – I cited a “gamefowl” (trying to limit the pron searches) fighting ring that was exposed by the Humane Society and the incredible fact that a Kentucky State Police Officer and a local constable were filmed watching the fights.

Since then, I’ve raised the dander of several people trying to convince me I don’t know how to read.

Continue Reading