Boston cops to search for guns in homes without warrants
posted at 5:50 pm on November 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Lots of angry buzz in the ’sphere about this, pronouncing it patently unconstitutional. Whether the program violates the Second Amendment is an issue yet to be decided. Whether it violates the Fourth is something we can guess at.
Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children’s bedrooms.
The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households.
In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager’s parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.
They claim they’re not going to prosecute kids in whose rooms guns are found, they’re just going to confiscate the weapon. And what if they find drugs? It depends on how much they find, they say. The question: An unconstitutional search or not? I’m no Fourth Amendment scholar but some cursory googling reveals that, according to Schneckloth v. Bustomante, “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.” So as long as they’re asking to come in and not trying to force their way in, they don’t need probable cause. But what about a situation like the one here where it’s not the subject of the search who’s consenting (the teenager) but a co-resident (the parent)? The answer may depend on whether the teen’s at home when the cops come calling. United States v. Matlock holds that “the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared.” But what if the nonconsenting person isn’t absent? What if he’s right there, screaming, “No, you can’t come in!”? The Court reached that question last year in Georgia v. Randolph and held that in that situation the cops can’t come in. Everyone who lives there has veto power; just be sure you’re there to exercise it when the cops arrive or you’re out of luck.
Then again, we’re not talking about a roommate/roommate situation in the Boston case. We’re talking about legal guardians and minors. Might that change the equation? Maybe. Here’s something buried near the end of the majority opinion in Randolph:
[T]o ask whether the consenting tenant has the right to admit the police when a physically present fellow tenant objects is not to question whether some property right may be divested by the mere objection of another. It is, rather, the question whether customary social understanding accords the consenting tenant authority powerful enough to prevail over the co-tenant’s objection.
Would “customary social understanding” give parents the right to consent over the objection of their children? Probably, yeah.
That said, it’s still a shady program, as you can imagine how intimidated a tenant in a poor neighborhood might be to find three cops on their doorstep asking for permission to enter. They may not know they have the right to say no, and even if they do, they may fear being hassled in the future if they use it. The ACLU lawyer quoted in the piece has the right idea, I think, in identifying the key issue as being “informed consent” (or, in more traditional legal terms, voluntariness). I expect they’ll end up doing some sort of neighborhood initiative, passing out “know your rights” brochures and business cards in case the cops won’t take no for an answer.
Prediction: The program gets scrapped before it gets started.
Update: Obviously, there’s a whole separate question here of whether confiscating the guns and drugs would constitute an illegal seizure. I’ll leave that to the experts. Anyone know, or want to guess?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Everybody knows that the constitution is a living, breathing instrument. If something like this is done in a leftist state, it has to be constitutional.
Harpoon on November 17, 2007 at 5:56 PM
I’m vaguely outraged!
frankj on November 17, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Completely unconstitutional
Defector01 on November 17, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Well here is todays saccharine sweet delicious irony. The kossaks and the DUmmies and the Huff&Puffers have been screaming about a totalitarian fascist takeover of the US for several years now. Constantly accusing Bushitler/DarthChenny of planning to pull this coup off any day now. And when it does finally start happening, who is it that is behind it? Why the defeatocrats themselves.
doriangrey on November 17, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Unconstitutional. Won’t fly.
Another risky scheme cooked up in a Boston pub.
JammieWearingFool on November 17, 2007 at 6:11 PM
What if they do the kids wash and scrub clean his room while they are at it?
BL@KBIRD on November 17, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Boston should take the lead from Cambridge and pick on the boy scouts.
Wade on November 17, 2007 at 6:18 PM
I’m not sure why people are saying this is unconstitutional. I agree that it’s distasteful and wrong, but if they’re asking permission, I don’t see how that violates anything. I do think that people should be notified that they are perfectly within their rights to say no, and I hope everybody says no, but still.
Farmer_Joe on November 17, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Police always had and still have the right to search your porperty without a warrent if you give them your permission to do so. They cannot search your property without your permission or without a warrent.
allrsn on November 17, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Pfft. Allah, don’t you know? Teenagers are wise enough to decide if they want to kill their babies. Whether they want guns and drugs or not should be irrelevant. You just hate women because they control their bodies.
/sarc.
BKennedy on November 17, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Seems like a preemptive move to disarm the public before the SCOTUS can nail down the gun rights issue. Is possession of a weapon going to be automatically illegal, what about due process rights? How can private property be seized without due process – isn’t that in the Constitution as well?
Neo on November 17, 2007 at 6:23 PM
And you know where they are going too, right to the housing projects. Now, you’ve got police who work for the landlord at the door “asking” to search your premises. My gut tells me the average housing project parent is going to tell the cops to go F themselves in a voice loud enough to be heard 3 blocks away… but there have been issue lately where the city has been throwing people out of the projects on any pretext. I recall a case recently where a family was thrown out because one of their kids got in trouble… Anyway, the is a real dilemma for the Uber Libs – what do they hate more, poor black families in Roxbury being harassed by the man or guns? Stay tuned to find out.
TheBigOldDog on November 17, 2007 at 6:24 PM
They said that if Bush were re-elected, that police would go door to door infringing on peoples’ constitutional rights. They they were right.
HT Instapundit. (his joke)
lorien1973 on November 17, 2007 at 6:25 PM
You just -know- that Boston cops are gonna go door to door in white upper class neighborhoods, don’t you? ;)
lorien1973 on November 17, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Gawd. Parents who are so powerless that they must have the police search their kids’ bedrooms?
Absolutely sickening.
Splashman on November 17, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Well, we’ll see what happens. I live in Boston. No kids, though.
Farmer_Joe on November 17, 2007 at 6:29 PM
With a socialist congress and court, the answer is: YES
allrsn on November 17, 2007 at 6:31 PM
if they are invited in to search its considered a legal search.
They might try and bring up an issue of the childs right to privacy but that wont hold to much water as just like their school locker its not theirs so they have no expectaion of privacy.
Mojack420 on November 17, 2007 at 6:34 PM
I just read the Herald story, reading between the lines, what this really sounds like is a program to harass the Gang Bangers by knocking on their doors. Here’s the tip off:
The “tips” are their gang member lists I bet…
TheBigOldDog on November 17, 2007 at 6:36 PM
yep Mo that is how is works
allrsn on November 17, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Maybe, but the way this issue is framed, it sounds as though the parents want the cops to take these guns away. That sounds stupid to me since the parents should be able to just take the guns out of their home if they choose anyway. But if it’s something the parents are asking for, I don’t see how this issue will cause any problems in the area.
Esthier on November 17, 2007 at 6:40 PM
If a ruling says a parent can’t give the police permission to search their childs room without a search warrant, then it won’t be long before they rule that parents need a search warrant to search their childs room.
Helloyawl on November 17, 2007 at 6:46 PM
That’s the way they are framing it (which is ridiculous). really what this is, is a warning that they are going to start harassing Gang bangers and their families. Once I read the story it was clear. The message won’t be lost around here.
They’ve made a big show of evicting families from the projects for the sins of their children lately. This is a warning that they better get control of their kids fast or else….
TheBigOldDog on November 17, 2007 at 6:47 PM
People are dying because of these kids. They should get control over them.
And just so you know, it isn’t a new concept to punish parents for the mistakes of their children. As the parent, you are legally responsible for your child. When my brother got into trouble, it was my parents who were supposed to pay.
Esthier on November 17, 2007 at 6:51 PM
You say that like I disagree or something… I’m just interpreting what this REALLY is for people who don’t have any context….
TheBigOldDog on November 17, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Kids in high crime neighborhoods in Boston are going to have guns anyway; telling them to “just say no” will only endanger more people. We need to have weapon safety classes in school, and tell the parents and the police to be more open-minded about the weapons, so the kids don’t need to sneak around like this.
tikvah on November 17, 2007 at 6:59 PM
If the parents give consent, and the child is under 18, then the search should be legit. If I am not mistaken, minors aren’t allowed to own firearms in their own right in the first place, even under the Second Amendment.
Two questions:
One, what happens when the police get permission to search the kid’s bedroom and then see something in another part of the apartment, such as the kitchen or living room?
Two, will the parents be sent to counseling when it turns out they don’t have the nerve or situational control to search their own children’s bedrooms?
Lancer on November 17, 2007 at 6:59 PM
USA v. Roy J. Hudspeth
On August 25th,2006, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a computer seizure of a marital computer, without a warrant, where the husband declined permission but the wife consented, was illegal.
Pam on November 17, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Thats where the fourth amendment issue comes in. Even minors have a fourth amendment right.
doriangrey on November 17, 2007 at 7:03 PM
1. I vote constitutional. Parents have the right to consent to a search anywhere on their premises, including their kids’ rooms, certainly if they’re minors. Not talking about an adult tenant’s suitcase or anything like that.
2. Once they’re in legally, anything in plain view can be seized — drugs, pipe bombs, the Playboy issue with that chick in it, etc. Only kidding about the pipe bombs.
3. The program sucks major eggs. Why not go around and ask for permission to search for drugs? Or maybe that’s for next week….
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 17, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Hmmm really?? Funny how I couldn’t BUY a gun before 18… but my first .22 was GIVEN to me by my grandfather when I was 11… I owned it…
A right is a right… you can’t put an age limit on it… when you do, it stops becoming a RIGHT.
As to searching a minor’s room? Up to the parents… but seizing the gun could be problematic.
And they are going to have to REALLY careful to make this a random search… or its going to be lawsuit city based on socio ethnic grounds…
Romeo13 on November 17, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Attila, I will disagree with you on that based on:
USA v. Roy J. Hudspeth
and the fact that it could be successfully argued that even a child has to expect some form of privacy…
(I don’t agree with it, but I do think the courts will rule in favor of kids)
Pam on November 17, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Multitudenally-unconstitutional
Wow I had to make up a new word for it.
TheSitRep on November 17, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Constitution? Banned in Boston.
saved on November 17, 2007 at 7:38 PM
But you’re still dealing with two adults who both own the home in question.
Except that minors do have limitations on their rights. They don’t even have the option of skipping out on an education and while at school can be searched without cause, without consent and without a warrant.
Esthier on November 17, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Uh, this is very likely constitutional. Consent negates the need for a warrant, particularly if the parent owns everything the police want to search, i.e. foot lockers or safes. The rub is in the details, but I have no clue where the people saying this is out of hand “unconstitutional” are getting that idea.
Vizzini on November 17, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Romeo13,
I could be mistaken, but just because you owned the gun in reality does that mean that the law considered you as owning the gun? Meaning that, if the Law ever officially inquired who owned and was responsible for the weapon, would the final answer have been you, or your parents? Do we have anyone here who can answer this question?
On another note, some rights do have age limits on them. Voting is the first one that springs to mind.
Lancer on November 17, 2007 at 7:48 PM
An out of control government infringing on Constitutional rights… and which party governs Boston?
Zorro on November 17, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Pam on November 17, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Well, I haven’t read Hudspeth, and as a lawyer, I try to limit the number of cases I read. (People who read too many cases tend to go insane, teach law school, or grow hair on their palms. Sometimes all three.) But it seems to me there’s a big difference between a non-consenting spouse and a non-consenting minor child.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 17, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Voting is a privilage. Nowhere in the constitution does it give individual citizens the right to vote. The right to Vote, like the right to privacy simply does not exist in the document.
conservativecaveman on November 17, 2007 at 8:08 PM
It’s fully Constitutional as long as the kid is under the legal age for adulthood which is eighteen in most states, twenty-one in others AND the parent or guardian gives permission.
Maxx on November 17, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Read the 9th Amendment.
AZ_Redneck on November 17, 2007 at 8:16 PM
That’s true, although the Supreme Court has since declared it a “fundamental right” for constitutional purposes.
Allahpundit on November 17, 2007 at 8:17 PM
If the cops show up and ask the guardian permission to search, and the guardian agrees to allow the search, then I do think I would have a problem with that.
However that is one very slippery slope.
In New Orleans the cops just went in and seized them, (got sued over it and lost) and they still have not returned the owners firearms. (last I checked anyway).
If a Cop every shows up at my place looking for a firearm, he has to look no further then my waist.
The bigger issue is why are cops searching minors bedrooms for guns? Where the heck are the parents on this one?
Speaking as a uncle, if you don’t know your kids well enough to suspect they may be up to something bad/hiding something dangerous (the copy of playboy I hid in the closet, when I was 12, does not count) then you should be searching the kids room before the cops show up.
F15Mech on November 17, 2007 at 8:22 PM
One thing I haven’t yet seen mentioned is how likely a denial of permission will turn into those three officers waiting just outside the premesis for a search warrant to be ginned up.
steveegg on November 17, 2007 at 8:24 PM
This be why I keep the gat at my hoe’s.
Dork B. on November 17, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Yep I was thinking the same thing but got sidetracked.
F15Mech on November 17, 2007 at 8:25 PM
That’s a totally different situation. The husband was obviously of legal age and his right to NOT allow a search without a warrant was not overridden just because his wife thought it was OK.
But kids, which is how everyone is classified until they are no longer a minor, have no right to keep and bear arms and lawfully the parent or guardian speaks on behalf of the child in all legal matters, whether the kid likes it or not.
There is nothing un-Constitutional about a police officer searching a home or a car or anything else without a warrant as long as they obtain the permission of the occupant first and the occupant is of-age to lawfully render permission.
Maxx on November 17, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Agreed. This is a job parents should be doing. But because some aren’t, The Nanny State offers to step in and do it for them. Not in my house.
infidel4life on November 17, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Damn that should be I do notthink I would have a problem with that.
F15Mech on November 17, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Well, guys according to Hill it takes a village…..
Right after they try the old “what, you don’t’ have anything to hide; do you?” routine on them.
liquidflorian on November 17, 2007 at 8:33 PM
It may or may not exist in the original 7 Articles of the Constitution (it’s merely strongly inferred in the method of selection of the House members), but starting with the 14th Amendment, and continuing through the 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments, the specific right to vote has become enshrined in the Constitution.
steveegg on November 17, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Will the cops do their searches in “Southy”??? Not unless they have a death wish! Bet they start looking in a nice, safe suburb inhabited by
liberal(strike redundant adjective) college professors.Seriously, I’m glad to have escaped from Taxachussets and from the deranged leftists who infest that area.
Life’s much better in the Midwest, where at least some of the people are sane (and the rest of them publish newspapers).
landlines on November 17, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Wrong amendment (actually, wrong set; see above).
steveegg on November 17, 2007 at 8:37 PM
I’m still looking for a worthy “edit comments” function for WordPress. I’ve found one that’s close enough for my hole-in-the-wall, but I’m not sure that it’s quite ready for use on HA.
steveegg on November 17, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Pam,
U.S. v. Hudspeth is easily distinguished from what the police propose to do here, and is therefore inapposite to Boston’s plan.
In the first place, Boston is not within the jurisdiction of the Eighth Circuit. Or, to put it another way, the holdings of the Eighth Circuit are not law in Boston. In the second place, Hudspeth involved a husband and wife, not parents and their children.
Nothing in the Federal Constitution prevents homeowners or tenants from consenting to a search of their homes by the police. Moreover, in no event could a Fourth Amendment defense be raised unless the police actually prosecuted the kids, which is something the police say they will not do.
paul006 on November 17, 2007 at 8:47 PM
The kids are minors and the police are asking the parent’s permission. They parent has the right to say no – and they all should. The only way this could get the results they want would be if the police pressure the parents.
I wonder how much this community considered simply punishing the hell out of anyone caught commiting a crime with a weapon?
They should start making crimes commited with guns mandatory no parole convictions if they want to start cracking down on these crimes.
I would love it if a state juvenile correction system would get some military reps to advise them on how to run their facilities like friggin boot camp. These kids have no fathers – if they were in the right environment they could thrive, maybe fast-track to a military career upon time served. Juvy boot camp. I know they have a few now already. It’ll never happen large scale. I always wondered if they got good results, though.
Dork B. on November 17, 2007 at 8:56 PM
It’s Southie and Southie ain’t what it used to be.
Gang Bangers like those in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan would never have been tolerated in Southie. They would have been handled internally if you know what I mean. It’s a different era though. These young kids are out shooting up the streets. Killing each other in broad daylight on the streets and hitting innocent bystanders in the process. A 7 year old shot an 8 year old last summer with his 15-year old gang banging brother’s gun.
This year alone, six teens have been shot dead and 51 youths have been wounded by gunfire. Another 89 kids have been arrested and charged with committing various gun crimes on city streets.
It isn’t exactly Baghdad but its pretty bad. That’s why this “plan” has community support.
The parents of Gang bangers are searching their kids rooms tonight and yelling at them to get rid of the stuff before the cops come and the family gets thrown out of public housing. That’s what I think they are really hoping for with this plan… we’ll see.
TheBigOldDog on November 17, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Wrong conservativecaveman, all citizen have a RIGHT to vote provided they are not incarcerated. Some rights are so basic they they do not require specific language in the Constitution in order for Citizens to have them. There is no right enumerated in the Constitution to breath either, but you do have that right. But actually there is some specific language in the Constitution that addresses voting, although it would not be necessary in order to have a right to vote in a Republic. That is just common knowledge.
You obviously can’t have a “Republican form of government” unless the Citizens have a right to vote. Nevertheless the right to vote is mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Then the Fifteenth Amendment makes it clear that everybody has the right to vote, but of course you still need to be of legal age.
And of course there IS A RIGHT to Privacy in the Constitution as well. Although the word “privacy” itself is not used. And the Supreme Court has expanded on these basic rights to privacy in may ways. Extending the right to telephone conversations and all sorts of modern day types of communication not thought of when the Constitution was written. The “Right to be left alone” is not found in the Constitution but is found often in the writings of the Supreme and other courts.
Maxx on November 17, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Well HA did add a preview pane (that did not do much when it deals with me).
I should just review my posts more. (although the preview pane does help).
BTW steveegg you are all paid up correct?
I thought so.
F15Mech on November 17, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Futhermore…. The 24th Amendment forbids a “poll tax,” in other words you can not be charged any fee or money whatsoever as a qualification to vote. A tax (government collection of money or property) is forbidden on voting.
And finally, the Nineteenth Amendment specifically gave women the right to vote.
Maxx on November 17, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Yep; paid up on the 12th, as a matter of fact. Even threw in an extra $10 to make the 4-way donations even (didn’t want to mess around with cents).
steveegg on November 17, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Hey, that’s the perfect solution. Let the police do parenting tasks. It’s not the parents fault or responsibility to control their children at all. The goberment will take care of your kids to help you look for weapons and drugs under your kid’s mattresses.
Egfrow on November 17, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Legally, as I understand it, rifle he would have owned, handgun his parents would have owned:
From the ATF website: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b2
And a couple of age relevant issues re: firearms from the same site as these questions tend to pop up in these type of thread topics:
deepdiver on November 17, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I smell a “straw man purchase”…better look out Blomberg will be going after your grandfather next. /scarasm
F15Mech on November 17, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Consent is everything, here, and punks have no “right” to have guns nor drugs in possession. As for weak parents, a lot of these kids have no Dad at home. It appears to be a way to empower Mom or Grandma if she believes Junior is a thug.
Very similar to school searches of student lockers. As a juvenile your rights don’t include the same repertoire as adults. Punks don’t have a “right” to a safe house stash of anything, anywhere, because they can’t legally own or rent the real property where it’s located.
As a parent, I can allow anyone into the house to search for anything under the sun I request. I hope the program helps remove a ton of guns and drugs, and scares the crap out of the kids.
T J Green on November 17, 2007 at 9:59 PM
As an Uncle I hope it does not remove any guns or drugs. Because that would mean that parents are not doing their job and they need the government to help them.
If my niece or nephew ever got busted by this plan I am not sure who I would “chew out” first.
My Brother and his wife are #1 on the top of my list, for allowing this to occur in the first place.
My minor niece/nephew is #2 for being so stupid.
F15Mech on November 17, 2007 at 10:09 PM
or vice versa
F15Mech on November 17, 2007 at 10:16 PM
My personal opinion is that Americans should not consent to a search for any reason ever. If you do consent, you’re giving up a Fundamental right that our forefathers fought and died for; and you’d better be ready to deal with the consequences.
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990)
U.S. v. Meada, 408 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2005)
bigbeas on November 17, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Man I hope those kids don’t have any LEDs or other Blinky type lights!
- The Cat
MirCat on November 17, 2007 at 11:59 PM
What? Surely you are able to read the words of the 2nd Amendment and figure out their plain sense message for yourself!
What if the Supreme Court gets it wrong, as has happened so many times in the past?
The Second Amendment is what it is — confirming Supreme Court decision or no.
sanantonian on November 18, 2007 at 12:04 AM
I can’t argue that the proposed program is shady but you have to understand what is going on in Boston. There has been an spike in the number of “youths” killed on the streets, a lot of them seemingly innocent bystanders. The furor raised is justifiable of course but attendent to it is a disassociation that has the “community” yelling for the cops, governor & the mayor to solve the problem. There isn’t much recognition of the fact that the violence and the acceptability of violence is best addressed closer to home. It seems like everybody is trying to layoff responsibilty and hoping that the State can effect some magical resolution to the problem.
thegreatbeast on November 18, 2007 at 12:51 AM
And that is the SOURCE of problem in the first place.
F15Mech on November 18, 2007 at 1:21 AM
The purpose of the pieces of paper called “warrants” is to ensure that searches are warranted in the governing sense. That is, if there are reasons a search is warranted, the reasons ought to be stateable before a judge; if there’s any law warranting the search, the judge ought to be able to affirm which law warrants the search when he signs the paper “warrant.” The overarching warrant for the system of paper “warrants” is the measure of freedom and security to be had by turning private deliberation into public deliberation. When the reasons warranting a search aren’t subjected to deliberation between two branches of government (under the eye of the third), one doesn’t know whether a search was warranted by laws and facts, by the whim of a well-meaning but exciteable coffee klatch, or by a phone call from a mafia boss who owns a police supervisor.
Kralizec on November 18, 2007 at 1:32 AM
I believe it justified to restate the obvious:
We do not have the luxury of sitting out the next election or throwing away our vote on a protest or third party candidate. The danger to our 2A rights is dire. We can not allow a socialist to win the White House, and appoint judges.
Texas Nick 77 on November 18, 2007 at 4:17 AM
A) They ask to come in
B) The kids have no rights to not have their rooms searched because they don’t own the home
I have no issue with this at all.
Benaiah on November 18, 2007 at 4:23 AM
And one other note:
Today is 18 November, the Buy Ammunition Day to support the Second Amendment. Exercise your right to keep and bear arms buy buying 100 rounds of ammo at your favourite sporting goods store. Go to the range and practice shooting. That is my idea of “gun control.” Hitting your target in a small group.
Texas Nick 77 on November 18, 2007 at 4:58 AM
This is exactly what one would expect in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. A leftist state can only endure when its citizens have no guns.
rplat on November 18, 2007 at 6:56 AM
Constitutional? Yes. Morally suspect in regards to the intimidation factor? I think so.
Saying “yes” to a cop asking to search your house/car/whatever just gives them free reign. If they don’t have probably cause they aren’t allowed to search and if you want your property to be secure I’d recommend not saying “yes.”
Nonfactor on November 18, 2007 at 7:16 AM
This is just another result of a government creating and encouraging dependency. I am sure that Hillary is nodding her head in agreement, saying, “You see, it DOES take a village to raise a child.” When parents turn to the state to help in raising their own children, we have reached, IMO, the point of no return. If you know so little about your children, cannot search their bedroom by yourself, and require help from the state to do so, you do not deserve to have children. But then again, what can you expect from people who have grown to depend on government for all of their answers to all of their questions: healthcare, retirement, food stamps, low income housing, education, safety, etc. You also cannot expect a change when there can be no criticism of anyone or no one’s feet can be held to the fire for their choices or actions – have kids and don’t like being married anymore – get a divorce; want to have kids without being married – go ahead; Don’t like school or think it is cool to be dumb – drop out; think that owning a big screen TV and a nice car are more important than paying your mortgage – default. And then, of course, blame someone else for your problems – the rich, the big [insert any industry here i.e. Tobacco, Oil, Drug], the President, society, boogeyman. But thank goodness we have the government to take care of us. Soon, the government will be telling us that we cannot even spank our own children or smoke in our own homes . . . oh, yeah, that’s right, they already do.
King of the Britons on November 18, 2007 at 7:30 AM
Read this link too. My friends and family are tired of living in constant fear in their own community.
kiakjones on November 18, 2007 at 8:19 AM
On the question of searching a domicile with permission of the owner or lesee: legal and constitutional.
On the question of seizing firearms: If legally owned, can’t be done. ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I don’t pretend to be familiar with the Peoples Democratic RepubliK of Kennedyland, however, I believe that firearm ownership requires licenses. Whether it’s a license to purchase or a license to possess, I don’t know. I also believe that certain fireams are illegal to possess in Massachusetts (the so-called “deadly assault weapon,” for example). Federal law prohibits possession of firerms to felons, people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, drug addicts and the mentally ill.
In my humble opinion, if people are in compliance with the laws of firearm ownership, the police CANNOT confiscate their firearms. Period.
If it were me, and the cops asked to search, I not only say no, but HELL NO!!
georgej on November 18, 2007 at 8:44 AM
You eliminate these tragedies by (1) the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program, (2) firearms safety programs taught in schools, (3) a culture of RESPONSIBLE firearm ownership, including school-sponsored rifle teams and marksmanship events, and appreciation (and support) of hunting as a sport at all age levels.
All of my children have grown up with guns in my household. I trained them in the proper way to safely store firearms. I trained them in the proper and safe way way to handle firearms. I trained them in the proper USE of firearms.
Starting at age 7 for each of them, I took them to the gun range with me.
My oldest won a local club pistol contest at age 12.
My middle is a US Marine who qualified as Expert in rifle.
My youngest shoots .22, 9mm, and .45, which intimidates the hell out of her boyfriends.
None of my children have had “incidents” with the misuse of firearms. All of them knew not to touch “daddy’s guns” when they were little. Not they they could, as they were properly stored.
That’s point one.
Point 2, child firearm death (accidental or otherwise) or injury ranks LOWER than drowning in the swimming pool, according to the CDC morbidity rankings. That’s not including “children” of age 19-25 which the lying assh*les at the Brady Center do.
Is the city of Boston going to seize swimming pools too?
Justifying MASSIVE and WIDESPREAD home searches to prevent a few accidental child firearms incidents, is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, but it’s a step down the road to where the liberal jackbooted government thugs have erased the Constitution.
I do not buy into the “if it saves one child” BULLSHIT that liberals and other gungrabbing assh*les use to justify raping the 2nd Amendment. People who espouse it are (a) liars, (b) ignoramuses, (c) criminals with a vested interest in having unarmed victims, or (d) too mentally challenged to participate in our society and who should be institutionalized.
Point 3, Gangs are (and always have been) a LAW ENFORCEMENT problem, not a gun control problem. Just a few years, the locals in Boston were bragging on how their (then) new approach had cut the homicide rate in half. That program included state conviction for the crime PLUS federal prosecution for the illegal use and possession of a firearm.
What happen to this program?
Point 4, I recommend John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime.” Lott, an economist formerly with the University of Chicago, has broken down 2 decades of data concerning the use of firearms in crime.
Lott’s study shows that if you increase the number of firearms owned by private individuals by 1 percent and you can expect to see a DECREASE in aggregate violent crime of 4.1%. Specifically, murder goes down 3.3%, aggravated assault down 4.3%, robbery down 4.3%, burglary down 1.6%, Larceny down 1.3%, and auto theft down 3.2%. The only category of crime that does not benefit from additional gun ownership rates is rape, which is unchanged. The total costs of crime that victims are saved for EACH 1% INCREASE in gun ownership is $3.1 Billion.
James Wright, in a study done for the Justice Department using incarcerated felons, found:
* 81% of criminals agreed the “smart criminal” will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
* 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
* 80% of “handgun predators” had encountered armed citizens.
* 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
* 34% of “handgun predators” were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
* 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
* 82% agreed that “gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns.”
“The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated
Felons,” by James Wright and Peter Rossi, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, SuDoc# J 28.24/3: C.86 (1985).
The above study was included in their book “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Social Institutions and Social Change)” This book is available from Amazon.com.
Point 5, I have no doubt that this program will cause an INCREASE in crime, rather than a decrease. Gangstas will get new guns and will have entire neighborhoods of new victims ripe for the plucking.
Point 6, “Gang bangers” are a self-selecting group of Darwin Award recipients, who deserve to be either dead or locked up. Rather than do door-to-door searches for guns, why not hunt down and arrest the ganstas and put them away for a very long time.
Robert Heinlein wrote that an armed society is a polite society.
John Lott wrote that an armed society is a safer society.
And James Wright wrote that an armed society is NOT ONE WHERE CRIMINALS WANT TO LIVE!
georgej on November 18, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Socialism and dependent populations. The 800 lb elephant in the room.
JiangxiDad on November 18, 2007 at 9:49 AM
If they knock, show up at the door with a shotgun in one hand, cleaning rag in the other. Look surprised at the visitors. Look the officer who asked right in the eye and say,
“No, you may NOT. Please leave.”
};-]
Dark-Star on November 18, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Step by step. Slowly I turn. Inch by inch……. Poko Moko.
GT on November 18, 2007 at 10:17 AM
I hear you on the cases…I would hope there would be a difference, but I fear the courts won’t see it that way.
Look these parents are desperate, and if done properly, this could be a huge deterrent, and I’m all for that. Too many other factors come into play here though…Why can’t the parents go through the home and be given a chance to turn in weapons to the cops? I wasn’t as concerned with the drug factor as I was with the fact that some of these weapons could have been used in a crime..they are the ’smoking gun” that the cops need…
Pam on November 18, 2007 at 10:34 AM
And parents are also legally liable for their children’s actions if they are under the age of 18, in most states (I’m sure it varies in one degree or another from state to state).
eanax on November 18, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Ah, so they ask around to find out who people think are the ones shooting people, then confiscate the gun, which then turns out to match the bullets they pulled out of someone. Then they can arrest the “youth”. Label it a community outreach program.
Clever.
MamaAJ on November 18, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Oh yeah, that’s how American routinely works. The gov’t, Bushhitler, Cheney etc. trying to frame your kid. Happens every day to innocent Americans since we’re such a fascist racist police state.
YOU fix the prob. Take your Lib-victim whining and shove it.
JiangxiDad on November 18, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Oh yeah, we better not infringe on anyone’s rights and leave the guns in he hands of the gangbangers and thugs – real good idea. And we better take the guns off of legal owners, like Rudy wants to do, then only the thugs will have guns because they’re the only ones with rights. People that own guns legally don’t have rights to own any more, so it would be if the democ-rats have their way. It’s easier to handle law abiders than criminals any day. Look, the Police just want to get the guns off the strreet. You would think the parents and guardians in the projects and ghettos would want to rid their neighborhood of guns because those guns are killing THEIR people, not people in upper scale neighborhoods. The authorities are trying anything to stem the flow of blood. If it gets shot down by the courts and public outcry, so be it. Then the bloodshed continues.
countywolf on November 18, 2007 at 11:24 AM
I’m going to guess that no one posting the above comments is a single mother with a gang banging son bigger than she is.
When I first read the story, I was thinking, why on earth wouldn’t the parents just tell the cops to go away, and take the gun from their kid themselves. But a lot of parents are probobly afraid of their children, especially if those kids are doing drugs, or in a gang, or walking around with firearms.
If the parents ask the police to come in, I don’t see a problem.
BadgerHawk on November 18, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Shall we talk abortion? Abortion is not up to a parent..it opened the door and successfully challenged your claim.
Pam on November 18, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Case in point.
BadgerHawk on November 18, 2007 at 11:50 AM
The article states that they will not go after open cases, because they don’t want to risk the case.
Even still, I don’t get the problem here. If this program catches murderers, I really wouldn’t care.
You don’t get probable cause just because someone refuses to allow their home to be searched.
No judge could sign off on that without more of a reason.
Esthier on November 18, 2007 at 12:03 PM
That’s a state issue. Many states do not allow parental consent to be skipped.
Esthier on November 18, 2007 at 12:15 PM
A child cannot own a hand gun, so he has no right to have one in his possession.
Having said that, this is a BS idea. If the parents can’t control their kids, why is it the cops responsibility? It would be nice if crime prevention was the goal, because if it was, the parents would already be taking care of this.
Perhaps this will have a positive effect just as a subject of discussion? I can’t imagine a huge amount of parents being so ignorant that this would be a surprise to them. The rest just don’t care that their kids have guns and this wont be viewed as help, but as the first step towards a fascist state. Thus, the purpose is lost.
I guess those who refuse to get involved with their kids, should have no excuse they can use in court to mitigate the punishment the child will receive when he/she gets caught with a gun. That seems fair to me.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »