DC wants residents to waive 4A rights and let police search their homes for guns

[billamj]

Here's what concerns me about this oppressive scheme:

What if, when the guv'ment comes knocking, you refuse to allow them to violate your 4th amendment rights. Can they use your refusal as probable cause to then search your house anyway?

After all, they're just the "good government" doing their duty to keep everyone safe.... yecch.

If they can find the right judge, and I would think that would be pretty easy in some of our larger cities, they would definitely be able to make the case for probable cause. Most states, and all federal, judges are not voted on by the people and there is little to no repercussions(sp?) for bad judgment on that level. That being the case, and seeing the numbers that are/have been seated that didn't deserve it in the least, your concerns are very highly deserved.

ETA: Pennsylvania is one of the few states where people do get the chance to vote on judges, but how many of us bother to learn of their record(s) before voting?

[LittleRedToyota]

If they can find the right judge, and I would think that would be pretty easy in some of our larger cities, they would definitely be able to make the case for probable cause.

i gotta disagree with that. maybe....mayyyyybbeeee....at the very lowest level in the most corrupt town in the country they might find a judge who says that the police can randomly ask for permission to come into your home and then treat you saying "No" as PC.

but there is no way in heck that would fly on appeal. that would completely invalidate the 4th amendment and anyone with even a tiny little bit of understanding of our legal system understands that...and knows that it would not fly on appeal. judges typically do not like to be overturned. i just really don't see any judge allowing that to stand.

this country is in bad shape, but we aren't quite in that bad of shape....yet.

[ChamberedRound]

but there is no way in heck that would fly on appeal. that would completely invalidate the 4th amendment and anyone with even a tiny little bit of understanding of our legal system understands that...and knows that it would not fly on appeal.

Agreed, but by the time anyone has a chance to appeal, the DC government will have already performed an unconstitutional, invasive, city-wide search unchecked. Just like what happened in New Orleans during Katrina. The government took it upon themselves to violate the 2nd Amendment and disarm the populace. Sure, they lost in court and they're facing civil suits. But the end result is that the same politicians are still in office, the same LEOs still have their jobs, and those that were unconstitutionally disarmed still don't have their weapons back, and likely never will. Appeals are all well and good, and an important part of the legal process, but I'd rather such actions be prevented in the first place.

This idea DC is concocting is just plain wrong. It goes against some of the basic principles that this country was founded on, and seems like nothing more than the DC government trying to justify the confiscation of weapons before the DC v Heller SCotUS case which could potentially rule such actions illegal. After all, if DC v Heller is upheld, then possession of weapons in DC is legal, so what's the point of a search?

[headcase]

In Texas, if they do, you can shoot'em

[mikepro8]

Here's what concerns me about this oppressive scheme:

What if, when the guv'ment comes knocking, you refuse to allow them to violate your 4th amendment rights. Can they use your refusal as probable cause to then search your house anyway?

After all, they're just the "good government" doing their duty to keep everyone safe.... yecch.

Just the fact you deny entry SHOULD NOT be enough PC for a search warrant, legally anyway. I certainly cannot cite specific cases, but have had it drilled into my head over the years. They need separate coroborating evidence.

[LittleRedToyota]

Agreed, but by the time anyone has a chance to appeal, the DC government will have already performed an unconstitutional, invasive, city-wide search unchecked. Just like what happened in New Orleans during Katrina. The government took it upon themselves to violate the 2nd Amendment and disarm the populace. Sure, they lost in court and they're facing civil suits. But the end result is that the same politicians are still in office, the same LEOs still have their jobs, and those that were unconstitutionally disarmed still don't have their weapons back, and likely never will. Appeals are all well and good, and an important part of the legal process, but I'd rather such actions be prevented in the first place.

the difference between what DC is proposing and katrina, though, is that DC is not proposing to enter any homes or confiscate any weapons without voluntary co-operation of their "victims"

now, i have no doubt that they will bully the people and some of those people will cave in and let the police come in even though they don't really want them to...which is why i really do think it would be awesome if a group of lawyers got together and followed the police around informing everyone they contacted that they absolutely do not have to allow the police in...no matter how much they bully them with the old "if you have nothing to hide..." crap.

but, while it does disgust me that any part of our government would want to do what the DC police are proposing to do, it is not illegal or unconstitutional. (even though, as you have pointed out, it certainly is out of line with what this country is supposed to stand for.)

[ChamberedRound]

but, while it does disgust me that any part of our government would want to do what the DC police are proposing to do, it is not illegal or unconstitutional. (even though, as you have pointed out, it certainly is out of line with what this country is supposed to stand for.)

It's only legal and constitutional if they don't violate anyone's 4th Amendment rights. Call me a cynic, but IMHO it's highly unlikely in a city a large as DC that searching EVERY home isn't going to result in at least one violation. I'd be surprised if the DA isn't cautioning the police on this course of action simply on the risk of liability.

And while I agree that those citizens who are foolish enough to consent to a search of their home deserve what they get, the fear-mongering that's going to precede these Gestapo tactics will result in some people being coerced by fear to comply. While that may be legal, it's far from ethical, and American.

[LittleRedToyota]

It's only legal and constitutional if they don't violate anyone's 4th Amendment rights. Call me a cynic, but IMHO it's highly unlikely in a city a large as DC that searching EVERY home isn't going to result in at least one violation.

yeah, but, if the homeowner gives the police permission to enter the home, there is no 4th amendment violation.

if they enter a home without permission, then, yes it is a 4th amdndment violation...but also that is outside of the scope of the program they are proposing. so, it would not be that what they are proposing is a violation of the 4th amendment, but rather that they did not stick to what they are proposing.

And while I agree that those citizens who are foolish enough to consent to a search of their home deserve what they get, the fear-mongering that's going to precede these Gestapo tactics will result in some people being coerced by fear to comply. While that may be legal, it's far from ethical, and American.

i agree completely.

[rev214]

Congrats to Chief Cathy L. Lanier...
"for offering amnesty to people who allow police to search their homes without a warrant",
YOU ARE The Washington Times' KNAVE OF THE WEEK.

As part of her three-pronged "Safe Homes Initiative," Chief Lanier announced this week that officers will go door-to-door to ask residents to search their homes for guns. As incentive, residents will be offered amnesty from arrest for any illegal contraband found in their homes. Any collected guns shown to have been used in a crime are exempt from the amnesty. The goal, of course, is to get guns off the streets, but the consequence is a blurring of our civil liberties.

D.C. law already infringes on the Second Amendment by outlawing handgun ownership. Now it's taking on the Fourth Amendment, which addresses search-and-seizure rights.

Simply put, this new gun-amnesty initiative is horrible policy. It is slated to begin later this month, but the mayor should tell the chief to hold off. After all, the city already has a gun-amnesty program, and it foolishly forces all D.C. taxpayers to buy into it.

Let's see ... the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment ...

For trying to trash the Constitution, Chief Lanier is the Knave of the Week.

[Montanya]

Have we not learned by now? Our "officials" will do whatever they can GET AWAY WITH. We need groups in DC distributing flyers and doing their own door to door with information on refusing the searches, so that when the po-po show up at their door people will realize they have a choice and refuse to allow the search. As it sits right now, most people would just allow them in.

My wife is very smart and very law abiding, but not as involved or up on her rights. I watched the video about dealing with the police and your rights as far as searches and I told her, you realize that if the police come here without a warrant you are not to let them in right? (cause the video goes into others giving concent to search your place if they are the ones answering the door) and she says "Well if they want to come in and I am not doing anything wrong..." I had to stop her and say, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you know you don't let them in. If they ASK to come in, you say NO. If they have probable cause, they aren't going to ask permission.

So I think alot of people would just let them in to search without a 2nd thought. People in DC are so used to having zero rights they won't bat an eye.