US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
The great American experiment finally fizzled on December 1, 2003, when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a 9th Federal Circuit decision which gutted the Second Amendment. It was a nice run - over two hundred years. As of December 1, 2003, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to hear an appeal in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer. That made Silveira the law of the land, you see. You might think that the Silveria case was about the definition of an b assault weaponb but youbd be mistaken. In Silveira, the 9th Circuit Court made the following pronouncement: there is no individual right to bear arms contained within the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental right to possess a firearm. http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/arms.htm http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/silveira.asp Gun enthusiasts (especially those who are members of the National Rifle Association http://www.nra.org and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org) may have now reached a crossroads. They have spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying politicians and the public to support their view that in the US the right to own firearms is granted to individuals and not state militias (a view I completely support). But now, with the Supreme Court refusing to hear their appeal of the 9th Circuit decision in Silveira v. Lockyer, they are faced with the likelihood that Congress and state leglislatures will feel free to further restrict gun ownership, perhaps even eliminate it over time, as has happened in other countries. Further appeals to Congress and the states are no longer a sure bet. The soap box and the ballot box have been throughly tried, is it now time to get out the ammo box?
At 08:59 AM 1/8/2004, Nostradumbass@SAFe-mail.net wrote:
The great American experiment finally fizzled on December 1, 2003, when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a 9th Federal Circuit decision which gutted the Second Amendment. It was a nice run - over two hundred years.
As of December 1, 2003, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to hear an appeal in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer. That made Silveira the law of the land, you see.
No, that's absolutely incorrect. Every conclusion you reach which depends on that flawed premise is suspect.
Further appeals to Congress and the states are no longer a sure bet. The soap box and the ballot box have been throughly tried, is it now time to get out the ammo box?
You're forgetting the jury box. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@parrhesia.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9-Jan-04, at 8:37 PM, Greg Broiles wrote:
Further appeals to Congress and the states are no longer a sure bet. The soap box and the ballot box have been throughly tried, is it now time to get out the ammo box?
You're forgetting the jury box.
no he is not... It's is a rather limited thinking. The USSR as well as several other countries came down when the masses went on the street. No guns necessary. - -- Michael "What fun is it? Why all that hard, exhausting work? Where does it get you? Where's the good of it? It is one of the strange ironies of this strange life that those who work the hardest, who subject themselves to the strictest discipline, who give up certain pleasurable things in order to achieve a goal, are the happiest..." - --Brutus Hamilton, Coach of Olympic Track Team, 1952 Helsinki Olympics -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP/9tcmlCnxcrW2uuEQK5xACfQPCJhRV5OjbM0zwcW0e0isN9swkAn1AN Ea4UCDapxyfN8JR3gqXILjWk =BIgz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Greg Broiles wrote:
At 08:59 AM 1/8/2004, Nostradumbass@SAFe-mail.net wrote:
The great American experiment finally fizzled on December 1, 2003, when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a 9th Federal Circuit decision which gutted the Second Amendment. It was a nice run - over two hundred years.
As of December 1, 2003, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to hear an appeal in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer. That made Silveira the law of the land, you see.
No, that's absolutely incorrect. Every conclusion you reach which depends on that flawed premise is suspect.
Further appeals to Congress and the states are no longer a sure bet. The soap box and the ballot box have been throughly tried, is it now time to get out the ammo box?
You're forgetting the jury box.
What good is a Jury when the "judge" can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case?
-- Greg Broiles gbroiles@parrhesia.com
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote:
What good is a Jury when the "judge" can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case?
I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors thinking for themselves, you know.
At 06:53 PM 1/10/2004, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote:
What good is a Jury when the "judge" can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case?
I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors thinking for themselves, you know.
Did you carry and present ID? steve
On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 06:53 PM 1/10/2004, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote:
What good is a Jury when the "judge" can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case?
I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors thinking for themselves, you know.
Did you carry and present ID?
steve
I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. When I was surrounded by some cops who accused me of planting a bomb to blow up Reichsminister Clinton and his family, I refuse to "show them some ID." I also refused to let them look in my bag. Despite their bluster, they had no grounds for their belief, no grounds for a Terry stop search of my papers, and no grounds to arrest me. So they neither searched my papers forcibly nor arrested me. They did, however, order me to leave the grounds of Stanford University, almost making me late for a talk before Margaret Rader's cyberspace law class, scheduled long, long before the First Fascist scheduled _his_ trip to Stanford. --Tim May
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote:
I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery.
Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime. I'm not aware of any laws that specifically require a person to actually carry ID, but when I was stopped in NV several years ago, walking back to my home from a nearby grocery store at about 3am, supposedly because a 7-11 nearby had just been robbed, I was told that if I did not present a valid state ID I would be arrested, taken to the precinct HQ, fingerprinted, and held until I could be positively ID'd. The constitutionality of these laws are being challenged. In Hiibel vs. NV, Hiibel refused 11 times to identify himself to police before he was arrested (illegal under NV statute). The NV Supreme Court has upheld the law, with a few dissents: "The dissent then pointed out that the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court not only upholds the right to refuse to provide identification to an officer before arrest, but has specifically found Nev. Rev. Stat. B' 171.123(3) unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The dissent opinion criticized the majority for "reflexively reasoning that the public interest in police safety outweighs Hiibel's interest in refusing to identify himself," noting that no evidence exists that an officer is safer for knowing a person's identity. "What the majority fails to recognize," the dissenting opinion continued, "is that it is the observable conduct, not the identity, of a person, upon which an officer must legally rely when investigating crimes and enforcing the law." The US Supreme Court has agreed to review and is scheduled to hear arguments this year. http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html --bgt
On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote:
I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery.
Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime.
Duh. Yes, "arrests" are allowed, and have been in all states and in all territories since the beginning of things. The alternative to what you say is that all would remain free until their actual conviction and sentencing.
I'm not aware of any laws that specifically require a person to actually carry ID, but when I was stopped in NV several years ago, walking back to my home from a nearby grocery store at about 3am, supposedly because a 7-11 nearby had just been robbed, I was told that if I did not present a valid state ID I would be arrested, taken to the precinct HQ, fingerprinted, and held until I could be positively ID'd.
There are driver's licenses, for driving. And there are passports, for entering the U.S. (and other countries, but we don't care about that issue here). Those neither driving nor attempting to enter the U.S. need carry no such pieces of documentation. There is no "national ID," nor even "state ID." Period. Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. --Tim May "As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later convinces himself." -- David Friedman
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 02:07, Tim May wrote:
Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego.
Tim is referring to Edward Lawson, arrested repeatedly and convicted once in the late 1970s for walking around without ID. The appeal made it to the Supreme Court, as Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983). Lawson's conviction was overturned on grounds that the "identify yourself" law was too vague. Not surprisingly, Justice "Actual Innocence" Rehnquist felt that the law was good and Lawson's conviction was righteous. The opinion, with some introductory material, can be found at http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html A web page discussing this case in relation to a national ID card is http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/page5.htm
On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:33 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 02:07, Tim May wrote:
Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego.
Tim is referring to Edward Lawson, arrested repeatedly and convicted once in the late 1970s for walking around without ID. The appeal made it to the Supreme Court, as Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983). Lawson's conviction was overturned on grounds that the "identify yourself" law was too vague. Not surprisingly, Justice "Actual Innocence" Rehnquist felt that the law was good and Lawson's conviction was righteous.
The opinion, with some introductory material, can be found at http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html
A web page discussing this case in relation to a national ID card is http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/page5.htm
And vast amounts of misinformation are constantly being spread by the popular press, and in popular television shows, and in movies. One of the most popular t.v. shows, the oxymoronically named "Law and Order," almost weekly shows someone being told that if he doesn't help the police his restaurant will be shut down for a week while city health inspectors use a microscope on it. Another meme that is false is spread by "NYPD Blue," "Law and Order," and the Fox show that used to be on: "Cops" (not sure if it still is). Namely, that Fifth Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination only apply after an actual arrest ("You haven't been arrested yet, so let's not hear about how you can remain silent."), or after an attorney has arrived ("He lawyered up.") The right not to be compelled to provide potentially incriminating evidence is a broad one, deeply enmeshed in our Bill of Rights. Even someone suspected of a crime, even a very serious crime, is under no compulsion to "talk to the police," whether or not he has a lawyer present. There are regrettable exceptions, such as in our "pre-constitutional" (my view of it) grand jury system, where people can be told to tell all they know. Sometimes they get various types of immunity, often the claim is that their grand jury testimony will not be used to convict them (if they not ostensibly the principals in the crime!), and so on. But the fact is that grand jury testimony is often compelled self-incrimination. (And one of the ways the Feds have been getting people they can't get in other, more direct, ways is to interview parties in a case and then find some subtle contradiction. Then the charge is "lying to a federal employee" (or somesuch...maybe the language is "lying in an official investigation," to distinguish it from lying to your neighbor the GS-12 midlevel employee at NASA). What I've done in several cases where I was stopped by cops is to SAY NOTHING. In the Stanford case, I told them I would not be giving them either my name or telling them what my business was that day at Stanford: it was not their business and I saw no reason to satisfy their curiosity. In a couple of cases in Santa Cruz, cops have asked me my name and asked why i was in a particular area. I told them I would be answering no questions. In none of these cases was I arrested, booked, or charged. I would, and have, answer questions if I knew there was no conceivable way I could become a "person of interest" in a case. I have answered police questions in some crimes I have had knowledge of (and wished to see the guilty parties dealt with...I would not lightly aid in a drug case, though. And if one is committing no crime, answering a nosy cop's questions is neither required by my reading of the Constitution nor is healthy. (In the Stanford case, had I given them my name and/or ID, my name would have appeared in a report about "threats to the President, and our resolution of the case"--the SS version of quotas for traffic tickets. (When one cop blurted out to me that he had seen me planting a bomb near the route Clinton would pass by, I _was_ tempted to say "I demand a lawyer!," just so they'd arrest me, etc. But I didn't, which is probably good, as I might have spent a few nights in jail...and felt the requirement to stalk the arresting officers and use a sniper rifle on one or more of them.) We are certainly entering a police state era. Interesting that so many Jews are so strongly behind the fascist measures...Jews like Swinestein, Boxer, Lieberman, and hundreds of others. But, as in the ZOG state, the true heirs of the Third Reich are today's Jews...it would make a good "Outer Limits" episode, except the modern OL was thoroughly leftist, anti-gun, pro-ZOG, and had several episodes involving SS camp guards reincarnated as camp residents, and variations. So having the SS reincarnated in the ZOG state would not have fit their Zionist biases. What the Jews think of Goyim is covered in the quotes from the Talmud, below. --Tim May #1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal." #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." #3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age." #4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed." #5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals." #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean." #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:07, Tim May wrote:
On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote:
I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery.
Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime.
Duh. Yes, "arrests" are allowed, and have been in all states and in all
Perhaps I wasn't very clear. That is (in many states, probably not all), a cop may stop (detain) someone on "reasonable suspicion", but it would still be illegal to arrest the person (since this would require "probably cause"). In these states, at this point the person is required by law to identify himself, and in some states even to provide proof of identification. If the person cannot or will not do this, it is legal in those states (though as we know, blatantly unconstitutional) to further detain or even arrest the person until their identity can be determined. Nevada's version of this has been ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit and the case is still pending in the US Supreme Court.
need carry no such pieces of documentation. There is no "national ID," nor even "state ID."
Period.
You must mean /mandatory/ "state ID". Every state I've lived in have State ID's that are (voluntarily) issued to residents that can't get or don't want a driver's license. All of these states grant their ID the same status as a driver's license for identification purposes (anywhere that accepts driver's license as valid ID must also accept the state ID).
Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego.
(Thanks Steve for the links). The Lawson case appears to be another example of the Supreme Court abdicating their responsibilities. There were no fourth amendment objections to CA's law in their decision. The Court said the law was unconstitutional because it was not specific enough, leaving too much discretion to the cop about what satisfies the identification requirement, when of course they should have ruled that the identification requirement itself is unconstitutional. There were no real objections to the principle behind the law, which is a damn shame. The closest I could find was in the dissent: "Of course, if the statute on its face violates the Fourth or Fifth Amendment--and I express no views about that question--the Court would be justified in striking it down. But the majority apparently cannot bring itself to take this course." --bgt
On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:40 AM, bgt wrote:
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:07, Tim May wrote:
On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote:
I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery.
Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime.
Duh. Yes, "arrests" are allowed, and have been in all states and in all
Perhaps I wasn't very clear. That is (in many states, probably not all), a cop may stop (detain) someone on "reasonable suspicion", but it would still be illegal to arrest the person (since this would require "probably cause").
This has come up various times on the Net. I'm not a lawyer, but I take "arrest" to mean "not free to move on." As in a state of arrest (cognate to rest), arrested motion, arrested development. Hence the common question: "Am I under arrest?," with the follow-up: "If not, then I'll be on my way." Arrest is not the same thing as being booked, of course. Many who are arrested are never booked. Arrest, to this nonlawyer, is when a cop tells me I am not free to move as I wish, that he will handcuff me or worse if I try to move away from him. I expect our millions of lawyers and hundreds of billions of court hours have produced a range of definitions, from "the cop wants to know why you're reading a particular magazine, and will cuff you if you give him any lip" to "all black men within a 5 block radius are being detained for questioning, but are not under formal arrest" to "you're under arrest, put your hands behind your back" to shooting first and Mirandizing the corpse. I am under arrest if I am in an arrested state of movement, that is, not free to move as I wish.
In these states, at this point the person is required by law to identify himself, and in some states even to provide proof of identification. If the person cannot or will not do this, it is legal in those states (though as we know, blatantly unconstitutional) to further detain or even arrest the person until their identity can be determined.
Again, people need to read up on the Lawson case. And absent an internal travel passport, there is no requirement to carry ID. That some states haven't heard about the Lawson case, or the Fourth Amendment, is no excuse.
You must mean /mandatory/ "state ID". Every state I've lived in have State ID's that are (voluntarily) issued to residents that can't get or don't want a driver's license. All of these states grant their ID the same status as a driver's license for identification purposes (anywhere that accepts driver's license as valid ID must also accept the state ID).
As I said, there is no requirement to carry ID except when doing certain things (like driving). Whether some or most states will issue licenses to those who don't or can't drive is irrelevant: they are not REQUIRED to be carried, so not having one cannot possibly be a crime.
Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego.
(Thanks Steve for the links).
I provided "Lawson" and "San Diego." Plenty of stuff to find hundreds of discussions. I favor giving unique information sufficient in a Google search, not providing pre-digested search URLs. --Tim May "We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter- day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability." --George H. W. Bush, "A World Transformed", 1998
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 14:18, Steve Schear wrote:
Did you carry and present ID?
No. Once it was requested (strongly requested, just short of a demand with threats), but when I demanded his justification he backed down. In NY, at least at the time, citizens were not required to carry or present ID, nor identify themselves on demand without cause. I believe that is no longer the case.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 14:18, Steve Schear wrote:
Did you carry and present ID?
No. Once it was requested (strongly requested, just short of a demand with threats), but when I demanded his justification he backed down. In NY, at least at the time, citizens were not required to carry or present ID, nor identify themselves on demand without cause. I believe that is no longer the case.
Correct. A client/friend recently spent 9 hours in jail for failure to carry a wallet. He was doing something mildly suspicious, but not illegal. NYC has a very entrenched industry dealing with "processing" people the cops pick up. This has only gotten worse since Bloomberg and his "quality of life" racket. Breathing Without ID is essentially a crime that costs a day of your life, not less than ~$200, and a lot of humiliation. I thought the San Francisco cops were bad, before I moved here. (My friend was even told by the cops what to expect, and how best to optimize for getting out quickly. Kafka would have trouble doing better.) There was a mildly publicized incident in another part of Brooklyn recently where someone was ticketed after their child's balloon popped in public. A noise infraction. Quality of live, indeed. "There are no quotas, but if you don't meet them, you're on report." I'd prefer a good old fashioned Mafia protection scheme. At least that would be straightforward. -j -- Jamie Lawrence jal@jal.org It it ain't broke, let me have a shot at it.
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Furlong wrote:
I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops.
Have you done this since 9/11? I know that in my [red]neck of the woods, I would without question be spending a few days in the system for this. Interestingly, the first nullification pamphlet I ever received was from a cop I know: he was also handing these out at one time (a loooonggg time ago). Not all LEAs are without clue, just the vast majority of them :-( -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
On Jan 11, 2004, at 4:45 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Furlong wrote:
I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops.
Have you done this since 9/11? I know that in my [red]neck of the woods, I would without question be spending a few days in the system for this.
That's what sniper rifles with low light scopes are for: kill one or both or all of the cops who arrested you in this way. Cops who abuse the criminal system and violate constitutional rights blatantly have earned killing. (A Remington 700 or Winchester 70 in .308 or .300 Savage, with something like a Leupold or Swarovski 7 x 40 scope, is very good for this kind of work. Safe shots from 200 meters away. (Yes, much longer shots are possible, but may miss. Do some practice at the range at 200 m to see what I mean.) The Beltway sniper took his shots at this range or closer.) Even easier in redneck, i.e., rural, regions, where most houses are near wooded areas. --Tim May Long Live Falun Gong! Death to the Chinese Communist Party! ****U R G E N T**** Crypto transmission failed...arms shipment to Shanghai delayed...will re-route through Hong Kong...nerve gas (VX) to follow soonest. Death to oppressors of Falun Gong! 2002FC 2bB,25B;bb bB+bbb B* B*b"bKN)C7B B1B1B.B1b!B:b b KbB?B1B1C&B)N)B4bCbObB.B,C7OB6B?B)bOB5N)bB?OK d8-e=d<e>e (g>e=i"e d8 f6g-f3h=.e f/e g>e=d::f d?!e% ge ee g+ e=d9 f ,h ig8f gc...d; e$)e fe$)e8d;f;g; i=e (e d:,h/e>e d8-e=gi"e/<d::h>>fe1h/ch?d9 f/d8 d8*e%=f :d<f %fif1 f3=f0d8;e8-e d;ge e?d;,o< h?+e.3e e93d?!d;0h?e (f/d8g' d;d;,i h&e (d8-e=f>e<gh! d8:c
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:26, Tim May wrote:
Have you done this since 9/11? I know that in my [red]neck of the woods, I would without question be spending a few days in the system for this.
That's what sniper rifles with low light scopes are for: kill one or both or all of the cops who arrested you in this way. Cops who abuse the criminal system and violate constitutional rights blatantly have earned killing.
This has probably been mentioned here before, but another interesting approach is what justicefiles.org used to do (I'm not sure what the status of the site is, it seems to be down now). They collected the names of police officers (particularly ones known to be abusive of their authority) in King County, WA and published that + all public information they could find on them (including SSN's, addresses, phone numbers, etc). Of course the police tried to take the site down but the court upheld the site's right to publish any publicly available information about the cops (I believe they excepted the SSN's). --bgt
On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:55 AM, bgt wrote:
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:26, Tim May wrote:
Have you done this since 9/11? I know that in my [red]neck of the woods, I would without question be spending a few days in the system for this.
That's what sniper rifles with low light scopes are for: kill one or both or all of the cops who arrested you in this way. Cops who abuse the criminal system and violate constitutional rights blatantly have earned killing.
This has probably been mentioned here before, but another interesting approach is what justicefiles.org used to do (I'm not sure what the status of the site is, it seems to be down now).
They collected the names of police officers (particularly ones known to be abusive of their authority) in King County, WA and published that + all public information they could find on them (including SSN's, addresses, phone numbers, etc).
Of course the police tried to take the site down but the court upheld the site's right to publish any publicly available information about the cops (I believe they excepted the SSN's).
The First Amendment is quite clear about prior restraint and censorship. Not only is it legal for "The Progressive" to publish details of how to make a hydrogen bomb, and for the "New York Times" to publish the Pentagon Papers, but it is legal to publish SS numbers when they become available. Now civil actions are another can of worms, and Bill Gates, for example, may sue somebody for publishing his SS number. Or I may sue the U.S. Marshal's Service for illegally using my SS number as a legal ID (which my SS card, still in my possession from when I got it in 1969) says is to be used for tax and Social Security purposes ONLY and MAY NOT be used for identifcation) and letting it circulate over the Net. But such civil suits--by Gates, by cops, by me--are NOT the same as prior restraint on publishing words. (Though of course this is only the _theory_. The fact that all of the Bill of Rights, except perhaps the Third, have been violated by the Evildoers in government is well-known.) --Tim May
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 15:48, Tim May wrote:
(Though of course this is only the _theory_. The fact that all of the Bill of Rights, except perhaps the Third, have been violated by the Evildoers in government is well-known.)
A few years ago I wrote a short paper looking at government-installed snoopware in terms of the 3rd A. Given that the other BoR amendments have been broadly interpreted in light of new technology, it's reasonable to view software as "soldiers". In light of the Scarfo case (keyboard sniffer software installed in a black-bag operation, ca. 1990) I'd argue that the Fedz have violated the 3rd A. (My paper was before Scarfo, so I claim some prescience. Alas.) SRF
On Jan 12, 2004, at 7:46 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 15:48, Tim May wrote:
(Though of course this is only the _theory_. The fact that all of the Bill of Rights, except perhaps the Third, have been violated by the Evildoers in government is well-known.)
A few years ago I wrote a short paper looking at government-installed snoopware in terms of the 3rd A. Given that the other BoR amendments have been broadly interpreted in light of new technology, it's reasonable to view software as "soldiers". In light of the Scarfo case (keyboard sniffer software installed in a black-bag operation, ca. 1990) I'd argue that the Fedz have violated the 3rd A. (My paper was before Scarfo, so I claim some prescience. Alas.)
During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops: < http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@algebra.com/msg03198.html> "The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied. "But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says "We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place," how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third?" This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. --Tim May
At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote:
During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops:
< http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@algebra.com/msg03198.html>
"The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied.
"But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says "We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place," how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third?"
This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995.
I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. steve
On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote:
During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops:
< http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@algebra.com/msg03198.html>
"The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied.
"But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says "We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place," how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third?"
This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995.
I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag.
In its purest form, I think not. If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has been told to "quarter troops," abstractly, in her home). If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may be the case), then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice then _chooses_ to buy such devices with "troops already living in them," abstractly speaking, is her choice. Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ is the one being affected by the quartering. The pure form of the Third (in this abstract sense) is when government knocks on one's door and says "Here is something you must put inside your house." By the way, there have been a bunch of cases where residents of a neighborhood were ordered to leave so that SWAT teams could be in their houses to monitor a nearby house where a hostage situation had developed. (It is possible that in each house they occupied they received uncoerced permission to occupy the houses, but I don't think this was always the case; however, I can't cite a concrete case of this. Maybe Lexis has one.) If this takeover of houses to launch a raid is not a "black letter law" case of the government quartering troops in residences, nothing is. Exigent circumstance, perhaps, but so was King George's need to quarter his troops. --Tim May ""Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." --Patrick Henry
At 10:48 AM 1/13/2004, Tim May wrote:
On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995.
I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag.
In its purest form, I think not.
If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has been told to "quarter troops," abstractly, in her home).
If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may be the case), then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice then _chooses_ to buy such devices with "troops already living in them," abstractly speaking, is her choice.
Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ is the one being affected by the quartering.
It would seem that once GNURadio comes to fruition that many devices, including those the FCC would like to regulate, could be built from its generic, non-video, architecture. In that case, wouldn't FCC mandates applied to end-users (since end users will be the only ones who will configure the SW, FW and HW for an application the FCC would like to regulate, be a 3rd Amend. issue? steve
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 12:48, Tim May wrote:
On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote:
"But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says "We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place," how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third?"
The pure form of the Third (in this abstract sense) is when government knocks on one's door and says "Here is something you must put inside your house."
For this to make sense, we have to interpret Soldier to mean not just agents of the armed forces (military), it has to mean law-enforcement as well. I can accept the idea of abstracting the Third beyond humans to software/hardware agents, etc... but I'm not so sure about the military vs. law enforcement distinction. Can anyone point me to some founder's writings that may help support the interpretation of Soldier to mean any agent of the government? Even if we did extend the Third to mean law-enforcement... since Congress has repeatedly ceded their authority to determine when the country was "in a time of war" to the Executive, and as such we are now in a perpetual time of war, any quartering has to be prescribed by law, rather than prohibited outright. For these reasons, I have to agree with Tim's earlier referenced post, to the effect of "the only solutions now available are Technology and Terrorism."
By the way, there have been a bunch of cases where residents of a neighborhood were ordered to leave so that SWAT teams could be in their houses to monitor a nearby house where a hostage situation had developed. (It is possible that in each house they occupied they received uncoerced permission to occupy the houses, but I don't think this was always the case; however, I can't cite a concrete case of this. Maybe Lexis has one.)
If this takeover of houses to launch a raid is not a "black letter law" case of the government quartering troops in residences, nothing is. Exigent circumstance, perhaps, but so was King George's need to quarter his troops.
I think someone in this case would have a much better argument for a Fourth amendment violation (unreasonable seizure of their home, albeit temporarily), though probably, today, still unsuccessful in a court. --bgt
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bgt wrote:
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 12:48, Tim May wrote:
On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote:
"But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says "We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place," how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third?"
The pure form of the Third (in this abstract sense) is when government knocks on one's door and says "Here is something you must put inside your house."
For this to make sense, we have to interpret Soldier to mean not just agents of the armed forces (military), it has to mean law-enforcement as well.
Indeed. I've never heard of the third interpreted this way. Doesn't mean much, just never heard it. Anyone have a reference?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:55:18PM -0600, bgt wrote:
This has probably been mentioned here before, but another interesting approach is what justicefiles.org used to do (I'm not sure what the status of the site is, it seems to be down now).
I believe the fellow who put up the site took it down in the last year, according to his lawyer, saying the purpose was served. I'm guessing he was probably tired of dealing with all the threats from cops as well. -Declan
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 10:59, Nostradumbass@SAFe-mail.net wrote:
That made Silveira the law of the land, you see. That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental right to possess a firearm.
Only in the 9th circuit. The 5th circuit (in 2001) has previously given an opinion in direct opposition to the 9th circuit's finding. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm "We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training." and "We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms..." and "In undertaking this analysis, we are mindful that almost all of our sister circuits have rejected any individual rights view of the Second Amendment. However, it respectfully appears to us that all or almost all of these opinions seem to have done so either on the erroneous assumption that Miller resolved that issue or without sufficient articulated examination of the history and text of the Second Amendment." So in the 5th circuit, the individual right to keep & bear arms is still explicitly recognized and upheld. The Supreme Court will eventually have to resolve this discrepancy amongst the lower courts, it's unclear what kind of case it will take to push them to it though, given their historical extreme reluctance to hear any 2nd amendment cases. And it's very dubious what the decision would be. --bgt
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 00:22, bgt wrote:
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 10:59, Nostradumbass@SAFe-mail.net wrote:
That made Silveira the law of the land, you see. That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental right to possess a firearm.
Only in the 9th circuit.
I should've said: only in the 9th circuit, in states that don't have a state constitutional provision regarding right to keep and bear arms. I believe the only state that falls in that category is CA. Every other state in the 9th circuit has a constitutional provision that is usually even more explicit than the 2nd ammendment. Most explicitly state the /individual/ has the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to "the people" which some courts have interpreted to mean "the state" or state-approved/regulated militias). For example, NV is typical: "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes." Article 1, Section 11, Paragraph 1. --bgt
participants (11)
-
bgt -
cubic-dog -
Declan McCullagh -
Greg Broiles -
J.A. Terranson -
Jamie Lawrence -
Michael Kalus -
Nostradumbass＠SAFe-mail.net -
Steve Furlong -
Steve Schear -
Tim May