Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime

[measl at mfn.org]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:

> >Wrong headed or not, LEOs are manufactured out of human beings, and
> >because of this, the spend a considerable amount of time in the Maggot
> >Academy (tm) being taught the fine points of this very issue.  In fact,
> 
> 	No, they don't. Spoke with an officer this evening about it. 
> 
> 	The cover (at least the academy he went to here in SillyCon
> valley) 4 amendment issues, and only from the practical standpoint,
> not the philosphical standpoint, and mostly was "scenario" based.

That explains a lot about the California SS.  Down in the United States,
or at least in the few areas I have personal knowledge of, New York (City
PD and State Trooper) and New Mexico, there is a great deal of
constitutional education.  This education is seen as necessary to
"properly" interpret *when* (not if, sadly enough) an LEO may take certain
actions.

> 
> >a great majority of an LEO's "education" time is spent instructing them on
> >how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected
> >{speech, action}.  If they did not use this "ability", they would have to
> >arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
> 
> 	KNo, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or
knew) committed an act that violated the law. 

You are confusing "civilians" and LEOs.  Only civilians are held to the
personal knowledge standard.  Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity
models.
 
> 	Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get
> involved in constitutional issues.

If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of
you with a clueclub.  By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all
issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...

> >And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you
> >will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a
> >ruling.  Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in
> >Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
> 
> 	Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in
> New Orleans IIRC).
> 
> 
> >> 	Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the 
> >> power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't "infringe"
> >> on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they?
> >> What are the limits of that particular clause? 
> >
> >Virtually the entire 2A ablating federal infrastructure is based on a
> >truly scary "finding" that *any* firearm is the product of Intertate
> >Commerce, regardless if it has been out of the state in which it was
> 
> 	Well, no. Only about 1/2 of the ablating. The other half is
> Congresses power to tax. (At the federal level a good number of
> firearms cases are on charges of failing to file and or pay the class
> 2 or 3 weapons tax stamp).

Please document this assertion.  1/2 is just plain *wrong*.  The tax
issues are restrictive, but not ablating, i.e., if you can afford the tax,
then, *in theory*, you have no problem.   I am talking about totally [2A]
destructive laws, such as felons losing their RIGHT to ownership of
firearms, civilians losing their RIGHT to own "assault
weapons" (interesting note: it is still legal to collect missiles, but not
certain types of rifles - the idiocy continues).


 > > > > >> 	Further
more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement? > >
> >Als at the risk of going Choation, what part of "Shall not be
> >infringed" don't you understand?
> 
> 	I understand "shall not", it's the "infringed" I'm asking about. 
> 
> 	Is it *really* an infringement on your rights to require
> firearms manufacturers to meet reasonable standards of functioning?

Yes.  Period.

> 	Whether the free market can provide this or not is orthagonal to
> the question.

No it is not: it is directly on point.  There is NO constituional basis
for the government to be able to regulate firearms.  Period.  Whether for
"good", "bad", or indifferent.  There is a very clear constitutional
mandate that any and all firearms be available to "the people" -
period.  Any infringement, even if it is "for my own good" is
unconstituional on it's face.

 > > > >> Let's get even finer. > >> 
> >> 	Do you *really* want your local beat cop to be making decisions 
> >> on what does and doesn't fall into "protected speech" (or even whether 
> >> there is a distinction there to be made?) 
> >See above: it is by definition unavoidable.
> 
> 	There are a lot of things that in a society are unavoidable. The
> question is whether those things should be encouraged or discouraged.
> 
> 	My contention is that encouraging a LEO to decide for himself
> whether a law is constitutional or not is both wrong, and counter
> productive.

Again, returning to the oath of office taken by LEOs: their FIRST
responsibility is to defend the CONSTITUTION.  Not to follow orders.  You
want mindless droids enforcing laws, you get the kind of defacto police
state we are living in now.  You *should* be looking for THINKING *humans*
to be filling this position.

> >> It's happened in Chicago, and worse (see below). 
> >> 
> >> 	There are at least 3 states a law can be in vis-a-vis 
> >> constitutionality: 
> >> 	
> >> 	(1) Adjudged unconstitutional.
> >> 	(2) Adjudged constitutional.
> >> 	(3) Not adjudged relative to it's constitutionality. 
> >
> >Irrelevent.  We are not discussing abstract legal theory, we are
> >discussing factual implementation.
> 
> 	Factual implementation, outside of dot-coms, should descend from
> theory.

This is a nice academic pretence, but you are now dealing with The Real
World (tm).  Things like the abstract "Reasonable Man" and "Common Good",
and the thousands of other interjections you could assert here, simply do
not apply.  Save this shit for Philosophy Club.

--
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
sysadmin at mfn.org

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...
--------------------------------------------------------------------