What is everyone working on now that its cold and windy?

The simplest way to secure your home is to never let a government employee inside.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

And then they wouldn't be stopping everyone; only those vehicles matching the description.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Why, no, Bob, because you're comparing apples and oranges. Doing searches of houses would be searching PRIVATE property. Doing searchs of cars on PUBLIC roads SOLELY to determine levels of intoxication is entirely different.

If you'd like to compare apples to apples, there ARE laws on the books that prevent gang members from congregrating together in PUBLIC places, and they are subject to search, fingerprinting, etc., if that occurs.

That would then get into a discussion of 'lawful assembly', and we then get into the discussion of 'reasonable' once again. I find it REASONABLE that were a group of people have assembled and many of them have a record of committing crimes to search them when in public (and, in fact, if they are in the system it is part of their parole or probation). I would find it UNREASONABLE if a group of kids gathered at the park to play basketball and were being harassed.

David Erbas-White

Cars are themselves private property.

Veering even farther OT, I'd be interested in comments on something that happened to a relative in CA a few years ago.

He'd had some drinks, and a fight with his wife. He went out to the car (presumably to get some peace) and fell asleep. Was rousted (knocking on car window with nightstick) by some passing officers, who arrested him for drunk driving. He was convicted and locked up for 30 days, despite the fact that all concerned (wife included) agreed he never started or moved the car, or ever intended to.

The had been no prior (or were there subsequent) incidents.

Supposedly the contention was that his presence in a car while inebriated constituted sufficent proof he intended to drive while drunk.

in my mind, this sets off all kind of alarm bells...

Most places you need a permit to excercise that right. The permit has to be applied for in advance, paid for, and may be denied if "someone" thinks your group "might cause trouble."

Sort of like the right to bear arms. All you need is a permit. When I owned a retail store in NJ, I regularly carried bank deposits through a block or so of some of the most crime-ridden streets in the state - which is saying something.

Despite a clear need, zero police record, and generally being a well-known and respected member of the business community, 10 years of trying for a handgun permit came to naught.

So in other words, no rights at all.

Trying to pass laws to PREVENT bad things from happening is a suckers game. There's no limit to the "dangerous" activity which will eventually be forbidden. Jump on miscreants with both feet after the fact, but PLEASE stop trying to make me safe.

You have to belomg to the Mafia to get a permit in Jersey or NY..(:-)

Was the car parked in the street or the driveway?

David Erbas-White wrote in news:ojUFd.640$0B.369@fed1read02:

Uh,the cars ARE private property;the 4th specifically includes a person's EFFECTS in the prohibition of illegal searches.A car would be no different than one's house.Note that the USSC requires warrants to search one's car,even after a traffic stop,UNLESS the officer has PC,by observing something illegal,like one's alcoholic breath,or seeing a firearm,drugs,a tied-up kidnap victim.

Unconstitutional;violates the 1st's right to peaceably assemble.

HOW does one know if they have records? (right to privacy,right to be

But if they were gang members together to play BB,it would be "reasonable" to search them,fingerprint them? (How does one know if they are on parole or probation?)

Not really;no crime was committed,no probable cause,just *suspicion*. Suppose -you- come under such *suspicion*???? Care for a cavity search? One might suspect you are hiding something illegal there.How's that feel?

That's the entire basis behind the Bill of Rights;to restrict gov't abuse of their powers.The concept being that governments tend to abuse their powers,they go past limits unless restricted.

You would allow those abuses,it seems.

Scott Schuckert wrote in news:140120051706190261% snipped-for-privacy@aol.com:

That is what the "well-meaning" or gullible have allowed to happen.

When we need government permission to exercise any right,it's no longer a right,it's a privelege,and can be denied by gov't. (the power to permit is also the power to NOT permit)

So thejudge and aresting officer all agreed that he never started or moved the car, but they convicted him anyway?!

Generally, if you are seen leaving a bar or party with car keys in your hand, that is enough for a DUI arrest. It aint right, but it happens.

The Mardex booth not only allows you to deny entry, but traps them untill you rease them, e.g to the authorities.

I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect the latter - as he had ample space in the driveway and I'd never once seen him park in the street. It WOULD make a difference, wouldn't it - as one is public property and one is not.

Either way, being arrested and convicted for something (no matter how dangerous) the authorities think you MIGHT have done (but are sure you did not) CAN'T be constitutional.

Bingo!

As long as they remain peaceful, you are correct.

Unless you are protesting the Bush administration within a mile of the republican convention or within a mile of the white house or any other "sensitive" location.

Clearly our own government regularly violates the highest law of the land with impunity. Those doing so should go to jail. Do not pass GO...

If they are convicted felons out on parole, and the terms of their parole include not associating with ... then you can stop them from congregating. But to stop people in general when they have not violated the law is uncosntitutional.

Let's just round up the usual suspects...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Agreed. Something is VERY wrong in the PRK. Which we already knew...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Thanks to "mission creep" most of the rights declared by our founding fathers are gone. It's time to start all over again. Probably something that needs to be done every couple hundred years anyway.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Bob K wrote:

Well, do you expect everyone to take _everything_ Jerry says at face value without getting a second opinion??

Well, it's about the only thing Jerry has said that you _haven't_ vehemently disagreed with... I suspect that's as close to a "yes" as we're going to get out of you! :)

-dave w