Slashdot Mirror
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Gun Shows Using License Plate Readers
HughPickens.com writes According to a newly disclosed DEA email obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives collaborated on plans to monitor gun show attendees using automatic license plate readers. Responding to inquiries about the document, the DEA said that the monitoring of gun shows was merely a proposal and was never implemented. "The proposal in the email was only a suggestion. It was never authorized by DEA, and the idea under discussion in the email was never launched,'' says DEA administrator Michele Leonhart.
According to the Wall Street Journal the proposal shows the challenges and risks facing the U.S. as it looks to new, potentially intrusive surveillance technology to help stop criminals. Many of the government's recent efforts have scooped up data from innocent Americans, as well as those suspected of crimes, creating records that lawmakers and others say raise privacy concerns. "Automatic license plate readers must not be used to collect information on lawful activity — whether it be peacefully assembling for lawful purposes, or driving on the nation's highways," says the ACLU. "Without strong regulations and greater transparency, this new technology will only increase the threat of illegitimate government surveillance." National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam says the NRA is "looking into this to see if gun owners were improperly targeted, and has no further comment until we have all the facts."
According to the Wall Street Journal the proposal shows the challenges and risks facing the U.S. as it looks to new, potentially intrusive surveillance technology to help stop criminals. Many of the government's recent efforts have scooped up data from innocent Americans, as well as those suspected of crimes, creating records that lawmakers and others say raise privacy concerns. "Automatic license plate readers must not be used to collect information on lawful activity — whether it be peacefully assembling for lawful purposes, or driving on the nation's highways," says the ACLU. "Without strong regulations and greater transparency, this new technology will only increase the threat of illegitimate government surveillance." National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam says the NRA is "looking into this to see if gun owners were improperly targeted, and has no further comment until we have all the facts."
This story will probably get more attention than the CIA torture report. More attention than the NSA surveillance scandal. More attention than just about anything that actually _needs_ attention. Why? Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why. Despite having the security of a firearm they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again?
Since when does the government need a specific or legal reason? Guns have been taken for many reasons, and prohibited for many more.
Personally, I don't own a gun. But until you actually amend the US Constitution, and break the Bill of Rights even further, it isn't the government's business (or yours) if I have one or not.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
First, do please define "sensible gun regulation".
Second, are you aware of how much 'gun regulation' already exists today both in federal, state & local statutes?
You are hard pressed to find a legal consumer good which is more regulated than firearms with regards to it's manufacture, sale, transport and use.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
You are a liar.
Venezuela's gun murder rate went UP after guns outlawed in 2012, from 68 per 100,000 to 79 per 100,000 in 2013.
Let's talk about another hispanic country that made guns illegal except for those who have signed paper by minister of defense, Mexico. A real crime free paradise there since citizens aren't allowed to have guns, eh?
Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why.
And with good reason; this story is yet another confirmation that they are out to get us. I wish everyone would be as paranoid as "gun nuts."
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
well its worked in iraq, and afghanistan, and korea, and Vietnam....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
When the government comes out and says anything resembling "planned", "suggested", "considered", etc., it really means that they've been doing it for decades, someone discovered something that might expose it, and they want to get ahead of the exposure in order to characterize anyone who tries to discuss it or believes it as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Companies and governments have seeded public discussion with enough chaff that they can make anyone look like an idiot if they want to, and the public's already primed to believe it.
SCOTUS also said owning slaves was ok. just because SCOTUS says something does not make it constitutional
Huh?
Umm, when SCOTUS said owning slaves was Constitutional, it WAS clearly constitutional. You know, they actually added a Constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery (the 13th) about 75 years after the Constitution first came into effect. Until then, it definitely was constitutional and was explicitly part of the negotiations that went into drafting the original Constitution.
Actually, if you go back and review the US code, other areas of the constitution, other legal writings and opinions from the people responsible for writing the constitution and this amendment, and the rest of the mountains of historical evidence, you'll find that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what you think it doesn't mean. Historically, in context, the People were considered to be the Militia (US Code). The constitution gave the US Government the right to call up from the Militia an army, etc; and for the states to maintain a militia. As discussed here: http://www.constitution.org/co... (and supported through other sources of linguistic study and writings of the period), the term "well-regulated" referred to something being in proper working order or well trained. So, we have these facts: 1. The people of the United States themselves were considered the main defensive body, and all (male) members of society of a certain age range were automatically considered members of the unorganized militia. 2. The Constitution in other parts indicated that the States, and the Federal Government, had the right/duty to call up from the militia a military force, and that the militia was to exist. 3. We know that in the vernacular of the time, "well regulated", as stated in the amendment, was understood to mean "in good working order". As such, and with laws down the line, it is, and has been, a right of the people to be armed. Now, we may argue that times have changed, etc. etc. This does not denigrate or otherwise contradict the existence and persistence of an individual right to keep and bear arms, and given the extensive laws in place that control the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms, said right is also well-regulated by a modern definition as well. I submit, further, that the fear over the private ownership of firearms is a topic which, due to the political nature of the discussion and the pressures of the media, has been blown greatly out of proportion. Such events such as Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. are seriously dark tragedies, and heinous crimes a la ted bundy and charlie manson. They should likewise be treated not as events decrying the "sad state of our society", as they are neither systemic nor pandemic, and instead be treated as the brutal crimes that they are, the same as any other serial killer or other major criminal escapade. When placed in context with other crimes unrelated to firearms, the frequency of such events and severity of the crimes are on par with the major spree and serial killers, rapists, etc. We have simply fetishized firearms on both sides into a totem of power, rather than viewing such things as simple tools, much as we have fetishized war and conflict to such a degree as to be an unhealthy fixation.
Does that apply to the Supreme Court's "right to personal gun ownership"? Because it didn't exist until SCOTUS said it did.
Please read the 9th and 10th amendments. Just because "rights" are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does NOT mean they aren't real or don't exist. On the contrary, the Constitution was written with the exact opposite default position: if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say the federal government is allowed to do something (including restricting or regulating your rights), it by default does not have that power. Or at least that was roughly the way case law interpreted things until somewhere around 1937-1942.
How can the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not be considered an endorsement of the right to personal ownership of weapons?
Why turn it into a race riot? Blacks are allowed to own guns too. If the KKK had marched on the state capital bearing rifles, the same gun control proposals would have been introduced. Maybe by a different person, maybe not. Either way, they violate the Second Amendment. When white veterans took up camp outside Washington DC, in peaceful protest, they had their Constitutional rights violated also. So stop with the race baiting.
Actually I just googled that tidbit, and you are wrong on several points. The legislation was already introduced, and the Black Panthers marched in protest against it. Reagan did not introduce the legislation, much less in response to anything. It was named the Mulford Act, after the legislator who introduced it.
As for "the first clause" of the amendment, it is for explanation of the right. A "well regulated militia" is in no way necessary for "the right to keep and bear arms". Actually, you should realize that if you can tell that the amendment is written as two clauses. One part of the text can stand on its own as a sentence. The other part is subordinate to it. They could have easily written "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They are needed for the people to keep a well regulated militia." Whether the people keep a militia or not, and whether it is well regulated or not, has no bearing on the right to own weapons.
I love how some people only support the parts of the Constitution they agree with, and twist everything else into something it never was.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Do you really believe a shotgun will deter the most powerful military machine the world has ever known from doing whatever the fuck it wants to do? Fact is, if they truly wanted to "trample your rights" they would have been trampled already.
Actually, history has proven that no military, no matter how powerful, no matter how brutal, can ever conquer an armed civilian population. It's a lesson the Soviets learned in Afghanistan, one we re-learned in Afghanistan, one everyone learned in Iraq, and one the British learned when their colonies rose up and demanded independence.
Think about it for a moment: the Declaration of Independence was a formal declaration of treason against the Crown, which at the time controlled the most powerful military machine the world had ever known. That open declaration of treason was signed not by a battle-hardened group of freedom fighters with CIA training, but by a group of farmers, doctors, and lawyers. Those same farmers, doctors, and lawyers beat that most powerful military machine in the world multiple times over the course of decades until finally they were left to do as they wished. The Soviets thought that maybe modern technology would make a difference, so they tried carpet bombing the Afghans into oblivion and eventually had to give up and run away. The US thought that maybe more modern technology and better tactics would make a difference, but the Taliban is still there and we're resigned to the fact that they always will be.
You see, so long as a group is willing to fight and die for their cause, and so long as they're sufficiently well armed, it doesn't matter how big and bad your military is. It doesn't matter how many of their fellow citizens they're willing to murder before they decide to turn 'round and shoot in the other direction. So long as people can organize themselves and have the means to exert force, a popular movement is unstoppable. A single guy with a shotgun is no match for a fully equipped military. A fully equipped military is no match for a pissed off populace armed with shotguns, handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and other instruments of war. And the idea isn't to rejoice at the opportunity to live through such a Hellish conflict, but rather to ensure that the government doesn't cross that line into oppression which would trigger such a thing.
I hate to bring it up because I don't think it's a great example of a good David versus a bad Goliath (i.e. the "little guy's" argument and methods leave a lot to be desired in this case), but the Bundy Standoff is most certainly an example of how suddenly government agents who are used to being able to use force to perform their duties get real polite real quick when met with an opposing force of dedicated and armed individuals. That's not to say that the Federal government lacks the resources to do whatever it wants by force at that ranch, but a bloody use of force on American soil has historically created a major backlash among the people (e.g. Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc) and raises the risk that additional incidents like it could spark serious unrest.
Which leaves the government in a challenging position. It can back down and work toward a peaceful resolution that doesn't risk bloodshed, it can tell its agents to use whatever force is necessary to do their job and have huge shootouts broadcast live on CNN, or it can send in Apache gunships to kill everyone who opposes them live on CNN. They (thankfully) elected to go with the least risky option of working everything out peacefully. But can you imagine the social unrest if you'd had CNN broadcasting Federal troops firing on (or slaughtering, as in the crazy overreaction option) American citizens on US soil over a land dispute? There would have been Congressional hearings, investigations, mass resignations, possibly indictments, etc. And if the government didn't do all that and basically told the people to go f themselves, the resulting unrest would be vastly worse.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."