Slashdot Mirror
Feds Convinced Police To Use License Plate-Scanning Tech At Gun Shows (foxnews.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike quotes the Wall Street Journal:
Federal agents have persuaded police officers to scan license plates to gather information about gun-show customers, government emails show, raising questions about how officials monitor constitutionally protected activity. Emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show agents with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency crafted a plan in 2010 to use license-plate readers -- devices that record the plate numbers of all passing cars -- at gun shows in Southern California, including one in Del Mar, not far from the Mexican border. Agents then compared that information to cars that crossed the border, hoping to find gun smugglers, according to the documents and interviews with law-enforcement officials with knowledge of the operation...
[T]he officials didn't rule out that such surveillance may have happened elsewhere. The agency has no written policy on its use of license-plate readers and could engage in similar surveillance in the future, they said. Jay Stanley, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the gun-show surveillance "highlights the problem with mass collection of data." He said law enforcement can take two entirely legal activities, like buying guns and crossing the border, "and because those two activities in concert fit somebody's idea of a crime, a person becomes inherently suspicious."
[T]he officials didn't rule out that such surveillance may have happened elsewhere. The agency has no written policy on its use of license-plate readers and could engage in similar surveillance in the future, they said. Jay Stanley, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the gun-show surveillance "highlights the problem with mass collection of data." He said law enforcement can take two entirely legal activities, like buying guns and crossing the border, "and because those two activities in concert fit somebody's idea of a crime, a person becomes inherently suspicious."
Even if technically true — the best kind of correct — the same folks, who usually denounce any and all "unwarranted surveillance", are surprisingly silent about this one. Silent or even approving, thus exposing themselves as hypocrites.
But I doubt, this is even technically true — though this monitoring does not, as you say, directly violate the Second Amendment, that's not the accusation. All other objectionable surveillance and recording is usually denounced on the Fourth Amendment grounds — like NSA's snooping of your e-mails or phone-records, it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.
Moreover, the very "crime", that this effort was supposed to catch/prevent — transport of the legally purchased guns across the state-lines into areas, where they are illegal — should not be a crime to begin with (unlike the terrorism NSA is after). Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights and ought to be protested and denounced at any opportunity far more noisily than the marijuana prohibition or "gay marriage" inequality.
Distinction without difference. You can not have a weapon without buying it first. 3D-printed guns my tail — many States ban even swords and brass-knuckles, hand-made or purchased! Were we to apply this standard to the First Amendment, for example, we'd say, you have the right to speak (to yourself in the shower), but not giving a speech, nor to sell or buy a book or a magazine.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
US law enforcement should work for US interests.
Well they do, the problem is that the current government doesn't work for US interests. This is where I'll remind you that the Obama administration was running guns to Mexico, and them ending back up in the US in the hands of criminals or cartel members illegally in the US.
Om, nomnomnom...
There's also the fact that the mere concept of the 2nd Amendment being an individual right is a recent invention basically paid for by the weapons industry. Gotta create them markets somehow, and what better way than overturn basically 190 years of legal precedent in the courts and sew paranoia about race and the government?
BULLSHIT
Complete, utter BULLSHIT.
Explain why, in the midst of a bunch of amendments clarifying INDIVIDUAL rights, would there be one about a collective right?
Explain how " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" places limits on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's one REASON among many for the right, not a fucking LIMIT.
Remember, everyone, that the first act of totalitarian governments is the taking away of arms from the people. Imagine that - statists like the parent poster want to take the fundamental right to defend yourself away.
And yet, when conducting the same level of automated surveillance in an aerial fashion over an urban area with an insane, war zone-like crime rate, self-styled privacy advocates shit the bed (just read the comments on the Slashdot story a few down from this one). Sadly, what's an acceptable level of surveillance seems to depend on who is being surveilled and upon which side of the fence you sit politically.
You fail to recognize the real problem. Gun ownership isn't a big problem for the government at this point in time. Considering that we're now running somewhere in the neighborhood of 19 trillion in debt and accelerating the train towards it's inevitable derailment. In the future it will eventually come to the point where the government will not be able to pay the interest on the debt that it is amassing and refuses to deal with. When the day comes that they can no longer write those checks they dispense so freely today there will be drastic consequences. In the days of the Great Depression this was a radically different country with faith in God and a solid family structure to fall back on and survive the lean hard times. Those two institutions are largely gone today and a breakdown in society may be inevitable. This in a country armed to the teeth with weapons and ammo and almost a love affair with violence. It's not hard to see where that goes. I'm keeping my guns because I figure I'm going to need them. I foresee a major effort by the next Clinton administration to do something about all that weaponry and since with a Republican Congress it'll be difficult she'll use her SCOTUS appointments, most likely 3 of them, to legislate by the bench. They're not smart enough to figure out that millions, and I mean many millions, of Americans will not surrender their weapons. It'd take an army of brown shirts kicking in doors all across the nation with immense bloodshed to disarm this country. And that's against mostly hard working otherwise honest citizens. Then there's the criminal element that don't give a shit about any laws whatsoever. This isn't Australia and I don't think they get that. It's almost an American principle to distrust the government.
As far as I know the number one gun smuggler is the Justice Department.
False.
Gun shows are not exempt, nor are FFLs conducting business there (who are given an occasional OK to do business in a location other than their normal spot).
Private citizens who are not otherwise prohibited from buying/selling/owning a firearm are free to buy/sell in most locations. Parking lots, living rooms, gun shows. (Granted there may be state requirements as to the requirement of a background check for private transactions, and many transactions are prohibited when both persons are not in their state of residence (without a bg check)).
Which again, is nothing unique to a gun show.
Most reports of mental health issues are not enough to get added to a DB which a NICS check will pick up on and prevent the purchase.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
No. The Second Amendment was proposed, talked about, debated, and eventually ratified by people who EXACTLY considered it to be about protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights to help you understand their thinking about this, as well as other familiar ones (like the freedom to speak, assemble, etc).
Interesting.
Was the article wrong when it said "From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960."
Was the article incorrect when it stated "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
I would be interested to have references to the "mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights" on this issue. I have not been able to find many - do you have any to share?
In some sense, this is accademic - the laws we now operate under are the written legislation as interpreted by the courts - which is how the system is supposed to work. Only the courts are able to make these legal interpretations, and if they are unpopular the only way to change them is to make modifications to the legislation. Constitutional ammendments are at least in theory possible.
Its a question of resource commitment. When surveillance was expensive, both in cost and manpower, law enforcement naturally had to limit their monitoring to only the big fish and the big crimes. Having a couple of cops on a stakeout is expensive. Having a police helicopter track a fugitive is very expensive. And so on.
What we are seeing now is that the cost of throwing up a few thousand cameras and drones is (relatively) cheap. The military hardware from the Iraq drawdown is also putting a lot of previously expensive toys in the hands of the local cops. And then to tie it all together, we have Homeland Security, the FBI, ATF, etc, etc. all putting their resources together to capture anything and everything. Suddenly there are no resource constraints, and no natural restrictions on privacy invasion. That's what's changed.
Citizens aren't being hypocritical for criticizing some forms of surveillance over others. They just haven't caught on to the systemic changes yet. The bigger picture hasn't developed fully. Once it does, people will start protesting in a more coordinated fashion.
It's not a loophole. You don't need a gun show for a private purchase, it's your right as an individual and you can do it anywhere. That said, most gun shows today are cognizant of the media frenzy over their labeled "loophole" so the promoters no longer allow tables to be rented to private collectors. That means most transaction on the floor of the show will go through an FFL and background check.
Certainly there may be folks walking through the show with a weapon for sale privately, but let's face it, it's not easy for a private individual to carry too many.
I would also like to comment that as Americans, it is our duty to make sure we don't sell to someone who has nefarious tendencies. As an FFL, I am happy to log and transfer a weapon for a private sale. It literally takes minutes for the background check. If I was a private seller, I would gladly pay the transfer fee to know there was a paper trail, for my own liability.
They have been caught with a searchable database of 4473 data multiple times, ordered to delete the database and data by federal judges. Then caught again with the database still containing data from earlier incidents (based on sale date). Nothing happens to anyone.
They likely got smart and have the Brits maintain the database for them now.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Apples & oranges.
"Law review articles" =/= "...mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights..."
If you have an open mind, here's a good place to start regarding how those who created the US Constitution regarded the right of private citizens to own firearms:
http://thefederalistpapers.org...
If you want horrifying levels of violence, death, and chaos in the US, just try banning/heavily-restricting/criminalizing most individual, private gun ownership/possession. It will make the violence from 'Prohibition' and the 'War on (some) Drugs' combined look like elementary school playground spats.
There are nearly enough guns in civilian hands currently to arm every man, woman, and child in the US. Even if everyone was on-board and willingly turned in firearms, it would still be decades before significantly more than half were turned in just due to the sheer numbers involved and the size of the nation, so you'll have some areas gun-free and some not for decades, and criminals will simply go to the places where victims are unarmed.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
But if you still don't have the energy to use Google, here are some of the founders talking about how they see the matter - as both the federal, and individual state constitutions were being ratified and as they talked with others on the subject. These guys talked specifically and frequently - in correspondence, in the Federalist Papers, and before congress and their state legislatures - in terms that aren't in any way vague. People with an agenda to revise history and strip away your constitutionally protected rights will, of course, pretend they aren't good enough researchers to read what these men had to say both personally and officially. For example:
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
"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.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Each one of the quotes to me seem to be quotes in support of bodies like the 13 state militias
It is explained in US Code.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Every able-bodied male US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 are unorganized US militia members (the 'females in the National Guard' thing is a bit confusing) whether they know it or not.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
In 1960 I noticed a KKK meeting going on in a field. I parked my car and went to watch the clown show. Men in trench coats were writing down car plate numbers as well as taking pictures of the cars and plates. Oddly for the FBI to be seen doing that is more discouraging to free speech and free association than doing it on the sly. Local folks might have chased the clowns out of the field if they were not frightened to park and get their plates recorded or maybe photos of their faces taken. Watching an event never implies that one approves of an event.
This is why I donate to the ACLU and not the NRA - even as a firearm aficionado with a large collection.
But when it comes to defend the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the ACLU counts 1, 3, 4, 5,....
Which is why I'll never give them a fucking dime.
This country was founded after a revolutionary war that was started over aerious rights violations. Those rights violations, which are well documented, look minor in comparison to the ones going on today.
Unlike the colonists, we do have a method of changing that short of violence. We have not done so and our government seems hell bemt on making sure we don't. That is not going to end well.
I don't find the argument that "people were better in 1789 than they are today" very compelling. Either you believe in the consent of the governed or you don't.
Maybe one of the reasons for that "indoctrinated society" is that there are no longer any consequences for citizenship in the form of meaningful participation. Voting for candidates that are pre-chosen for their wealth every four years is not meaningful participation. And primary elections don't matter because every single candidate has already been chosen in a "money primary" at $5000/plate dinners.
We need a constitutional convention when the amendments are longer than the original document. For example, do you believe "money=speech" would pass muster in a constitutional convention? How about an absolute "right to bear arms"? Or how about "states can draw their legislative maps based on what's best for the party in power"?
You are welcome on my lawn.