Civil Liberties – Page 28 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Voluntary Searches

Cam Edwards has a good post up on the recent push by DC and Boston authorities to go door to door asking homeowners whether they can voluntarily search the house for drugs and guns:

This effort may end up leading to more violent crime. If itâ€™s already leading to police being referred to as â€œvampiresâ€, youâ€™d have to think itâ€™s not a great boon to establishing rapport between the beat cops and the people who live in these high-crime communities. It seems designed mostly to get positive press coverage rather than achieving any real benefit.

The politicians in D.C. have become so used to taking away liberty in the name of the common good that itâ€™s fair to say they really donâ€™t see anything wrong with this. And thatâ€™s the scariest part of all.

Indeed.

Doormat Ideas

For folks who might live in Washington DC, I have a handy and timely doormat suggestion.

UPDATE: Check out this NBC 4 article:

If weapons are recovered, they will be tested and destroyed if they are not found to be linked to any other crimes.

A police spokeswoman said that if evidence of other crimes is found during voluntary searches, amnesty will be granted for that crime as well.

Nevermind the murderers and the rapists!Â As long as we get that gun off the street everything will be peachy.Â And they wonder why they can’t keep their crime under control.Â These DC city politicians really do live in a fantasy world, don’t they?

h/t Instapundit

You Vil Be Faitful to Ze Party

Or they’ll lock you up, in Ohio.

Network Solutions are Cowards

They have shut down a web site under pressure from Islamists:

h4rm0ny notes the furor over an anti-Islamic movie due to be released on the Web in the next week. After Pakistan disrupted YouTube worldwide over an interview with right-wing Dutch MP and filmmaker Geert Wilders, Network Solutions, acting as host as well as registrar, has suspended Wilders’s site promoting the 15-minute film “Fitna” (a Koranic term translated as “strife”).

The site now says:

This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site’s content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation.

I don’t use Network Solutions, and now I can guarantee that I never will. We have to be willing to stand up to people who refuse to live peaceably among free citizens.

Drug Raid Gone Wrong

Radley Balko has a new article on the Chesapeake drug raid that went horribly wrong.Â I think I blogged about that a few months ago when it first happened.

An Amusing Line of Argument

Remember the gun related t-shirt incident in Pennsylvania we talked about a few days ago?Â Dave Hardy reminds us that NRA fought one of these cases already, and had this to say:

NRA had one of those cases, and won it. Had some fun with the school, pointing out that every classroom has the Virginia flag in it. A flag that depicts a woman holding a spear, a corpse at her feet, and the motto Sic Semper Tyrannis. Oh, and for some reason she has one breast bare. So nobody is allowed to have an image of a weapon, yet in every classroom there is an official image of one, indeed a depiction of homicide, capped with a threat to do, and a bit of nudity!

So much for zero tolerance eh?

First Amendment Issue in Pennsylvania

Thanks to Rustmeister, who found it, it would appear that a Pennsylvania school is stifling student free speech:

Donald Miller III, 14, went to Penn Manor High School in December wearing a T-shirt he said was intended to honor his uncle, a U.S. Army soldier fighting in Iraq.

The shirt bears the image of a military sidearm and on the front pocket says “Volunteer Homeland Security.” On the back, over another image of the weapon, are the words “Special issue Resident Lifetime License â€” United States Terrorist Hunting Permit â€” Permit No. 91101 â€” Gun Owner â€” No Bag Limit.”

If I recall my first amendment law correct, which I might not, it’s lawful for schools to regulate dress code, but it has to do it in a content neutral manner.Â In other words, it could proscribe all shirts that are not plain shirts of uniform color, it could proscribe an obscene t-shirt that could be construed as disruptive to the educational environment, but it can’t discriminate on dress based merely on disapproval of the content displayed on the shirt.

Feds Chilling Free Speech Online?

Looks like it to me.Â I might not always agree with David’s approach to activism, but to suggest that he’s implicitly threatened anyone, or that his blogging activities might bring the wrath of federal law enforcement on him is offensive to not only the first amendment, but the very principles this country was founded on.

We’ll All Be Open Carrying Soon Enough

One of the things that has made me a bigger advocate of Open Carry than I have been in the past is that technology is making concealment harder and harder.

You can count on societies moving toward democratic totalitarianism to develop technologies such as this, but in some ways it’s inevitable.Â It will be possible in the future to have near perfect enforcement of some laws.Â We have to argue what kind of laws we are willing to live under.

California Uber Alles!

SayUncle points to an article that shows the real problem with possessory crimes; you need police state tactics to enforce them.Â California has cross referenced its criminal and mental health databases with its gun registration database, and is going from door to door.

While I don’t think there’s any constitutional obstacle to taking away civil liberties after due process of law, many of California’s laws, particularly it’s mental health gun prohibitions, do not have sufficient due process for me to be ok with these kinds of tactics.Â Either way, I think this is way too gestapo like, and it’s a prime example of why I have issues with those who want enable government to track everything we do, especially activities the political elites thumb their noses at.Â How many of the people California is rounding up are really legitimately dangers to society?Â If they are so dangerous, why are they on the streets?Â Are highly dangerous criminals really legally registering their firearms with the state?Â Pretty clearly these folks aren’t neatly falling into the category of “law abiding gun owner,” but color me skeptical they are a real menace to a safe society.Â I’m willing to bet this has almost no effect on crime in California, and police resources would be better spent going after truly dangerous criminals.