Skip to comments.[Washington, DC] PD to start warrantless home searches for firearms this month according to WTOP 630
Posted on 03/14/2008 7:20:21 AM PDT by stockpirate
Sorry if this has already been posted. They were talking about it on the air. The plan is for DC police officers to go house to house in certain areas and search for weapons and if any are found they will NOT prosecute.
Last time I checked this was against the law.
How can they do this without violating the Fourth Amendment?
This will never happen. They may try knock and talk searches but no court in the land could ever consider this constitutional.
SAF Says D.C. Residential Gun Search an Exercise in ‘Police State Demagoguery’
By Second Amendment Foundation
BELLEVUE, Wash., March 13 —A plan to conduct “consent searches” for guns in District of Columbia residences is “an outrageous exercise of police state demagoguery,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb condemned the plan as “a public relations effort designed to influence, through crass dramatics, Tuesday’s scheduled oral arguments on the constitutionality of the District’s handgun ban before the Supreme Court.”
More at this link:
I have found a link for the article in the Washington Post.
\It appears that WTOP left out the fact the police will ask permissionto search houses.
From the Post article.
“D.C. police are so eager to get guns out of the city that they’re offering amnesty to people who allow officers to come into their homes and get the weapons.”
Warrants? We don’t got no warrants. We dont need no stinking warrants!
So...do we meet them in the DCPD Parking Lot at night? I could use a few more 1911's!
Will they be selling them out of the trunks of the cruisers, or will they be setting up little card tables?
Link to Second Amendment Foundation.
If you scroll down, you’ll find the story.
Ask the IRS. They do the same thing.
Thanks, I posted a little fast after hearing it on the radio without checking.
Because the ASK. You can voluntarily give up your fourth amendment right.
Of course if you refuse then it is grounds for them to get a warrent.
The concept is one of intimidation by badge.
No, I believe there is a ton of case law to the contrary. That won't stop a cop from fabricating a trumped up reason or from a judge accepting the flimsiest of applications, but you cannot put down for your search reason that the person refused to offer "voluntary" consent. /IANL
cold dead hands
I didn’t know that Mr. Ed was a four star general.
The Republic has passed.
Wrong. You watch too much TV.
9th Circus Court probably would.......
So they’re violating the second AND fourth amendments. Y’know, back when Iraq was trying to come up with a constitution we should’ve just given ‘em ours......we aren’t using it any more.
Maybe the DC top cop expects that the DC’s blatantly unconstitutional gun ban will be thrown out by the USSC in the case that is now before the court, and he wants to get as many guns out of the people’s hands as possible before that happens. OTOH, maybe he’s just starting a private gun collection on the cheap.
Someone should photoshop this and put her in Reinhardt Heydrich’s uniform.
I would think that if you refuse on the grounds of your 4th Amendment rights, they wouldn’t have probable cause to issue a search warrant.
I know, when it comes to liberal judges, constitutional logic is a foreign concept.
I would still be cautious enough to come to the door with a camcorder running.
“Of course if you refuse then it is grounds for them to get a warrent.”
As a former law enforcement officer, it really does not take that much to harass someone to the point of having them commit a crime. I recall other officers pulling folks over, or doing a “knock and talk” with people, and basically just irritating them to the point where a confrontation took place that resulted in either an assault on a LEO, or resisting a lawful order, such as “please keep your hands where I can see them for my own safety.”
Once you have basically incited someone to violence, the ability to search becomes a matter of routine.
Best response?... don’t answer your door, or if you do, answer, be polite and politely decline the “consent” to search and close the door.
We are in for more and more of this with any of the POTUS candidates.
This is unreal
Words fail me....
"Grave findings have shown that late Palaeolithic settlers in central Europe and their Mesolithic descendants in the Scandinavian Peninsula were Europoids, who had comparatively large teeth - a seemingly comical detail, but nevertheless an important factor in identifying these populations. Although it is very unlikely that the language of these settlers will ever be identified, I cannot see any grounds for the theory that either of these groups spoke Proto-Uralic."
In a liberal bastion such as DC, I wonder what the reaction of the “knock&talk” LEOs would be if someone ^did^ come to the door with a camcorder running.
I’m sure they would ask that the corder be turned off but, what if the property owner refused?
All sorts of scenarios come to mind.
Good point. While they're undoubtedly doing it because of the likely result of Heller, it does seem idiotic on their part to start it just days _before_ oral arguments: not enough time to achieve a "holy cow! look at all the contraband we found!" usable in court, but just in time for their opponents to say "holy cow! they're doing door-to-door confiscations, technically legal but coerced by a team of armed cops going 'may we search your home please?'! this is EXACTLY the kind of BS the Founding Fathers wanted 'the people' armed against!!!" in the same court.
I am SO looking forward to Tuesday...
Illegal search and, as it has been announced, will not result in any arms either. Look on the birght side, it will probably be their last and it is a great opportunity to sue the city for illegal search.
Refusal of consent will be respected.
And addressed later.
Yes, that is one of the scenarios. A squad car parked at the end of your street waiting to write you a ticket for something.
Plus, I’m in the Chicago area so, we always think of the proverbial “tune-up” around here.
Or the absence of a squad car when requested.
It will be requested.
Is she trying for the fake Dumb Blond award? What’s with the ribbons on her chest, do they award those for political campaigns?
I rate her $50 on the Spitzer scale of $1000.
A euphemism for CPD actions in...ahem...subduing a suspect.
Not be confused with the obligatory, “He tripped and fell down 7 flights of stairs while in custody, your honor. I guess he ain’t too coordinated.”
In general, this is reserved for perps who fight back while being...ahem...subdued.
What's the big deal? I'm sure the folks in Georgetown will tell them to C'mon in and take a look around. Nothing to see here but hookers.
I’m sure we’ll be hearing from the ACLU any second now.
ACLU: Defenders of all sorts of imaginary ‘rights’ not found in the constitution, but somehow they managed to forget about the 2nd Amendment.
“Washington, DC] PD to start warrantless home searches for firearms this month”
Break down my door looking for my guns and you are going to get the bullets first.
LOL, how can they violate the 2nd amendment w/o violating the 4th?
I am no fan of guns. I didn’t grow up with them. I don’t like them and if I had a perfect world, I’d get rid of all of them. As much as I may not like it, guns are the law of the land. It’s VERY clear in the Constitution.
My recourse to get rid of all guns is also clearly stated in the Constitution. I can work to have the Constitution ammended so that guns are removed. Barring that, I can either live with it or leave the country. There’s a process in place for this kind of change, that’s that. I have made my decision. As much as I don’t like guns, I like living here more.
That said, this is the biggest piece of crap I have ever heard. Warrantless “requests” for gun searches? Are you kidding me? This violates at least two Ammendments and probably more. I am SURE it violates a ton of established case law too.
This HAS to be the brain child of a liberal. It just has to be. Because it SOUNDS like such a good idea I can hear the conversations now:
“Lets just go up to them and ASK them to give us their guns. Where’s the harm in that? If we get ONE gun off the streets, it will have been worth it.”
Like all other liberal ideas though, when put into practice it’s completely insane and this time, its completely unconstitutional to boot!
I do not like guns but this is not the way to get rid of them.
How is this constitutional?
630 AM is WMAL, not WTOP!
So do the TSAholes at the airport. And with attitude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.