Upon what evidence are you relying for the proposition that the programs are equally effective?
There are problems with gun buyback programs too - they assume that someone can safely ensure that the firearm is unloaded and can safely transport it. If someone is scared to death to even touch the thing ( a common sentiment expressed on these very boards) that won’t help.
Therefore, a system where a police officer may perform that service for you might be helpful.
I think that, in reality, the ACLU doesn’t really care so much about the relative effectiveness of the house search vs gun buyback approaches.They’re not opposed to the safe houses approach because there are equally effective, less intrusive methods…they’re opposed to the safe houses approach because they see it as too intrusive in and of itself. In other words, the ACLU doesn’t care about getting guns off the street. They do care about limiting government power to search without warrents.
The article was vague… in the event that drugs or a gun are found in the person’s room, do the police then continue to search the rest of the house? What guarantee do residents have that this won’t happen if they waive their rights? To what extent does the “immunity” mentioned in the article protect other members of the household?
The immunity flows from the fruits of the search – it amounts to a flavor of use immunity. The guns (or drugs) cannot be used as the basis for gun or drug charges against anyone.
The government has ALWAYS had the power to search with consent, though. This program doesn’t grant any particular power that didn’t already exist.
Right now, anywhere in the country, residents can call the police and say, “Please come search my house.” Of course, anywhere else in the country, the fruits of that search will be admissible in evidence in any criminal case.
In DC, residents can call and request a search and get amnesty for drug and gun charges.
This does not represent an INcrease in government power.
But they can still be used as the basis for other charges related to the gun.
Lochner doesn’t exactly strike fear in me, precisely because of the history surrounding it. Lochner is proof that if a decision is sufficiently disliked, it will be changed or ignored, even without an amendment.
But I understand the general point. My response is twofold.
First, political bias is a problem with every interpretive mode. Such is the nature of textual analysis, even when the authors are alive! Much less when they lived generations ago. I don’t believe, as you seem to below, that Scalia’s decisions simply follow an objective algorithm and arrive at the truth. I think Scalia is just as likely to strike down liberal legislation he doesn’t like as Ginsburg is to strike down conservative legislation she doesn’t like (which is to say, relatively unlikely, but with a slight and noticeable bias).
And second, the question isn’t one of what I’d personally like, or what system has the best effects in my view, but what system is closest to the intentions of the framers and the Constitutional structure. (Ironic, isn’t it?) I’m not convinced that a jurisprudence that privileges the way in which the framers applied certain principles is what they intended when crafting the document.
(But it’s worth putting in a disclaimer that my own views on these things are still forming.)
It increases the likelihood that individuals will request that the police search their home, though, and will make people more comfortable with cooperating with the police, and more comfortable with the idea of the police searching houses. A search becomes less of a big deal, and this might make people more likely to consent to a search when it’s not to their interest to do so.
As a more practical concern with this program, what happens when the owner of the gun comes home and finds out that another member of the house called the cops and got them to take their gun? I’d be worried for the safety of the participants in this program.
Wow. And I thought your understanding of communism was facile.
I am aware of that train of analysis, but it’s still not the same thing as implying that Shakespeare himself sincerely believed that all lawyers should be killed.
I didn’t think that it was ever meant by anyone to be literal, but rather an example of classic hyperbole. (Right, JohnnieEnigma? You’re not really advocating death-by-profession, right?)
Personally, I wasn’t aware of that analysis; I’ve often heard the “that quote doesn’t mean what you think it means” response and, for years now, took those comments at face value (that Shakespeare was actually coming out in support of lawyers). So it was an eye-opener to me and thought I could at least point out that it’s not clearly settled…I think it’s about time I read the actual play myself.
…to be the standard of behavior. That is why it punishes any group that tries to enforce any kind of elevated standards. What-you don’t like homeless people using your park as a toilet? WHAT right do YOU have to condemn their behavior! They are just using their 1st Amendment rights-why are you complaining?
Likewise with kids who make their classooms into a screaming match
-the teacher OBVIOUSLY isn’t respecting these kid’s unique needs!
YOU don’t want to share your library with a smelly bum who’s raving? Shame on you-he has JUST as much right as you to be there-what’s that?-he left something for you!
Funny how the people who drive the ACLU frequently live in neighborhoods that aren’t blessed with the homeless!
Ok, not a lawyer, not a legal scholar. I do want to throw one thing in. While I am sympathetic to ACLU’s stand on the homeless re: libraries, I do think there is another side to this.
See… we all seem to agree that so long as your right doesn’t interfere with my right, then we’re all ok. When your right and my right come toe to toe… there needs to be a mitigation of that tension.
If I were to go into a library and start swearing - they’d ask me to leave. If I went in and did any number of conceivable things, they would ask me to leave. Why? Because I would be interfering with others’ ability to use and enjoy the library.
It IS a public space and a government facility intended for public use. I get that. I get that a strict interpretation means they should get to use the library. I also get that those with sensitive noses or dispositions might find it more challenging. And given that they are using the library not as a library (generally) and instead as a climate controlled shelter and a place to wash up (if that)… I think there’s room on both sides of this one for people to disagree.
That’s what I’m trying to get Johnnie to tell us. He seems to think that just quoting that line somehow explains something.
The whole point of civil rights is that you can’t use the power of the government to stop doing things just because you don’t like it. The point of a free society is that there are going to be people doing things that you don’t approve of. The ACLU doesn’t want people to behave indecently. If you want someone to abide by “elevated standards” you have to persuade them to do it. You don’t get to force people to abide by them.
You seem to be operating from some imaginary experience of the ACLU.
Funny how liberals are more common in big cities – where there are more homeless people!!!```11!!!
Or some nasty pervert wants to troll for sex partners in a public restroom, that’s First Amendment speech as well. But if you want to pray outside an abortion clinic, then a Constitution-free zone is OK.
The Wall Street Journal, 02/10/1999. Fortunately, the ACLU lost that one.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, I think it was a joke. It’s followed up with Cade’s criticism of lawyers…
which is also meant to be funny.
Having read through all post related to “safe house”; I conclude this is unwarranted meddling in local affairs prior to a constitutional right having been violated, causes great harm to me. It says that they have the arrogance of knowing what the outcome of a social experiment of local crime prevention program might be before it has run its course.
I find Captain Amazing comment very telling. It says in other words that the ACLU does not care a whit about my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are being very anal delivering on the mandates of their charter to the extent that their budget allows, derived from membership and legal compensation fees and as they decide.
Certainly the people are entitled life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as set forth in the Declaration but life and liberty or only protected by the 5th amendment. Without further research, allow me to conclude that the forefathers thoughtful nature found that this reference would suffice.
I feel that the ACLU has violated the 5th amendment. and could be sued on those grounds if a person was killed before the “safe house” program was implemented due to delays caused by the ACLU’s meddling.
Given that the ACLU is a guardian of our constitutional rights, should their actions not be tempered by the contents of the Preamble of the Constitution by acting with restraint and promote a little general welfare.
And further,
since they view themselves as the self appointed arbiter of constitutional matters,
placing them selves between the people and the government,
would it not be in interest of promoting general welfare,
that they suggest a solution
prior to threats of legal action
so that small local communities don’t have to
jump through their assholes
So there, without using any analogies.
You realize that the Fifth Amendment – nor any other provision of the U.S. Constitution – applies to the ACLU? Or to you or me or anyone else? It applies only to the government.
I don’t know why this is getting so complicated. My comment was not about Shakespeare’s use of the statement “Let’s kill all the lawyers.” It was about Johnnie Enigma’s quoting of the line.
The way Johnnie quoted it, it implied that William Shakespeare qua William Shakespeare the man (not the playwright) stood up one day and gave the sincere opinion that all lawyers should be killed. He didn’t; it was a line spoken by a character in a play. Unless Johnnie is sincerely stating the literal opinion that all lawyers should be killed, his quotation of the line really adds nothing to the discussion.
The question is not what Shakespeare meant, the question is what Johnny meant, and why he thought it adequately expressed his worldview.