Daily is seems we are seeing story after story where one branch of the Federal government after another decides that this or that section of the United States Constitution is a hindrance to their ability to fulfill their mandate. The EPA now has the authority to dictate what a States geographic boundaries are while the BLM is free to use military force to decided who can do what on “Federal” Land. The IRS is now used as a weapon to curtail political opposition while the Whitehouse and the Department of Injustice decide which laws they will ignore.
The United States constitution could not have possibly been more crystal clear with regards to the ownership of firearms.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Yet we live in a nation where, despite such indisputably clear language, the state and federal government require every citizen to obtain permission before they purchase and own a firearm.
The Fourth amendment is likewise painfully crystal clear in what it demands be the legal standard.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Yet because these mandatory minimum legal requirements hinder the State and Federal Government from controlling every single aspect of the Citizens of the United States of America’s lives, the Judiciary routinely overrides the US Constitution while claiming that their doing so does not harm or alter the minimum standards set in the United States Constitution.
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – A recent ruling from Pennsylvania’s highest court could have a big impact on your privacy rights during a car stop.
Pennsylvania traditionally provided broader privacy protection than the US Constitution. For decades, police in the Commonwealth had to get obtain warrant from a judge before they could do a car search unless time was of the essence or the evidence could be lost or destroyed. But now, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 4 to 2 decision in Commonwealth v. Gary changes the rule.
“There’ll be lesser protection of privacy in Pennsylvania,” says Dave Rudovsky, a professor at Penn Law school and a civil rights attorney.
Rudovsky says Article I, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution had been interpreted to provide broader protection that the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. Police had to contact a judge during a stop, either via phone or radio, for permission to conduct a car search. Rudovsky says the new ruling means police, not a judge can decide whether to search.
“Now if police officers have probable cause– a good faith belief that a crime has been committed, they can search your car without having to first obtain a warrant,” he says.
“The district attorneys offices will say this is about drugs and guns and that is true, but it does not end there,” says James Funt, an attorney with Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt & Flores.
“Whatever is in the car can be searched,” he says, “it’s a slippery slope.”
Funt says the ruling severely erodes Pennsylvania’s privacy protections by essentially concluding that citizens have less privacy in their cars than in their homes. He says people carry cell phones and other electronic devices in their cars and the court’s ruling means these items could be vulnerable as well.
“Where does it stop? It doesn’t,” says Funt, “It will not end with guns and drugs.”
For years, Philadelphia police have been taken to task over the abnormally high number of stop and frisks of minorities. (see related story) Funt says groups targeted for such stops, could be targeted for these searches.
“Officers will likely try to abuse this new found power,” he says, “They’ve tried to do it before and this is simply a check and balance that has been removed.”
Civil rights advocates say beware.
“Be ware of what you put in you pocket or what you put in your car,” says Funt, “you no longer have any safeguard from the government coming into your car– their right to intrude had exponentially increased.”
This is utterly insane. But just wait it get’s crazier still.
A May 7th solicitation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeks “the commercial acquisition of submachine guns [in] .40 Cal. S&W.”
According to the solicitation, the Dept. of Agriculture wants the guns to have an “ambidextrous safety, semiautomatic or 2 round [bursts] trigger group, Tritium night sights front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore group) and scope (top rear), stock collapsible or folding,” and a “30 rd. capacity” magazine.
They also want the submachine guns to have a “sling,” be “lightweight,” and have an “oversized trigger guard for gloved operation.”
The solicitation directs “all responsible and/or interested sources…[to] submit their company name, point of contact, and telephone.” Companies that submit information in a “timely” fashion “shall be considered by the agency for contact to determine weapon suitability.”
What in the fuck does the Department of Agriculture need with armed agents, let alone agents armed with machine guns? Have American potatoes suddenly taken to bombing schools? Have Cucumbers and squash formed a radical terrorist cell? Are milk cows randomly stampeding the local strip malls?