POLICE ENTERING HOMES TO MAKE SURE GUNS ARE STORED SAFELY? IF THIS POLITICIAN HAS HIS WAY

.theblaze.com ^ | Nov. 11, 2013 | Fred Lucas

[moonshinner_09]

A Massachusetts politician has put forth a proposal to allow local police to enter homes without a warrant in order to inspect whether gun owners are properly storing their firearms.The idea was floated by Swampsott Selectman Barry Greenfield, who expressed frustration about the Newtown school massacre in the neighboring state of Connecticut and in other cases where people have obtained their parents’ guns to carry out shootings.

“We need the ability to enforce the state law,” Greenfield said, according to the Swampscott Patch.

The town of Swampscott reportedly has about 600 gun owners. Under Massachusetts law, it is “unlawful to store or keep any firearm … in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.”

Greenfield said he spoke with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan about inspecting homes for proper gun storage.

But Selectman Glenn Kessler said there are questions about the constitutionality of the proposal and wants input from law enforcement, legal counsel and town residents. There will likely be a meeting to solicit town input, the Patch reported.

Washington state considered a similar law earlier this year, according to Boston Herald columnist Michael Graham.

“Then some lawyer heard a rumor about some ‘Second Amendment thingy’ and it went away,” Graham wrote.

“This isn’t a Second Amendment issue. It’s a Fourth Amendment one — unreasonable search and seizure,” Graham continued. “If Swampscott residents who don’t own guns sit back and allow this to happen, they’ll be playing their role in the famous parable of Martin Niemoller: “First they came for the gun owners, but I didn’t own a gun …”

–

[bgill]

“stored safely” in my hands pointed at these idiots with my finger on the trigger.

Which is exactly what they want. That will be the excuse to eliminate a gun owner.

[Political Junkie Too]

Only 3rd Amendment if the agent of the state is to eat dinner, spend the night, as in ‘quarter’.

This article on the Third Amendment refers to the SCOTUS decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

---

The Third Amendment has been invoked in a few instances as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Justice William O. Douglas used the amendment along with others in the Bill of Rights as a partial basis for the majority decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which cited the Third Amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state.

---

-PJ

[donmeaker]

Learn something new every day.

I thought Griswold was about birth control, medical treatments that should be regulated if at all by the state, because the federal government has no authority to regulate medicine.

[donmeaker]

and go after all the rest of the gun owners.

[Political Junkie Too]

It's understandable. The 3rd amendment interpretation of quartering soldiers casts an emanation from a penumbra that looks like a right to privacy from agents from the state.

That said, I do think that the intent of prohibiting the quartering of soldiers in peacetime was a direct response to the British putting soldiers in people's homes to prevent them from organizing while under the army's eye. So one can draw a parallel to agents of the federal government intruding on one's home when no crime has been committed, as a privacy violation akin to quartering those same agents permanently in one's home.

-PJ

[servantboy777]

I’m pretty sure I’d end up with quite a few new orifices in my body if they attempted this at my home.

Who knows, I might even get lucky.

[NFHale]

Good way for people to get killed.

On both sides.

[sickoflibs]

This one I really do wonder if the courts would allow it.

Recall the SCOTUS new right to gay sodomy argument was its a privacy issue.

You have invade privacy to enforce the sodomy laws,

[NFHale]

I think once you start seeing dead badges and dead citizens, it would end real fast.

That’s the final straw.

Personally, that’s a line in the sand. I would absolutely refuse to comply.

[sickoflibs]

This is probably one of those crazy lib going no-where ideas.

Unless they made you sign to get a gun permit.

Even then,

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Forgive me for forgetting, but I don’t recall Perot as an anti-gun politician.

Was he?

[NFHale]

“...This is probably one of those crazy lib going no-where ideas...”

I wouldn’t care if it’s crazy lib idea or a “common sense” gun control idea posed by some worthless RINO.

The answer is, was, and will always be absolute refusal to comply and open defiance.

[NFHale]

“....Unless they made you sign to get a gun permit....”

The 2nd Amendment IS my “permit”.

[ansel12]

On the issues
“No right to own machine guns

On social issues, Perot did not fit the stereotype of the conservative Southerner. He was, in fact, pro-choice on abortion (“Yes, it’s a woman’s choice”); for gay rights (“We are a country of individual rights, and it’s that simple to me”); in favor of gun control (“I can’t believe the gun lobby wants the crazies to have machine guns”); and for increased AIDS research (“Now, we’ve got to really blitz and get it done.”)
Source: [X-ref Gay Rights] Citizen Perot, by Gerald Posner, p.257 , Jul 2, 1996
Enact strict gun control laws

Perot [supports] the enactment of strict gun control laws.
Source: Strong-Man Politics, by George Grant, p.111 , Nov 7, 1992”

---

From the Christian Science monitor:
“”During a crime wave in Dallas in 1986, Perot set up round-table meetings between police officers and people in the news media. In those meetings, according to Todd Mason, former Dallas bureau chief for Business Week, in his 1990 biography of the businessman: “Perot espoused cordoning off minority neighborhoods and searching door-to-door for weapons and narcotics.””

[Cringing Negativism Network]

I tried to look at what is online, but it appears to be sort of carefully groomed (much having happened before the internet really took off)

Thanks for your post.

I am still not certain but I certainly appreciate that additional information, it would appear to be a bit of a (large) negative.

[ansel12]

I remember the elections, and I was amazed at how little Perot voters knew about Perot, I talked to anti-gun, pro-abortion Perot supporters, and pro-gun, anti-abortion Perot supporters, they all felt that he represented them.

Perot was not only anti-gun but the Perots are very powerful and appreciated in the abortion community.

[from occupied ga]

do you know a single person who would submit to such a demanded “search” —????

I don't know of anyone, BUT we're talking about MA. Remember the videos of police illegally searching for the marathon bomber? I never heard any outcry about it except on conservative websites. The massholes seemed OK with it. I guess if you're raised in a police state, then you learn to accept any tyrannical action without question.