Posted on 07/18/2007 8:17:34 AM PDT by BGHater
Chalk up one more for the terror community! Not only is canada flushing thousands of them into their country, now no one can look sideways at them. Well, I guess that makes up for sending the Van Doos to Afghanistan, doesn’t it.
Does that mean I can take a gun into Canada if there’s a traffic jam on a hot day and I’m dizzy from sitting out there on the Peace Bridge for hours and hours.
Sounds like someone missed the story about the alert border guard who prevented the LAX millenium bombing at our side of the border.
Good thing she didn’t need a warrant.
As un-American as it sounds I have always thought that you should be open to all searches as customs see fit regardless of the 4th amendment when you are entering the U.S irregardless of your citizenship.
This is a good way to allow smuggling to just be an open game.
The ACLU must be having wet dreams about this. If only the U.S. courts would follow the enlightened Canadian courts. Drugs, terrorists, weapons, all coming in from Mexico. The North American Union - think of the possibilities!
The last time I went to Canada by land, they were more interested in seizing any Frank Zappa recordings than anything else.
According to the article - YES YES YES! As long as you don't put it into routine places like "car trunks and back seats."
Nothing un-American about it; it isn't 'unreasonable' to protect ourselves from undesirables, contraband etc..
Looking for copies of "Magdelana"? [There once was a man, a grubby little man who lived in Montreal...]
Let's see now, passport. Check.
Guns. Check,
Coke. Check
Procedure for setting up off shore bank account while in Canada, Check!
Ready- Set - Goooooooooooooooooo!
I always though the rule of ‘legal precedent’ was wrong wrong wrong to be used in ALL CASES. When a decision like this for one specific case means a new law (in effect) for ALL cases then the Judges has just legislated from the bench.
A judge is supposed to INTERPRET the law, not make it. Each case should stand on its own merits. The ruling for one case should not become the law for all cases.
The solution is pretty simple...ask.
If permission to search is denied, return to America.
If only the U.S. courts would follow the enlightened Canadian courts.Don't worry, we will. If it's stupid, and international, our legal geniuses won't be able to resist it.
Insanity.
Judicial tyranny at its finest.
I agree, legal precedent should be used to fulfill abstract patterns and baseline constitutional rules but each case should have an independent ruling solely on that case’s merit. Make these judges earn the $100K plus they make, the interns do all the leg work anyway.
It should work this way, IMO: If you are wanting to come into the US, through Canada or Mexico, or from some other route(such as air travel)you should be asked to be searched, if you refuse to be searched, as is your right, then entry into the country is refused and you are sent back to where you came from. This way people who are suspected of illegal activity are not allowed through(at least at legal entry points!)and our rights are still intact.
Citing precedent allows bad rulings to multiply
Ping.
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.