Posted on 06/16/2021 8:55:52 AM PDT by bgill
Liberals don’t give a crap about laws, and too many conservatives don’t give a crap that liberals don’t give a crzp about laws. That is how we’ve had over 30,000,gun laws shoved down our throats, with the left screaming about how none of them are ‘sensible gun laws’, and pushing for further and further restrictions to our inalienable rights
Better yet, someone create a counter device that detects such instruments and creates a reverse pulse that destroys same.
Depends. If the leather is thin enough, yes, it can. Far more commonly, if the woman has the pistol against the outer skin of the purse (even with a fabric liner) and stays in a cold area for a while then walks into a warm one (or vice versa), the thermal cam will see the outline of the pistol due to the pistol’s differential cooling/heating of the leather it’s in contact with.
...said Mae West.
What if you purchase new GE appliances for your home and when you purchase them the company says that they have a policy to make sure the home is safe and free of firearms so they will need to search your home before you take delivery of the appliances. This could apply to almost any business transaction. Again does a business have the right to search you or your property as a condition to doing business with them? I think the answer is clearly no.
What else does it detect and how are rights protected? What is potential health or safety risk of being scanned or of using the equipment? And isn’t this an intrusive search that might actually be illegal?
There’s one movie where she takes over a classroom that is learning addition and subtraction.
She says “Subtraction, that’s where you meet a man with a hundred dollars, and you leave him with five. THAT’S subtraction.”
Can anyone tell me when the American people ratified the NFL as a governing entity?
If the NFL has not been ratified as a legal government then they can't search you, period. This applies to all businesses and private entities.
Read post 28
No. The 4th Amendment requires government action. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921); Walter v. United States, 477 U.S. 649 (1980).
I heard about a commercial fisherman that flew from Alaska back to CONUS with $80K in his pockets. After sanding him, they knew the amount, and asked about it.
A search or seizure carried out by a private individual, even if it is unreasonable, does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).
That’s simply not the law. You might wish it to be the case and might advocate for the change in the law, but it isn’t the settled law as of the moment nor of the past 200 years.
See eg; United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984); The right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures proscribes only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable “to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government . . .” Walter v. United States, 477 U.S. 649, 662 (1980).
See also: See, e.g., United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988, 993 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Barth, 26 F. Supp. 2d 929, 932-35 (W.D. Tex. 1998); Commonwealth v. Sodomsky, 2007 PA Super. 369, 939 A.2d 363, 368; People v. Phillips, 805 N.E.2d 667, 673-74 (Ill. App. 2004); United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988, 993 (7th Cir. 1998); State v. Horton, 962 So.2d 459, 463-464 (La. App. 2007).
Can it detect a rifle aimed directly AT them?
Sounds like it can see titties through clothing. Every woman in that workplace will essentially be naked. And the guys with the cameras will have a collection of photos.
No joke.
This is sexual harassment on steroids. Why not just make them submit a nude photo on their application?
But, will information provided to the government by private businesses be acted upon properly? If a business owner points to a customer and cries to a government agent, "he's got a gun!!", do you think the agent is going to honor freedom from search and seizure?
Mine, too.
Also if it is used at a school or university, that is government compelling you to be searched against your will in order to exercise all the rights of being a citizen.
“They have truck mounted wall penetrating radar, unless you have a way to make your gun safe fuzzy, they can see them from the street.”
Including my “stuff” in the basement?
That’s all been addressed in decades of case law.
Example: Let’s say you are cooking meth in your basement. If Officer Joe just kicks your door in without a warrant because he has a hunch that you are cooking meth, that’s a clear 4th Amendment violation.
If Officer Joe tells your neighbor, John, to kick in your door and take pictures so he can get a warrant, that’s also a 4th Amendment violation because John is acting as a government agent.
However, let’s say that John, of his own accord, thinks that you are cooking meth, so he breaks into your house and night and takes pictures of your meth lab and then takes them to the police. John has actually committed a crime (breaking and entering) but the police can still use the information that he provides to obtain a warrant and search your house even though it came from John who was committing a crime at the time he did it, because he was a private person not acting as a government agent at the time of the search.
That’s how it works. Read the cases I cited.
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.