Sheriff's task force to search cars in Milwaukee for guns

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ^ | 7 May 03 | Reid J. Epstein

[PatrioticAmerican]

Are guns banned in Milwaukee? If so, I think I ound a major factor in the crime rate.

[_Jim]

"...everyone can support reducing the number of illegal guns on city streets."

I don't.

"Illegal guns" do not kill or harm fellow citizens.

Fellow citizens kill or harm fellow citizens.

I think the POINT here was illegal OWNERSHIP - by a felon or a 'yute' who was not of age.

THIS is point those who *blindly* support the Second Amendment FAIL to comprehend - firearm ownership is not for every one - there HAS to be some qualification such as sanity (sound mind), of-age, clean, non-felony record ...

[Larry Lucido]

Clarke is a hero. The people of Milwaukee's central city are prisoners in their own homes

If that's true (and I don't doubt that it is), then the answer is more, not less, guns. Arm the citizens and teach them how to defend their homes.

[Boot Hill]

The article says:   "Consent searches, in which police get drivers' permission to search vehicles stopped for minor infractions..."

Citizen's rule #1 of vehicle stops:   NEVER EVER AGREE TO A "CONSENT" SEARCH OF ANY KIND.

And that definitely includes so-called "field sobriety tests". No matter what they say or threaten you with, you are not required to submit to either. Be polite and clear, but be firm.

If they ask, tell them you are acting on advice of attorney, but add nothing more. Avoid the temptation to explain the 4th and 5th Amendments to them.

--Boot Hill

[budwiesest]

there HAS to be some qualification

Infringments? Which version of the second ammendment have you been reading?

[Lurker]

I guess that's why the Founders put all those qualifications into the 2nd Amendment you idiot.

Spoken like a true F Trooper....

L

[Lurker]

The F Troop version.

L

[budwiesest]

Thought maybe Feinstein or Schumer had rewritten it while I was getting my truck smogged.

[Nebr FAL owner]

From SA brownshirt to SS Einsaetz Gruppe that's WTF.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

A police officer's job is to enforce the law and help to keep the general peace of a community. It is not their job to randomly search cars to look for whatever they want.

This story really ticks me off. It is a blatant violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

I know in New York state they sometimes do "Seat Belt Checkpoints." They slow up traffic looking into your car to make sure you have your seat belt on. (They do it to save peoples' lives not to make money off tickets.) I told my wife that if I ever see one of these ahead on the road that I am going to turn around if possible to avoid it.

Here we have people driving recklessly, and other misfits to take care of in almost every city and yet it seems some Cops have nothing to do rather than harass peaceful citizens with nazi warrantless searches. It is disgusting.

[_Jim]

Infringments? Which version of the second ammendment have you been reading?

UNDER AGE gang members can run around with Uzi's?

I WOULD GUESS that YOU'RE OKAY with that?

[_Jim]

I guess that's why the Founders put all those qualifications into

ANOTHER LAME BRAIN WHO WOULD ENDORSE "FIREARMS FOR FELONS" ...

[Dan from Michigan]

"Do you consent to a search?"
No.

End of story.

[Paul C. Jesup]

There is at least one person in Milwaukee County that deserves to be arrested for carrying a gun and that is Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr himself.

He should be JAILED for making everyone else live by a law that he does NOT obey.

I for one am tired of the hypocritical jack boot thugs. It is time for someone to shove these laws, that they themselves don't obey, right back down their throats.

[supercat]

THIS is point those who *blindly* support the Second Amendment FAIL to comprehend - firearm ownership is not for every one - there HAS to be some qualification such as sanity (sound mind), of-age, clean, non-felony record ...

I see nothing that indicates the term "people" was intended to mean anything less than "all free persons". I will grant that slaves were never intended to have their rights protected. Until emancipation (either by age or court process) minors are legally slaves of their parents. People convicted of severe crimes can become slaves of the state per the Thirteenth Amendment.

Free people, however, are not to be denied arms.

[Dan from Michigan]

Sheriff John Bonnel

Sheriff Hollywood with the shades?

[_Jim]

CONSDIER it another 'seatbelt check' - but for properly owned firearms this time.

Ya know, it's well meaning little do-gooders like yourself with myopic vision that FAIL to see that firearm ownership needs *some* regulation, some criteria for ownership in a community.

Lily-white white-bread 2nd Amendment 'pushers' like yourself who live safely in your 'bunkers' out in the country DON'T take into consideration a scenario in a big urban city where the criminal element has nearly completely taken over ...

[scott7278]

Now we know where the Republican Guard went...they're in Milwaukee!

[_Jim]

Free people, however, are not to be denied arms.

So, of-age, sane, non-felons are to be considered 'free people'?

(You sound like a nut ball with this 'free people' BS.)

[The UnVeiled Lady]

If they ask, tell them you are acting on advice of attorney, but add nothing more. Avoid the temptation to explain the 4th and 5th Amendments to them. --Boot Hill

May I ask WHY you shouldn't quote the 4th? If you tell them they CAN search your car as soon as they show you a "warrant SIGNED AND DATED BY A JUDGE, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized" they know you know more about the Constitution then they do and should back off.