Just Another High School Shooting

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
Who's 4th rights have been violated?  The night clerk or the ones on the list?  The method of acquiring the list without a warrant doesn't matter.
The hotel registry is the hotel's property, so in this case, it would be the hotel owner's rights that had been violated.   Protections from illegal search and seizure are outlined in the 4th. Any evidence obtained by an illegal seizure would be tossed, and this would have impact to any action brought against hotel guests as a result of the illegal seizure. 

Can you provide any statute or decision that supports that premise? 

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,215
282
near Seattle, Wa
The definition of Brandishing in the US Statute (the only one that matters for this discussion) includes "menacing", and the mere existence of a firearm does not satisfy the legal definition "menacing".  Raising it to point at an individual?  That's menacing.  You know that, but will continue to obfuscate in your myopic pursuit of firearms eradication.  
My discussion (and your position) involves the gun rights presented in Heller. According to the three CATO attorneys, they are based on English precedent. You need to defend English precedent in a welcome, polite conversation. 

 

Spatial Ed

Super Anarchist
39,509
96
The hotel registry is the hotel's property, so in this case, it would be the hotel owner's rights that had been violated.   Protections from illegal search and seizure are outlined in the 4th. Any evidence obtained by an illegal seizure would be tossed, and this would have impact to any action brought against hotel guests as a result of the illegal seizure. 

Can you provide any statute or decision that supports that premise? 
So in your mind, the police illegally gathering information is only a 4th amendment violation of the keeper of that information and not the target of that information?  Wow.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,215
282
near Seattle, Wa
The definition of Brandishing in the US Statute (the only one that matters for this discussion) includes "menacing", and the mere existence of a firearm does not satisfy the legal definition "menacing".  Raising it to point at an individual?  That's menacing.  You know that, but will continue to obfuscate in your myopic pursuit of firearms eradication.  
The discussion of constitutional  gun "rights" now rests pivotally with Heller. Heller's CATO scholars insist that our self defense behavior and law came from England. In this discussion you need to defend and explain the laws in play during Colonial times, and brandishing a weapon was a felony. Displaying an open weapon was a misdemeanor. As stated repeatedly, intent or concealment became a felony.

(p1804) Most of the blame, however, can be attributed to Malcolm brushing aside the Statute of Northampton as insignificant with little, if any, research on the topic. In 1980, for example, Malcolm virtually dismissed an entire series of weapon statutes, and as a result mischaracterized the Statute as prohibiting the “brandish[ing of] a firearm so as to terrify others,”418 when the Statute actually prohibited the act of carrying arms in public.

Wherever the fault lies for Malcolm’s historical omission and mischaracterization, we know for certain that the Statute of Northampton was strictly enforced as a prohibition on going armed in public.422 It was a misdemeanor resulting in forfeiture of arms and up to thirty days imprisonment.423 There was no requirement that the accused have a specific intent to terrify the public or cause harm.424

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012
Gun "rights" violations were not listed in the Declaration of Independence. Why not?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
So in your mind, the police illegally gathering information is only a 4th amendment violation of the keeper of that information and not the target of that information?  Wow.
Gawdamn but you can twist and shout!    You asked a question, I gave you an answer, which as expected you tried and failed to twist into something that wasn't said.  

 
G

Guest

Guest
Mohammed Bin Lyin said:
How would registration have prevented this?
I've asked Specious that question several times now.  He just ignores it because he know's it can't "Prevent" murders.

 
G

Guest

Guest
Daddy and mommy should be on the hook for this.  See my strict liability explanation.  No excuse.  
Yep.  100% agree.  Start locking some parents up for their kid getting a gun and killing someone either accidentally or on purpose and make an example out of them.  It will be a wake up call for many to get their shit together and either secure their guns or get them out of the house.

 

Spatial Ed

Super Anarchist
39,509
96
Yep.  100% agree.  Start locking some parents up for their kid getting a gun and killing someone either accidentally or on purpose and make an example out of them.  It will be a wake up call for many to get their shit together and either secure their guns or get them out of the house.
Without registration, this is not possible.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,215
282
near Seattle, Wa
I've asked Specious that question several times now.  He just ignores it because he know's it can't "Prevent" murders.
Straw man. Hi Jeffie Poo. Registration helps to solve crimes. Nobody claimed they prevent murders.

Heller II loved registration. Why do you hate Heller II?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
91,779
9,781
Earth
Yep.  100% agree.  Start locking some parents up for their kid getting a gun and killing someone either accidentally or on purpose and make an example out of them.  It will be a wake up call for many to get their shit together and either secure their guns or get them out of the house.
Do that a few times, and people start taking better care to prevent stuff like this.  Registration?  No need to get the government involved in that, at least on the front end.  After a gun is used in a murder, go directly to the manufacturer.  If they cannot produce records of the sale to a purchaser (which wholesalers will always be able to show), they are on the hook too, otherwise, proceed down the chain of ownership/custody, until you reach the person who sold/gave/didn't secure or otherwise allowed it into the wrong hands.  They go on the hook too.  Go back to square one and start over; they lose everything, but end up with more than the victim, i.e. another chance.  

The fix comes not from taking away rights, but from requiring responsibility.  

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
59,738
4,535
De Nile
Yep.  100% agree.  Start locking some parents up for their kid getting a gun and killing someone either accidentally or on purpose and make an example out of them.  It will be a wake up call for many to get their shit together and either secure their guns or get them out of the house.
Daddy and Jr can share a cell

 

Blue Crab

benthivore
15,060
2,236
Outer Banks
The discussion of constitutionsal "rights" now rests with Heller. Heller insists that our self defense behavior and law came from England. In this discussion you need to defend and explain the laws in play during Colonial times, and brandishing a weapon was a felony.

Gun "rights" violations were not listed in the Declaration of Independence. Why not?
Geez Louise. That's the dumbest comment yet. We are a nation of laws and guns. Laws change occasionally. 

 
Top