Constitutionality of mapping

[shield20]

I am more inclined to think that IF we stuck to the Constitution, most of the people (able-body, blah blah) would have guns as their duty, and it wouldn't matter what kind of map was created. Surely the States kept muster records. Surely those members had gun(s). Probably would be more interesting to see who ISN'T armed - as they should be the ones who are more rightly scorned and rediculed.

It was the duty of the people to be armed, and to serve in the Militia. That Militia existed long before the Constitution gave some of the states' powers over it to the feds (creating or recreating it wasn't one of them). There is the reality however.

In the end, the Constitution is part of a "system" of govt. When one part is changed - for instance creating a new federal "militia" to fullfil the responsibilities the people in the Militias of the several States were constitutionally required to fill, all kinds of things can get affected along the way. Obviously our right to KEEP and BEAR arms is one of them (NOT that it SHOULD change - only that it gets questioned much more readily).

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Funny how the duty to be armed business didn't make it in the Constitution. Of course, it would only apply to "adult" and free males.

 

[Titan6]

Well finnally some good news for a change.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21808274/

 

[shield20]

Funny how the duty to be armed business didn't make it in the Constitution. Of course, it would only apply to "adult" and free males.

Of course it did - that whole part about "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", and "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security..." covers it well. Says the Militia IS REQUIRED and why; what that Militia is comprised of (the people) was well understood. YOUR duty as "the people" is assigned, and your right to arms is secured. The only "citizen" exception was removed during debates in Congress (those religiously scrupulous).

Makes sense - who better to guard the people's laws and liberties then the people (well trained, well armed) themselves?..the recourse being that bane of liberty - a Standing Army.

 

[ilbob]

Well finnally some good news for a change.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21808274/

whats good about it?

the fact is that mosques ARE a major source of funding and recruitment for terrorism. there is not even any question about that.

this is far more targeted then your typical DUI checkpoint which is basically just randomly stopping everyone that comes along.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

the fact is that mosques ARE a major source of funding and recruitment for terrorism. there is not even any question about that.

this is far more targeted then your typical DUI checkpoint which is basically just randomly stopping everyone that comes along.
ilbob is online now Report Post

Your making a blanket assumption about Muslims. If a Mosque in the US was found to be funding or recruiting terrorists, people would be arrested and funds seized. There is no need to "keep tabs" on people. There are laws on the books already about funding and recruiting for terrorists.

 

[ilbob]

Your making a blanket assumption about Muslims. If a Mosque in the US was found to be funding or recruiting terrorists, people would be arrested and funds seized. There is no need to "keep tabs" on people. There are laws on the books already about funding and recruiting for terrorists.

No blanket statement at all. There is very good evidence that many if not most or all mosques are being used for illegal purposes. it is a good thing that places where illegal activities are going on be watched. no different than cops watching bars that are trouble spots.

I didn't see any thing in the blurb that indicated there was going to be any suppression of the religion of peace. only that some information was going to be gathered, and it appeared that the information gathering would not be intrusive.

If a few people are hanging out at a specific bar and plotting to blow up abortion clinics, no doubt you would see nothing wrong with police looking a little closer at that bar and the people who frequent it.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

There is very good evidence that many if not most or all mosques are being used for illegal purposes.

Then instead of just watching them and making a list and checking it twice, just raid the place and seize the funds. If you have enough information to get a search warrant, use it. Don't stand around watching people until they actually carry out something if you have proof that they are planning it.

 

[Titan6]

Okay what about the 99% that are not doing anything illegal? *gasp*

 

[ilbob]

Then instead of just watching them and making a list and checking it twice, just raid the place and seize the funds. If you have enough information to get a search warrant, use it. Don't stand around watching people until they actually carry out something if you have proof that they are planning it.

Maybe they prefer to let them go and bring in bigger fish. Or maybe it is just too hot of an issue. Keep in mind that there are a fair number of churches that are sheltering illegals and nothing is being done about them either.

 

[Titan6]

I didn't see any thing in the blurb that indicated there was going to be any suppression of the religion of peace. only that some information was going to be gathered, and it appeared that the information gathering would not be intrusive.

I guess you missed the part about warrantless searches.

 

[ilbob]

Okay what about the 99% that are not doing anything illegal? *gasp*

I would be willing to bet more then 1% of mosques have terroist activities associated with them. A large number of them have been funded by the Wahhabist Islam sect, mostly with Saudi oil money, which may explain a lot of things.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Keep in mind that there are a fair number of churches that are sheltering illegals and nothing is being done about them either.

And that fact disgusts me. Since when are laws enforced based on their popularity or the race or religion of the offender? To sum it up my point is that if these people are so bad that we need to watch them, why don't we just go ahead and arrest them and try them for crimes in public? I have no issue with arresting terrorists and then giving them due process (assuming American citizenship). I just don't see why all of this mapping is needed. Like it has been said before, a map is just a pictorial depiction of data already on hand. If we already know who they are and where they live, bust 'em.

 

[Titan6]

I would be willing to bet more then 1% of mosques have terroist activities associated with them. A large number of them have been funded by the Wahhabist Islam sect, mostly with Saudi oil money, which may explain a lot of things.

Really? I bet it is not anywhere near 1%. 1% is generally considered wide scale insurgency level such as Iraq, where it is estimated that 1% are involved with either supporting or involved directly with terrorist operations.

1% of 5,000,000 muslims nationwide is 50,000. Are you trying to tell us that we have 50,000 terrorists in this country that are organized through their mosques and we don't have terrorist acts every day? week? month? We have more terrorists living in America than in Isreal? Ireland? Are they really that incompetent? Is the FBI and DHS really that good?

Try to use reason not Fox News.

 

[Titan6]

I just don't see why all of this mapping is needed.

We need mapping because religous profiling and racial profiling would not sound good in the Supreme Court.

 

[Colonel]

This might be slightly off-topic, but...did Philadelphia authorities actually do this?

If so, it's kind of interesting, given their anti-gun bent.

 

[mattjmcd]

Titan6

Did the poster to whom you are responding use the word "mosques" or "muslims"? Your reply regarding the number of muslims (5million) seems to suggest that you read it as "muslims". I don't think that you are trying to suggest that there are 50k (let along 5 million) mosques in the US. Are you..?

 

[Titan6]

He was referring to mosques. The overall LAPD mapping plan would have targeted muslims and certain ethnic groups as well as mosques, community centers, schools, businesses and such. Either way the implication is the same. Muslims belong to a mosque some where do they not? Certainly in proportional numbers? Or are we saying it is only the imans that are involved? That the entire religious organization is itself merely a cover for criminal activity?

Why don't we go ahead and say that all Catholic priests are pedophiles while we are at it. Instead of observing Muslims we start maping where all the Catholics live because clearly they are all in on it. We go into the churches and rectories because "we all" "know" that crimes are being committed there.
The funny thing is there are people that would support such a scheme in this country....

However, it is important to note that there have been no actual terrorist attacks from the targeted groups in LA. The thought police were certainly on patrol in this scheme. One would think with the level of crime in LA currently that the police would find better ways to spend their time instead of targeting groups of people for observation and rights violation who are not actually doing anything illegal (but must be thinking about.... because we know how "they" think...)

I can give them some pointers (like rounding up some of the millions of illegal immigrants) if they need some ideas on what to do with their time and California's tax dollars.

 

[siglite]

It was my intention to AVOID the whole muslim/mapping thing. I don't know how much weight this carries as the OP, but I'd sure like to stick to gun owner mapping and it's constitutionality. IMO, if you want to discuss the muslim mapping thing, start another thread. Please. Respectfully.

I don't want this thread to go away. It's been one of the most informative threads I've read on the 2nd amendment. Jeff's depiction of legal realities have been disheartening to me, but I appreciate reading about the realities of the current legal climate.

His referencing of the sedition act has caused me to do some reading, too.

I think we all agree that the 2nd should be absolute, and untouchable. But as much as I dislike reading about law and case law that says otherwise, I feel I need to know about it.

 

[Titan6]

It was my intention to AVOID the whole muslim/mapping thing. I don't know how much weight this carries as the OP, but I'd sure like to stick to gun owner mapping and it's constitutionality. IMO, if you want to discuss the muslim mapping thing, start another thread. Please. Respectfully.

Sorry for the hijack. My point was that schemes such as these tread on the fourth ammendment depending upon how they are employed. I doubt the ACLU would support gun owners (it is very rare that they do) but they were very helpful in LA.

 

[mattjmcd]

My point was that schemes such as these tread on the fourth ammendment depending upon how they are employed

Indeed. It's that "depending on how" bit that makes all the difference. That and the actual details of the scheme, of course.

Apologies to all for the distraction. I'll look into another thread if one gets brewing on the specific topic of the LAPD plan. For clarity, I will adivse that my first post in this thread WAS in direct reference to the LAPD plan.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Get the discussion back on tract, or it'll get closed.

 

[siglite]

I'm ashamed to say that until now, I'd not read the Sedition Act. It's short enough to quote most of section 1.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States,....

So much for a constitutional reset button. Jefferson must've flipped his lid when this was passed under Adams.

Thanks for causing me to go read that, Jeff.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

Being uncomfortable with the idea, regardless of possible legality is natural, normal and to be expected. Spend all the time you want justifying the map, that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Bingo.

[RANT]
To paraphrase the arguments about gun mapping... Someone mentioned Roe v. Wade previously in this thread. Regardless of one's position on it, it is undeniable that the national debate over Roe is one of the biggest moral issues of the past 34 years. One can easily make the argument that, in the wake of Roe, abortion is constitutional. One can just as easily make ozwyn's argument that, even though it might be constitutional, it might not be the right thing to do. It certainly doesn't help matters that a Chief Justice who wanted things one way rather than another way, found "penumbras" and "emanations" in the Constitution from which to justify his vote, as well as the majority opinion. The problem is that the "penumbras and emanations" approach can be used to justify almost any perversion of original intent, and the people who will be subjected to those perversions of intent - the citizenry - will have absolutely no recourse or redress other than the decades long process of getting justices appointed who will take a more constructionist viewpoint, AND THEN convincing those justices to revisit these core issues and reverse the bad decisions of previous courts. Since this almost never happens, The People get screwed almost every time.

My point is that there are certain things that just seem to ring true or false. The founders were very wise men, but they were not possessed of infinite wisdom. That is God's purview alone. Given our knowledge of their limitations as men, and given the natural fact that there are some issues that they just could not have foreseen, doesn't it make perfect sense for both "The People" AND the SCOTUS justices to lean as much as possible on the written words of the founders which elaborate on that intent before setting out into unknown constitutional territory? I would make the following argument: The founders may very well have had it in mind that the local and/or national governments should have lists of all those men who qualified as members of the militia, but that they did not intend that these lists would have included detailed information about the arms possessed by those men, particularly for the purposes of regulating said arms OR for controlling the flow of arms within the local ecomonies. This would have been for two reasons: 1) it was naturally assumed that most men of militia age already possessed weapons and ammunition because that was the social norm; and 2) that it was also naturally assumed that, for those men who did not possess weapons and ammunition, the state or federal government would be able to provide such.

So, WRT to the constitutionality of gun mapping, I would say that it ought to be a requirement of the legislation that enabled the mapping in the first place to A) clearly delineate the constitutional argument for it; and B) to clearly delineate how it will be used within those constitutional constraints; and C) to clearly, explicitly, and preemptively forbid any other uses of it than those permitted under the proposed legislation.

I suppose that such would be too much to hope for.
[/RANT]

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

I'd have to agree with the OP that we should keep this on track. No need for it to end up anyone having a temper tantrum.

As disheartening as it is in some cases to some people, I think that the very good information presented here tells us that as much as we may not like it, it's not illegal nor unconstitutional.

Of course, it has yet to be tested by/with the Supremes.

I can see legitimate uses for mapping and I would agree they are, for various reasons hard to swallow, but what good is it to preserve absolutes of liberty if it would eventually lead to the overthrow of our government, constitution and all other liberties we enjoy in the name of political correctness.