Mayor of Boston Suggest Summit, Searches to Stem Flow of Illegal Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
stevelyn said:
Exactly how are cars any different than horse drawn buggies/coaches?:scrutiny: At least modern vehicles are registered in a manner that allows them to be tracked. Never knew of ox carts having that same requirement back in the day.

They're not that different, except that cars carry more, go much faster, can conceal more goods, and can be fitted with refrigeration systems. These differences do matter sometimes.

My state has an enormous amount of agriculture, and perpetual problems with crop pests and livestock disease. These can be imported quickly by car -even a little roadster - and the result could be economic disaster, and, if left completely unchecked, could even lead to large scale hunger and starvation.

It can be argued quite persuasively that there is a compelling reason to inspect or search vehicles crossing state lines, in some instances.

...which is why it would be damned good to have the balance of these rights clearly codified in an Amendment. It could, say, allow inspections for agriculture, but disallow other searches and forbid the use of any evidence found in such searches without probable cause, warrant, etc.

Now bear in mind that the REAL problem here is Massachusetts' gun laws, not the idea of catching mob/drug gang gun runners. Remember that the guns they are running could have been stolen from your house or mine. And I do strongly oppose unlawful search and seizure.
 
With any luck at all, Governor Mitt Romney will tell Mumbles to stop being an idiot and stick to screwing up the city and not the whole state. Romney is considering a Presidential run in '08, so I don't see him allowing a power grab by his major city's mayor that would annoy a significant part of the Republican pro-civil-liberty Party. McCain got nowhere being a centrist in the Republican primaries and neither would Romney, and I bet he's smart enough to know it.
 
ArmedBear said:
It can be argued quite persuasively that there is a compelling reason to inspect or search vehicles crossing state lines, in some instances.

...which is why it would be damned good to have the balance of these rights clearly codified in an Amendment. It could, say, allow inspections for agriculture, but disallow other searches and forbid the use of any evidence found in such searches without probable cause, warrant, etc.

That still sounds like a dangerous slippery slope to me. "Probable cause" can and always has been a notoriously undefineable and often abused thing...especially when there's no witnesses but the cops and the accused.
 
Manedwolf said:
That still sounds like a dangerous slippery slope to me. "Probable cause" can and always has been a notoriously undefineable and often abused thing...especially when there's no witnesses but the cops and the accused.

True, but it's the law we are living with now.

Generally, it means something like the cop has just seen you run into your house with a bag of money marked "Washington Mutual" in one hand, a smoking gun in the other, and mask on your face.

My point, though, was just that letting the Constitution define the limits of vehicular searches would be FAR better than letting various unaccountable judges just deciding after the fact, depending on their own biases.
 
I have read some BS about Mass gun laws in this thread and many others. If you don't know what the laws are then don't comment on them. All you are doing is spreading misinformation.

Here is a link to a site with the correct info on our gun laws.
http://www.goal.org/
 
Henry Bowman said:
If any of you have crossed the border from the United States into California in the last couple of decades, you have been stopped, questioned, and subject to search of your vehicle for contraband. The contraband in question is homegrown fruit or vegetables that could be carrying a disease or pest that could threaten their agricultural industry.

One would think that possessing and carrying food would be a fundamental right and that interstate transport regulation would be reserved to the federales, . . . but it appears it's not.

Also, if these California agri-rangers happen to find a banned AR or substance in your car, do you think that they just wave and say "Have a nice stay"?

This has already been tried and proven on the other coast. :mad:

The last time I crossed into CA, I stopped at the stop sign, just smiled at the uniformed person, said "Have a nice day!", and drove onwards.

I had a CHP pull me over a few miles later, and try to ask me why I didn't stop ... I kept asking him if I had committed an infraction or if I was free to go until he gave up and left.
 
There is a real problem with illegal arms in Boston and its suburbs, I think they should do something to clean it up. It only benefits the rest of the law abiding gun owners by removing the gang bangers and thier sources of illegal arms. I am not crazy about random vehicle searches, but it is a hell of alot better than the NYC, or Sanfran, Chicago solution, they are not BANNING handguns and hoping that all the criminals just say, damn hand guns are illegal and just turn them in. They are trying to stop the flow of the stolen, scrubbed of serial number, bought out of the back of a trunk guns that make thier way into un licenced, criminal hands. It is these criminals that give gun owners a bad name, they shoot someone with a weapon that they obtained illegally and it ends up on the news and the general public thinks that it is the fault of law abiding gun owners and then votes in favor of stricter gun laws. I am all in favor of removing guns from the hands of criminals. I think Menino is on a semi right track by noticing that it is the flow of ILLEGAL arms into the state and the criminals that traffic them, rather than blame and seek to further restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners. You can still CCW in Boston, not too bad for a major Democrat city. It would be alot easier for him to just blame guns in general and go for a total ban, but instead he is more intersted in catching the criminals. But thats just my take on it, I am fortunate enough to live outside of the city but close enough to acutally spend alot of time there.
 
SELLOUT

"I am not crazy about random vehicle searches, but it is a hell of alot better than the NYC, or Sanfran, Chicago solution, they are not BANNING handguns and hoping that all the criminals just say, damn hand guns are illegal and just turn them in."


In point of fact, the above three cities ARE banning guns, for all the good it will do them.

Moreover, this "It's better than a ban" BS is yet another example of whoring out our fundamental rights for the illusory promise of safety. Anyone here remember what Ben Franklin said about those making THAT bargain? :scrutiny:

Those willing to make that trade are a far greater disgrace to gun owners in particular and to Americans in general.

If Menino was serious about stopping gun violence in Boston, he'd focus his efforts IN Boston - the only place he has any authority - and not molest everyone else traveling in and through the state. The problems are in Boston's slums, Boston's housing projects and Boston's racial enclaves; not the border crossings of Rtes. 84, 90, 93, 95 or 1.

Put BOSTON police into the areas where the trouble is, instead of sucking up to minorities by harassing everyone else. All else is PC drivel. :barf:
 
The mantra of the gun grabber is their statements that "this reasonable step" is all we need to do.

Anyone who has ever studied history might remember a German dictator who kept telling a British Prime Minister that this is the "last of my territorial demands in Europe".

Appeasement of a gun grabber does not work.

The path from freedom to tyranny is paved with reasonable measures to ensure security.

Britain banned handguns in a knee jerk reaction to the act of an insane man who murdered children, the effect? Rising handgun crime.

Australia banned semi-automatic and pump action rifles, and handguns larger than .38 calibre in response to a mass murder.

Canada has licenced all gun owners and registered all firearms, today, they are blaming the Americans for smuggled handguns flooding into the country.

Reasonable citizens fearing crime will adopt many foolish measures that will never work as an attempt to be safe.

Amazing.

Sad.

Wrong.

TIZ
 
Moto said:
There is a real problem with illegal arms in Boston and its suburbs, I think they should do something to clean it up. It only benefits the rest of the law abiding gun owners by removing the gang bangers and thier sources of illegal arms. I am not crazy about random vehicle searches, but it is a hell of alot better than the NYC, or Sanfran, Chicago solution, they are not BANNING handguns and hoping that all the criminals just say, damn hand guns are illegal and just turn them in. They are trying to stop the flow of the stolen, scrubbed of serial number, bought out of the back of a trunk guns that make thier way into un licenced, criminal hands. It is these criminals that give gun owners a bad name, they shoot someone with a weapon that they obtained illegally and it ends up on the news and the general public thinks that it is the fault of law abiding gun owners and then votes in favor of stricter gun laws. I am all in favor of removing guns from the hands of criminals. I think Menino is on a semi right track by noticing that it is the flow of ILLEGAL arms into the state and the criminals that traffic them, rather than blame and seek to further restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners. You can still CCW in Boston, not too bad for a major Democrat city. It would be alot easier for him to just blame guns in general and go for a total ban, but instead he is more intersted in catching the criminals. But thats just my take on it, I am fortunate enough to live outside of the city but close enough to acutally spend alot of time there.
Moto - I will say this as politely as I can: You disgust me.

People like you are why we have gun control of any kind. You refuse to think and want to believe the lies.
 
kbarrett said:
The last time I crossed into CA, I stopped at the stop sign, just smiled at the uniformed person, said "Have a nice day!", and drove onwards.

I had a CHP pull me over a few miles later, and try to ask me why I didn't stop ... I kept asking him if I had committed an infraction or if I was free to go until he gave up and left.
Good for you! :)
 
I have a simple solution to this problem. Works every time. Just ask any Liberal. Mass just needs to pass a law banning people from bringing ILLEGAL arms into the state. Its as simple as that. All law abiding people will bend to that law. Now Mass will only have to deal with a few "Criminals". See how easy that was! ;)

"Pun"
 
I was thinking the other day on something similar.
Cops aren't supposed to be able to search your car without probable cause or your consent.
So what if they just say "I smell marijuana"?
 
Think again......

" was thinking the other day on something similar.
Cops aren't supposed to be able to search your car without probable cause or your consent. So what if they just say 'I smell marijuana?'"

While you were driving by at 65+ mph? :rolleyes:

'Keep thinkin' there, Butch; that's what you're good at."
 
+1 Honorsdaddy.

Instead of harassing the public at large, the City of Boston should put its energies and resources into dealing with the criminal elements, bluntly, enforce the damn laws. That way you get the scummies who have actually done something wrong off the streets and the rest of the populace is happy. Not a hard concept, just requires real work to make it happen, which seems to be a hard thing for gubmint 'workers' to get into, eh?
 
Mike in VA said:
+1 Honorsdaddy.

Instead of harassing the public at large, the City of Boston should put its energies and resources into dealing with the criminal elements, bluntly, enforce the damn laws. That way you get the scummies who have actually done something wrong off the streets and the rest of the populace is happy. Not a hard concept, just requires real work to make it happen, which seems to be a hard thing for gubmint 'workers' to get into, eh?
I guess thats what gets me. So much of this garbage is billed as "making the job of the police easier" or "making police safer" or some similar nonesense.

I really dont want this to sound harsh to our boys in blue, but the fact is, if you were expecting an easy job, thats just too bad. My rights are not subject to you feeling better or not having to work as hard.

What REALLY makes me sick though is the gun owner who takes an "I've got mine, i dont care how hard it is for others to get theirs" stance.
 
The only answer is to stop the criminals and then there will be less illegal guns. And this is not done by depraving law-abiding citizens of the right to a gun.
 
You are missing the point, I am not supporting random car searches, never said that I liked that idea, but I think that it is a good thing that they are finnaly acknowledging the fact that it is not the legal gun owners that are causing the problems, that it is infact criminals and something needs to be done about the criminals. In too many instances law abding gun owners are just lumped togther with the gangster thugs and punks that. The only point that I was trying to make is that it is nice to see legal gun owners not being blamed or associated with the criminals.
 
Tory said:
" was thinking the other day on something similar.
Cops aren't supposed to be able to search your car without probable cause or your consent. So what if they just say 'I smell marijuana?'"

While you were driving by at 65+ mph? :rolleyes:

'Keep thinkin' there, Butch; that's what you're good at."
...?
I don't get it.
*edit*
Oh, you're saying they lie about your speed more often?
I guess that'd make more sense, but I was just trying to come up with a generic excuse.
Seems to me that it's very hard to prevent the police from violating our 5th's right on the road. =/
By the way, I'm talking about the -bad- cops...not the good ones. We all know that all cops aren't corrupt. I'd be willing to say that the bad ones make up a very small portion.
 
PHD*

Piled Higher and Deeper:

"I think that it is a good thing that they are finnaly [sic] acknowledging the fact that it is not the legal gun owners that are causing the problems, that it is infact [sic] criminals and something needs to be done about the criminals."

And wholesale searches at the border make that clear - HOW? :scrutiny:

" In too many instances law abding [sic] gun owners are just lumped togther [sic] with the gangster thugs and punks that."

That WHAT? Please explain how stopping EVERYONE and subjecting them to search and seizure operations merely because they're driving into Massachusetts separates the lawful citizen from the target thug. Yes, that plan makes your distinction SO clear.... :rolleyes:

"The only point that I was trying to make is that it is nice to see legal gun owners not being blamed or associated with the criminals."

And Menino's proposed wholesale border searches make that point SO clearly. :barf:
 
Have to agree with others -

This is NOT a good step and will accomplish nothing.

1) Blaming others (bordering states) for the problem.

Sorry, crime in your area is YOUR problem.

2) Cars are used because they are easy, convenient,
common.

Start searching EVERY car (you can't - simply not enough
time/manpower ) and the smugglers will simply find
another 'method/route' - common carrier mislabled
shipments ?? , or are ALL of those going to be inspected
as well ??

This is simply another politician who is trying to show the 'by thunder, HE'S DOING SOMETHING about crime !!
Yeah, sure he is !!

Sorry but I don't buy the 'search the vehicles' as a solution to ANYTHING.
 
Moto said:
You are missing the point,
No - i think you are.
Moto said:
I am not supporting random car searches,
Yes you were.
Moto said:
never said that I liked that idea,
Saying you dont like it but not objecting to it being done is ths same as supporting it.
Moto said:
but I think that it is a good thing that they are finnaly acknowledging the fact that it is not the legal gun owners that are causing the problems, that it is infact criminals and something needs to be done about the criminals.
So you think the way to address the criminal element is to harrass everyone?
Moto said:
In too many instances law abding gun owners are just lumped togther with the gangster thugs and punks that.
Yeah, and while you dont like it, its ok because something is being done right?
Moto said:
The only point that I was trying to make is that it is nice to see legal gun owners not being blamed or associated with the criminals.
Did i miss something? The idiot mayor is talking about searching EVERYONE, and you somehow thing that means the law abiding are not being associated with criminals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top