Respect the Constitution

GGReporter · 07-05-2008, 09:32 AM

Oakland, California, looks to be the next city to back off of the "Safe Homes Initiative," a plan to send officers door to door to look for illegally possessed firearms.

When the project was announced in Boston late last year, it was met with a storm of protests. A few months later, Washington, D.C., announced it would be conducting a similar program, and that city was greeted with protests as well. Now it's Oakland's turn to hear from angry citizens, and like Boston and D.C., Oakland is backing off.

Now all three cities say they won't send officers door to door, but will instead send officers out to search a person's home if they request it. So far, police in Boston and D.C. are still waiting for someone to call and ask to have their home searched.

The politicians will no doubt still call this program a success, even though citizens have always been able to ask the police to search their homes for whatever reason they want. The real story is that residents in Boston, D.C. and now Oakland are standing up for their constitutional rights. If they're standing up for the Fourth Amendment, it gives me hope that more of them will start standing up for their Second Amendment rights as well.

More...

Cyrano · 07-07-2008, 07:02 AM

... and that word is "failure."

Quite aside from conjuring up visions of the Gestapo or the KGB kicking in doors in the middle of the night as it was originally announced, the right to feel safe in our homes against unreasonable searches and seizure goes back from the Fourth Amendment clear into English Common Law. Taking a look at the cities that were 'offering' the program (read: attempting to compel compliance with the program), it's clear to me that the goal was not to "make citizens safe in their homes" but rather to confiscate any firearms that these unconstitutional searches found, illegal or not. All three cities have a history of hostility to the concept of gun ownership by the citizenry.

Did the lackwits who came up with this idea think the Framers of the Constitution put the Fourth Amendment, clearly and plainly worded to mean, "You wanna look inside someone's home? Show cause to a judge and get a search warrant first!" as an idle fancy? Or did they think it simply was an obsolete notion no longer applicable to the modern world?

I do hope they haven't put any physically able street cops on the detail to answer the phone; because if they have, those cops will be retired on active duty. I suspect hell will freeze over before the phone rings.

07-05-2008, 09:32 AM	#1
GGReporter Magazine Staff Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 717	Respect the Constitution Oakland, California, looks to be the next city to back off of the "Safe Homes Initiative," a plan to send officers door to door to look for illegally possessed firearms. When the project was announced in Boston late last year, it was met with a storm of protests. A few months later, Washington, D.C., announced it would be conducting a similar program, and that city was greeted with protests as well. Now it's Oakland's turn to hear from angry citizens, and like Boston and D.C., Oakland is backing off. Now all three cities say they won't send officers door to door, but will instead send officers out to search a person's home if they request it. So far, police in Boston and D.C. are still waiting for someone to call and ask to have their home searched. The politicians will no doubt still call this program a success, even though citizens have always been able to ask the police to search their homes for whatever reason they want. The real story is that residents in Boston, D.C. and now Oakland are standing up for their constitutional rights. If they're standing up for the Fourth Amendment, it gives me hope that more of them will start standing up for their Second Amendment rights as well. More...

07-07-2008, 07:02 AM	#2
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 2,356	There's a word for the "Safe Houses" Program... ... and that word is "failure." Quite aside from conjuring up visions of the Gestapo or the KGB kicking in doors in the middle of the night as it was originally announced, the right to feel safe in our homes against unreasonable searches and seizure goes back from the Fourth Amendment clear into English Common Law. Taking a look at the cities that were 'offering' the program (read: attempting to compel compliance with the program), it's clear to me that the goal was not to "make citizens safe in their homes" but rather to confiscate any firearms that these unconstitutional searches found, illegal or not. All three cities have a history of hostility to the concept of gun ownership by the citizenry. Did the lackwits who came up with this idea think the Framers of the Constitution put the Fourth Amendment, clearly and plainly worded to mean, "You wanna look inside someone's home? Show cause to a judge and get a search warrant first!" as an idle fancy? Or did they think it simply was an obsolete notion no longer applicable to the modern world? I do hope they haven't put any physically able street cops on the detail to answer the phone; because if they have, those cops will be retired on active duty. I suspect hell will freeze over before the phone rings.