TexasCHLforum.com

If you will forgive the source, a little local humor, but perhaps relevant, depending on the eye of the beholder.

???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/1 ... ostpopular" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Equc9A1pqQk[/youtube]
Another vid of the testimony - front the front.

Man is a Plunderer by nature and it's safer to Plunder an Armed American Citizen with the perversion of Law than to outright Plunder by force. Many American Citizens are waking up and the State is very aware of this fact. It's only natural that the Plundering State be prepared to meet force with greater force to continue safe Plundering and the very fact that we Americans are funding and supporting our own demise is asinine.

We are all "sovereign beings" and whether one chooses to live on his knees or die on his feet is a personal belief that will need to suffer the consequences when that "Security" comes knocking on the door. Of course their is a chance this will not happen to you or I and it will just happen to our children or grand children but it will indeed happen. It's the Nature of all States throughout history, and that pesky little sentence "the Right to Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed..." charted our collision course with the State in 1787. This is our Destiny, like it or not it will happen.

We could of course avoid our duty, turn in all our guns and pledge our posterity to the State...we might save some resources by not having to fund such a large Standing Army with a bunch of BearCats and blue clad GI Joes that have never read the Constitution...

Col Gabe Martino (USMC Retired) wrote:There's always free cheese in the mousetrap.

That right there is a money quote.

At this root of this, like the Smart Meters is "grants" from the Federal government. Which law did Congress pass that authorized such "grants".

The Federal House, if they had the brass do it, could stop a lot of the nonsense by simply cutting the funds. There are no grants without the funds to make them. Unfortunately, both sides of the isle have abandoned their responsibility and ceded the power to the Executive Branch which has now run a muck with grants. Under the heading that nothing is free, I suspect that those behind the grants intend the local police organizations to use the equipment in ways that local populations might not desire.

Syntyr wrote:

OldCannon wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Want.

All these silly SWAT teams with their funny armored vehicles. Ever see what 30 angry people can do to an "armored" car?

Those things operate poorly when upside down.

Ummm yep... Most of them don't do so well on fire either...
[ Image ]

Wait a minute, wait a minute. What have we here, gentlemen? The police have themselves an RV.

Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on better body armor or something?

you all know that the fine DPD guys own one. right?
Ive both worked on and drove it a few times. Its an F550 diesel rebodied in full plate.

cheezit wrote:you all know that the fine DPD guys own one. right?
Ive both worked on and drove it a few times. Its an F550 diesel rebodied in full plate.

I'm jealous. Paradise doesn't have a fancy Assault Vehicle. We don't have any LEO's either. I imagine if we ever did get an LEO he or she would have to provide his or her own vehicle or borrow one from Bridgeport. Bridgeport don't have a fancy battle cruiser either.

I sure hope one of them big cities don't attack us...

The Annoyed Man wrote:Image of a Bearcat, for those (like me) who didn't know what one is:
[ Image ]

Google Images: CLICK HERE

Why do guys driving a "rescue vehicle" need masks to hide their identities? And how come the dog doesn't get to hide his?

War on Americans: The Coming Police State of America is Here
Militarized Police: Overkill is Becoming the Norm as Officers Shoot First and Ask Questions Later

baldeagle wrote:War on Americans: The Coming Police State of America is Here
Militarized Police: Overkill is Becoming the Norm as Officers Shoot First and Ask Questions Later

With my respect to the poster of the above, I must note that the first reference given here says at the beginning of the 4th paragraph: "In short, what [the 4th Amendment] means is that for a police officer to search your home or your belongings, he must present a warrant."

That statement is simply and clearly untrue. The 4th Amendment does not require the presentation of a warrant for a police officer to search your home or your belongings.

The 4th only protects us against "unreasonable searches and seizures." As one who has always thought the 4th Amendment is one of our most important, and one which today suffers from abuse and ignorance as much as any of our rights in the Bill of Rights do, and I include here the 2nd, I also firmly believe that if we go to the mat misquoting the Bill of Rights we not only do not help the cause of freedom, but we hurt it. That is, an untrue statement is easily rebutted, without getting into the merits of the particular case.

I must recognize, of course, that the author of that sentence goes on to weakly take some of the meat out of it, but the sentence stands alone as a statement of fact, and many, misled by such statements, wrongly believe them to be true. Unless there is some other requirement for a warrant under certain circumstances, either, for example, judge-made, legislature-made, or people-made, the follow-on in the 4th just describes what is required of the one seeking the warrant.

There have been judges and scholars who credibly argue that a search warrant, complying with the spirit and the words of the 4th before its issuance, makes the following search and/or seizure prima facie reasonable, although even the warrant may be later challenged. That is, it moves the burden of satisfying one's self in advance that a prospective search and/or seizure will be reasonable from the LEO or DA to a judge.

If we can succeed in protecting ourselves against unreasonable searches and seizures we will have won this battle without muddying the argument up unnecessarily.

Jim

b322da wrote:

baldeagle wrote:War on Americans: The Coming Police State of America is Here
Militarized Police: Overkill is Becoming the Norm as Officers Shoot First and Ask Questions Later

With my respect to the poster of the above, I must note that the first reference given here says at the beginning of the 4th paragraph: "In short, what [the 4th Amendment] means is that for a police officer to search your home or your belongings, he must present a warrant."

That statement is simply and clearly untrue. The 4th Amendment does not require the presentation of a warrant for a police officer to search your home or your belongings.

The 4th only protects us against "unreasonable searches and seizures." As one who has always thought the 4th Amendment is one of our most important, and one which today suffers from abuse and ignorance as much as any of our rights in the Bill of Rights do, and I include here the 2nd, I also firmly believe that if we go to the mat misquoting the Bill of Rights we not only do not help the cause of freedom, but we hurt it. That is, an untrue statement is easily rebutted, without getting into the merits of the particular case.

I must recognize, of course, that the author of that sentence goes on to weakly take some of the meat out of it, but the sentence stands alone as a statement of fact, and many, misled by such statements, wrongly believe them to be true. Unless there is some other requirement for a warrant under certain circumstances, either, for example, judge-made, legislature-made, or people-made, the follow-on in the 4th just describes what is required of the one seeking the warrant.

There have been judges and scholars who credibly argue that a search warrant, complying with the spirit and the words of the 4th before its issuance, makes the following search and/or seizure prima facie reasonable, although even the warrant may be later challenged. That is, it moves the burden of satisfying one's self in advance that a prospective search and/or seizure will be reasonable from the LEO or DA to a judge.

If we can succeed in protecting ourselves against unreasonable searches and seizures we will have won this battle without muddying the argument up unnecessarily.

Jim

One does have to recall that one of the reasons the 4th was written was due to the use of improper warrants to begin with, and that searches and seizures conducted with such warrants were deemed unreasonable, not that ALL searches, particularly without warrant were unreasonable.

Part of the problem is the subtle but not insignificant interpretation of the English language that has happened in the time since the Bill of Rights was written, which has of course led some to believe that the militia is the only "people" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Unfortunately court cases since have allowed skewed interpretations to continue, encouraging those who do the misinterpreting to continue.

b322da wrote:

baldeagle wrote:War on Americans: The Coming Police State of America is Here
Militarized Police: Overkill is Becoming the Norm as Officers Shoot First and Ask Questions Later

With my respect to the poster of the above, I must note that the first reference given here says at the beginning of the 4th paragraph: "In short, what [the 4th Amendment] means is that for a police officer to search your home or your belongings, he must present a warrant."

That statement is simply and clearly untrue. The 4th Amendment does not require the presentation of a warrant for a police officer to search your home or your belongings.

The 4th only protects us against "unreasonable searches and seizures." As one who has always thought the 4th Amendment is one of our most important, and one which today suffers from abuse and ignorance as much as any of our rights in the Bill of Rights do, and I include here the 2nd, I also firmly believe that if we go to the mat misquoting the Bill of Rights we not only do not help the cause of freedom, but we hurt it. That is, an untrue statement is easily rebutted, without getting into the merits of the particular case.

I must recognize, of course, that the author of that sentence goes on to weakly take some of the meat out of it, but the sentence stands alone as a statement of fact, and many, misled by such statements, wrongly believe them to be true. Unless there is some other requirement for a warrant under certain circumstances, either, for example, judge-made, legislature-made, or people-made, the follow-on in the 4th just describes what is required of the one seeking the warrant.

There have been judges and scholars who credibly argue that a search warrant, complying with the spirit and the words of the 4th before its issuance, makes the following search and/or seizure prima facie reasonable, although even the warrant may be later challenged. That is, it moves the burden of satisfying one's self in advance that a prospective search and/or seizure will be reasonable from the LEO or DA to a judge.

If we can succeed in protecting ourselves against unreasonable searches and seizures we will have won this battle without muddying the argument up unnecessarily.

Jim

I would think that this is also dependent upon one's interpretation of unreasonable. Personally, I consider the house to house search in Boston unreasonable - at least a search of my home would be.

mayor wrote:

b322da wrote:

baldeagle wrote:War on Americans: The Coming Police State of America is Here
Militarized Police: Overkill is Becoming the Norm as Officers Shoot First and Ask Questions Later

With my respect to the poster of the above, I must note that the first reference given here says at the beginning of the 4th paragraph: "In short, what [the 4th Amendment] means is that for a police officer to search your home or your belongings, he must present a warrant."

That statement is simply and clearly untrue. The 4th Amendment does not require the presentation of a warrant for a police officer to search your home or your belongings.

The 4th only protects us against "unreasonable searches and seizures." As one who has always thought the 4th Amendment is one of our most important, and one which today suffers from abuse and ignorance as much as any of our rights in the Bill of Rights do, and I include here the 2nd, I also firmly believe that if we go to the mat misquoting the Bill of Rights we not only do not help the cause of freedom, but we hurt it. That is, an untrue statement is easily rebutted, without getting into the merits of the particular case.

I must recognize, of course, that the author of that sentence goes on to weakly take some of the meat out of it, but the sentence stands alone as a statement of fact, and many, misled by such statements, wrongly believe them to be true. Unless there is some other requirement for a warrant under certain circumstances, either, for example, judge-made, legislature-made, or people-made, the follow-on in the 4th just describes what is required of the one seeking the warrant.

There have been judges and scholars who credibly argue that a search warrant, complying with the spirit and the words of the 4th before its issuance, makes the following search and/or seizure prima facie reasonable, although even the warrant may be later challenged. That is, it moves the burden of satisfying one's self in advance that a prospective search and/or seizure will be reasonable from the LEO or DA to a judge.

If we can succeed in protecting ourselves against unreasonable searches and seizures we will have won this battle without muddying the argument up unnecessarily.

Jim

I would think that this is also dependent upon one's interpretation of unreasonable. Personally, I consider the house to house search in Boston unreasonable - at least a search of my home would be.

Absolutely.

The idea that the 4th means there's no requirement to present a warrant prior to a search assumes one thing which is evidently becoming not uncommon anymore, is the basis for the warrant bonafide? Or is it another papered pretext based on a 'confidential source/informant/or basic hearsay allegations "I smelled weed smoke, I saw pot plants, pick your excuse, etc"
'Well you can always hash it out in court later', as the argument goes. This assumes a lot of things, do you have the means to afford the legal costs? Can you get an attorney to take your case? Can you afford the time involved? Is there any real chance you can win? what will change if you do "win"? Far too many "ifs" for a basic right.