Public gun scanners....

[2pointslow]

[http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/17/nypd-testing-gun-scanning-technology/

[Radio Flyer1647545514]

Page not found.

[stangsn95gt]

Page not found.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/17/nypd-testing-gun-scanning-technology/

[El Karacho1647545492]

Its a controversial issue, but the "privacy" thing needs to be thrown out. You have no right to privacy walking down a street.

[sol740]

Its a controversial issue, but the "privacy" thing needs to be thrown out. You have no right to privacy walking down a street.

 

I agree somewhat, however you do have a right against unlawful searches. Which this should be considered.

[CRed05]

Its a controversial issue, but the "privacy" thing needs to be thrown out. You have no right to privacy walking down a street.

 

This. Besides, if you have a carry license then you have nothing to worry about. At the same time I don't see how this is going to prevent shit from happening. Maybe in states and countries where you aren't allowed to carry a gun, but here that person still has to actually bust out the gun and try to harm someone, at that point it should be pretty clear who has the gun.

[El Karacho1647545492]

I agree somewhat, however you do have a right against unlawful searches. Which this should be considered.

 

I disagree that it should be considered an unlawful seach. If you're a legal gun owner, are in compliance with all laws, you have nothing to worry about. If you are an illegal gun owner, or are not in compliance with laws, then you have no right not to be searched. Its not like drugs or contraband which can in no way hurt those around you (directly) when they are on your person. An improperly carried gun can kill people.

 

What I fear is that they will use this passive scanning to conduct unlawful searches. Lets look at a couple examples;

 

Scenario 1) Lawful gun owner, not doing anything illegal

-LEO Uses passive scan to determine he is carrying a concealed weapon

-LEA aproaches subject, asks for identification and proof of legal ownership and right to carry weapon

-Subject provides information, is sent along his merry way

 

Scenario 2) Unlawful gun owner, otherwise not doing anything illegal

-LEO identifies subject using passive scan

-LEO approaches subject, finds he has no proof of gun ownership or right to carry

-LEO arrests subject, one less gun-toting idiot on the street

 

Scenario 3) Lawful gun owner, happens to have a small bag of crack in his pocket

-LEO identifies subject using passive scan

-LEO approaches subject, demands he place his hands against the wall and spread his feet without giving subject a chance to prove gun ownership

-LEO finds crack, arrests subject

-Weeks/months go by, subject is tried and acquitted due to violation of 4th amendment rights, LEO loses his job and department is sued for violation of rights.

 

Everyone is afraid of scenario 3, but thats only because someone is improperly abusing the system. My guess is that LEO in scenario 3 would find a way to violate 4th amendment rights with or without such a device. I think scenarios 1 and 2 would be more common and that's what they're trying to accomplish with this.

 

 

EDIT: I can think of no better real-world example for the use of this than Plaxico Burress. Here is someone who was legally allowed to concealed carry firearms in FL (and therefore many other states), yet managed to shoot himself in a club in NY because he:

-Didn't know proper gun safety (seriously, tucking it in sweatpants waistband???)

-Didn't know local gun laws

-If he did know them, he willfully disregarded them and deserved to be arrested.

[Mr. Jones]

If you don't have crack, or illegally posses a gun, you have nothing to worry about.

MOVE ON.

 

 

 

Side note:

 

Who remembers Total Recall?

 

 

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/total_recall_skeleton-scanner.jpg

[El Karacho1647545492]

If you don't have crack, or illegally posses a gun, you have nothing to worry about.

MOVE ON.

 

 

 

Side note:

 

Who remembers Total Recall?

 

 

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/total_recall_skeleton-scanner.jpg

 

A whole lot more people are about to remember it

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386703/

[Mr. Jones]

A whole lot more people are about to remember it

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386703/

 

 

SIGH..:fuuuu:

[El Karacho1647545492]

SIGH..:fuuuu:

 

I imagined you clicking that and having the reaction of Clarkson in your avatar

[CRed05]

3 boobies

[Mr. Jones]

I imagined you clicking that and having the reaction of Clarkson in your avatar

 

Yup..

 

Colin Farrell instead of the terminator.

 

 

REALLY ???? :dumb:

[El Karacho1647545492]

Yup..

 

Colin Farrell instead of the terminator.

 

 

REALLY ???? :dumb:

 

I entirely approve of Bryan Cranston though

[sol740]

I disagree that it should be considered an unlawful seach. If you're a legal gun owner, are in compliance with all laws, you have nothing to worry about. If you are an illegal gun owner, or are not in compliance with laws, then you have no right not to be searched. Its not like drugs or contraband which can in no way hurt those around you (directly) when they are on your person. An improperly carried gun can kill people.

 

What I fear is that they will use this passive scanning to conduct unlawful searches. Lets look at a couple examples;

 

Scenario 1) Lawful gun owner, not doing anything illegal

-LEO Uses passive scan to determine he is carrying a concealed weapon

-LEA aproaches subject, asks for identification and proof of legal ownership and right to carry weapon

-Subject provides information, is sent along his merry way

 

Scenario 2) Unlawful gun owner, otherwise not doing anything illegal

-LEO identifies subject using passive scan

-LEO approaches subject, finds he has no proof of gun ownership or right to carry

-LEO arrests subject, one less gun-toting idiot on the street

 

Scenario 3) Lawful gun owner, happens to have a small bag of crack in his pocket

-LEO identifies subject using passive scan

-LEO approaches subject, demands he place his hands against the wall and spread his feet without giving subject a chance to prove gun ownership

-LEO finds crack, arrests subject

-Weeks/months go by, subject is tried and acquitted due to violation of 4th amendment rights, LEO loses his job and department is sued for violation of rights.

 

Everyone is afraid of scenario 3, but thats only because someone is improperly abusing the system. My guess is that LEO in scenario 3 would find a way to violate 4th amendment rights with or without such a device. I think scenarios 1 and 2 would be more common and that's what they're trying to accomplish with this.

 

 

EDIT: I can think of no better real-world example for the use of this than Plaxico Burress. Here is someone who was legally allowed to concealed carry firearms in FL (and therefore many other states), yet managed to shoot himself in a club in NY because he:

-Didn't know proper gun safety (seriously, tucking it in sweatpants waistband???)

-Didn't know local gun laws

-If he did know them, he willfully disregarded them and deserved to be arrested.

 

 

If it's not a search, I would ask what one would call it, and how is "it", as an action, defined? Sure, an improperly carried gun can kill people. So can an improperly driven car. Difference is, one is a right given by the constitution. Scanning specifically for firearms, then being questioned(harassed), held-up(detained) implies criminality.

[El Karacho1647545492]

If it's not a search, I would ask what one would call it, and how is "it", as an action, defined? Sure, an improperly carried gun can kill people. So can an improperly driven car. Difference is, one is a right given by the constitution. Scanning specifically for firearms, then being questioned(harassed), held-up(detained) implies criminality.

 

Questioning =/= harassment. Two of the best questions an LEO can use to assess your intentions: "Where are you coming from? Where are you going?"

 

Spending time conversing with an LEO in public while you have free use of your hands =/= being detained. Just because you're not detained doesn't mean you have free reign to disobey authority figures.

 

And the right to bear arms is protected, not the right to bear arms in such a way as it endangers others. I choose not to get a CCW for the sole fact that if I were ever forced to use a gun to defend myself, I never know who else around has a CCW will misunderstand my emergency as a threat to them and in turn try to hurt me. Openness and knowledge IMO make everyone safer.

 

 

EDIT: To answer your first question, its not a search. It doesn't need to be called anything other than what it is; which is passively scanning for disruptions in energy fields that indicate someone is holding a gun. There's no law preventing you from wearing silver underpants to fool it.

[Brrcats]

Honestly, I thought there'd be many more people that were in agreement with sol740.

 

lol at "passively scanning" not being a search. Are you looking for something not readily visible? Then its a search, albeit a highly technological one.

[RyM3rC]

Honestly, I thought there'd be many more people that were in agreement with sol740.

 

lol at "passively scanning" not being a search. Are you looking for something not readily visible? Then its a search, albeit a highly technological one.

 

Agree. I can see this being a pretty fine line. I think it would take all of about 3 seconds for some asshat (like the Toledo LEO) to seriously abuse tech like this and get into big trouble.

[Spidey2721]

question is though just like anything where does it stop? also i cant wait till this winds up in court after they start using it.

[351mach11647545510]

I can't believe all of the people who are trying to defend this. I don't care if you're legally carrying or not. It's un-constitutional and is just another way for big brother to keep an eye on everyone and justify it by saying "it's for the safety of the general public". People keep letting things like this go and it's going to hit a point of no return to where we have no rights at all.

[copperhead]

With no probable cause or warrant or arrest being made it is an unconstitutional search. Living in NYC means agreeing to being in a Constitution-free zone. I honestly don't know why they don't break off into a district like Washington so they can stop polluting the rest of the state, and so they can be more free to join the international community since they hate America so much.

 

This scanner setup would be completely pointless anywhere with legal carry. After stopping a couple people with valid CCW's they would start crying about discrimination. The police here can already pick out people with CCW by scanning their license plates, yet they don't stop them left and right to give them grief.

 

This is just another illegal intrusion of privacy that was started by Homeland Security thanks to the body scanners in airports, they just figured out how to make it mobile. The feds have been working closely with NYPD lately, seeing how that's the only place in the country they can get away with this shit and the libtard sheeple there are happy enough to let it happen.

[sol740]

Questioning =/= harassment. Two of the best questions an LEO can use to assess your intentions: "Where are you coming from? Where are you going?"

 

Spending time conversing with an LEO in public while you have free use of your hands =/= being detained. Just because you're not detained doesn't mean you have free reign to disobey authority figures.

 

And the right to bear arms is protected, not the right to bear arms in such a way as it endangers others. I choose not to get a CCW for the sole fact that if I were ever forced to use a gun to defend myself, I never know who else around has a CCW will misunderstand my emergency as a threat to them and in turn try to hurt me. Openness and knowledge IMO make everyone safer.

 

 

EDIT: To answer your first question, its not a search. It doesn't need to be called anything other than what it is; which is passively scanning for disruptions in energy fields that indicate someone is holding a gun. There's no law preventing you from wearing silver underpants to fool it.

 

I would challenge anyone to define "passive scanning" in a way that doesn't also imply a search without consent or probable cause. Since carrying with a permit is a lawful act(we shouldn't need a permit to exercise a right, but that's another conversation), and the police exist to enforce the law, if I am not breaking the law, then you have no business asking me anything, and doubly no business "passively scanning" me as I go about my day.

 

I respect that you choose not to exercise your right, but my rebuttal to your hypothetical anecdote is this. If you are "forced" to use your firearm to defend yourself as described, you are in danger of losing your life, or you are improperly using your firearm. It is also entirely possible another person would become aware of said life-endangering situation, and without prior knowledge mistakenly confuse you as the aggressor/attacker and injure/kill you. What I propose is that an order of operations need be applied to the threat(s). Now if the person/persons originally attacking you are in fact threatening your very existence, it would seem folly to prioritize the possibility of being mistakenly shot or killed over the much more palpable threat of the person right in front of you, attacking/robbing you. If you are more worried about a passerby becoming aggressive towards you, then the person directly acosting you, then you were not in the type of situation that requires deadly force in the first place.