... what the hell? Didn't we shoot redcoats over the right NOT to have our stuff rifled through at will?
No, its not a terry stop. Terry stop requires the reasonable suspicion of a crime. He's young and black/latino is not reasonable suspicion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sucks. The only advice I give you is stop voting based on anything other than civil liberties. (or at least make it priority number 1).
I have been stopped many times by police, usually for something involving my bike, but never frisked.
frisked and car searched for doing 28 in a 25 here. (not in NYC, but rural PA)
They can stop you for any reason anyway as long as it is a valid reason. The Supreme Court decided quite a while ago that they don't care if it is a pre textual stop as long as the reason is valid...i.e. 28 in a 25. After that, though, they still need consent or reasonable suspicion for a search. Once a good case makes it up the pike, the New York methodology will likely be found unconstitutional. The link indicates the ACLU is already on it.
... what the hell? Didn't we shoot redcoats over the right NOT to have our stuff rifled through at will?
No, its not a terry stop. Terry stop requires the reasonable suspicion of a crime. He's young and black/latino is not reasonable suspicion.
If he's good looking he can frisk me all he wants.
Yet 20% of searches managed to turn up something.
Sounds like pretty good odds frankly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but what were those 20% "guilty" of? Carrying a few grams of weed (or even crack)? Totally worth throwing out the Bill of Rights!
Maybe, and if that were the case then I'd be up for a conversation about how petty (posession/personal use) drug crime is dealt with.
However whilst 1 in 5 turn out to be up to no good, I'd say thats pretty sweet odds.
I am always up to no good. I'm glad I stay away from the mean streets of NYC.
This is, of course, one of the footnotes to the page, but it's a bit more number breakdown-y. It still doesn't address what those 20% "were not totally innocent" of.
Buried in the "New NYCLU Report Finds..." page it claims that the program is to find illegal firearms, not drugs. In 2011, it says,
•The 685,724 stops in 2011 (an increase of 14 percent from 2010) were spread unevenly amongst the city’s 76 precincts, with the 75th Precinct in Brooklyn (East New York) leading the city with 31,100 stops and the 94th Precinct in Brooklyn (Greenpoint) having the fewest stops at 2,023.
•In 70 out of 76 precincts, blacks and Latinos accounted for more than 50 percent of stops, and in 33 precincts they accounted for more than 90 percent of stops. In the 10 precincts with black and Latino populations of 14 percent or less (such as the 6th Precinct in Greenwich Village), black and Latino New Yorkers accounted for more than 70 percent of stops in six of those precincts.
•Young black and Latino men were the targets of a hugely disproportionate number of stops. Though they account for only 4.7 percent of the city’s population, black and Latino males between the ages of 14 and 24 accounted for 41.6 percent of stops in 2011. The number of stops of young black men exceeded the entire city population of young black men (168,126 as compared to 158,406). Ninety percent of young black and Latino men stopped were innocent.
•Though frisks are to be conducted only when an officer reasonably suspects the person has a weapon that might endanger officer safety, 55.7 percent of those stopped in 2011 were frisked. Of those frisked, a weapon was found only 1.9 percent of the time.
•Frisks varied enormously by precinct, with officers in the 46th Precinct in the Bronx frisking people 80.4 percent of the time, as compared to a low of 27.5 percent in the 17th Precinct on the East Side of Manhattan.
•Black and Latino New Yorkers were more likely to be frisked than whites and were less likely to be found with a weapon.
•While the NYPD recovered one gun for every 266 stops in 2003, the additional 524,873 stops in 2011 yielded only one gun for every 3,000 people stopped.
•Of the 605,328 stops of innocent people in 2011, 53.6 percent were frisked. The 75th Precinct led the city in stops of innocent people with 27,672 such stops, while the 94th Precinct had the fewest with 1,843.
I have read arguments that violent crime in America has dropped significantly because marijuana has replaced crack/cocaine as the drug of choice for young poor people of all colors. Maybe you should feel thankful towards your friendly neighborhood dope dealer as well.
Your arguement that we should be thankful for marijuana usage by poor young people is also erroneous.
It's not my argument, it's just something I read.
90% innocent means 10% weren't.
2% had weapons. 100% too high.
I think that says all we need to know.
Yes, we should definitely throw away our civil liberties to get the 2% of people who have illegal firearms and the 8% that have illegal drugs or were jaywalking or whatever they were doing that makes them "not completely innocent."
Whatever, you are a big supporter of gun control, I think it's a means for the government to control and regiment the population. I doubt either one of us is going to move from their position.
How are things in Australia today, Mr. Shifty?
Violent crime likely dropped due to Roe vs Wade.
Yes, we should definitely throw away our civil liberties
Apparently no one threw away the sensationalism or hyperbole.
I am a huge fan of gun control, control being the obvious word there.
Using the moniker to suggest that I am 100% anti-gun would be as misleading as me suggesting your pro-gun stance means you advocate every crack head mentally unbalanced person should be packing a gat; I am sure you wouldn't be trying the first bit nor suggesting the second right?
I'd hate to be deliberately misrepresented.
And very well, thanks, all travelling nicely thank you very much.
Surprising how safe visitors to our fair cities say they feel, how about yours?
Speaking of civil liberties, tried coming through US customs recetly? Seen how your guests get treated at your borders? And you think a mild dhake down is invasive.
Anyhow, attempt to mitigate away the 10% all you like, but I find it odd that you appear to be advocating so heavily on your behalf. I am also confused how you link being pro-firearms should also dovetail neatly into being pro-crime, in that you are happy for armed criminals to be running about so long as you don't have to be subject to scrutiny.
Reasonable suspicion has always been a particularly low bar.
Looks like it made a change in behavior if 1 in 233 turned up a gun in 2003 and 1 in 3000 in 2011.
Most Police are pretty busy doing 'stuff', and if you have motivated them to the point of reasonable suspicion and they search you then you were probably acting pretty suspiciously.
And lo and behold, in 20% of cases they had something to be suspicious about. Thats better odds than winning a free candy bar, and only like 10000% times more important.
Apparently no one threw away the sensationalism or hyperbole.
I am a huge fan of gun control, control being the obvious word there.
Using the moniker to suggest that I am 100% anti-gun would be as misleading as me suggesting your pro-gun stance means you advocate every crack head mentally unbalanced person should be packing a gat; I am sure you wouldn't be trying the first bit nor suggesting the second right?
I'd hate to be deliberately misrepresented.
"I am a huge fan of gun control."
"You are a big supporter of gun control."
I don't see any misrepresentation.
Anyway, I thought I ended on a pleasant "let's agree to disagree" note, but I have noticed that you like to amp up the grar. That's probably why I like you.
Yet 20% of searches managed to turn up something.
Sounds like pretty good odds frankly.
that depends on what your definition of "something" is. I can say with some confidence that the use of drugs by college age Caucasians is at an all time high, and their rates of being stopped are quite low. As ever, numbers will tell you whatever you want them to if you torture them enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Over the past twenty years, the number of murders in New York City has decreased about 75%. This can be attributed to more aggressive and focused policing, includung "stop and frisk", which has removed thousands of illegal weapons from criminal hands. As a New York City resident, I am thankful that this has occured; and that I can now feel safer riding on the subway at night to and from my Pathfinder group.
attaching stop and frisk practices to feeling safer is a bit naive. I would rather attach it to increased police presence on subways/transit cops being far, far better trained than they were previously.
Shifty, you always find a way to put a smile on my face.
90% innocent means 10% weren't.
2% had weapons. 100% too high.I think that says all we need to know.
Shifty, you always find a way to put a smile on my face.90% innocent means 10% weren't.
2% had weapons. 100% too high.I think that says all we need to know.
I wonder if 2% or more of the residences in NYC have illegal firearms inside? Or if 8-10% contain illegal drugs? Hell, I would bet that upwards of 85%+ have SOMETHING inside that breaks the law or is in violation of a code of some sort.
Perhaps we should institute random home searches just so the people can feel safe?
To me, (and I cant stress this enough, TO ME) "illegal weapons" cannot exist. As the second amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." And then the tenth amendment disallows states from then infringing.
So I agree with Shifty that 2% found with illegal weapons is 100% too high. Just not in the same sense that he does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gun control and Amendments 4 and 5 arguments are interesting, but I find it hard to get worked up about them when the evidence, imho, is pretty glaring that this is simply stopping young men for walking while black or Hispanic.
Some reasons why I don't trust the NYPD impartially with my civil liberties: Abner Louima. Ramarley Graham. That dude from Senegal that they shot 47 times. The fact that they set up a secret spy-on-everyone-in-the-city committee with the security divisions of, like, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, whoever. The constant abuse that was on display in their harrassment of Occupiers. Etc, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
90% innocent means 10% weren't.
2% had weapons. 100% too high.I think that says all we need to know.
I think you are confusing guilty of a crime that harms society with guilty of being stopped by over zealous police while not white.
There is a big difference. I've been stopped and ticketed in NYC twice and arrested and detain once. The arrest resulted in almost a year of court appearances, before the case was thrown out (It was thrown out because the police were found to be selectively editing video used as evidence, among other reasons.) At any point during that year I could have plead guilty to a lesser charge (plea bargain) or accepted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) and avoided month after month of useless court BS. Since I am white, can polish myself up nice, had a clean record (see previous two reasons) and at the time afford to miss work to go to court a dozen times, I fought the changes, and eventually proved myself "innocent". The two tickets were thrown out because I was able to go to court, speak well, and get off on technicalities. Of the 6 charges against me, I was found to be "innocent" of all 6.
In other words:
Innocent = White, able to afford a lawyer, and able to deal with going to court.
Guilty = Black or Latino, not able to afford a lawyer, and not able to miss work, not able to speak to the court eloquently. (Note: Working-poor is the worst position to face the court system).
The "Justice System" that I have experience with is based not on keeping people safe, but supporting a large anti-terror/crime organization and it's various prisons, attorneys, politicians, lobbyists, etc. I see the need for a fairly large police organization in NYC (it is a big city) but like many aspects of our government the current system is rotten to the core, and a mockery of the ideal of Courtesy. Professionalism. Respect.(CPR) that the NYPD is supposed to represent.
I think you are confusing guilty of a crime that harms society with guilty of being stopped by over zealous police while not white.
Curiously, despite 20% of the people being searched being found as up to no good, you still want to play the racist card?
20% is a significant figure, enough to justify continuing to stop and search people you'd think...
You can try run that down with more hysteria about how it is picking on particular races, not really well supported by the maths either if the stats being presented by the Libertarians are corect.
@Moro,
If those illegal drugs and guns are inside someones house and not on their person whilst they roam the streets then there's significantly less risk to public safety. Makes sense yeah?
@FHDM
I'm sure that a lot of college kids have got pot on them. Good on those kids, we were all young once and I hope they have a great time with that.
Happy to have a chat about drug laws in a different thread as well if that helps.
@TheWhiteKnife
Cool, next time Ulahideen Dirkadirka moves next to your neighbourhood airport and orders some Stingers "to deal with a Zionist rat problem", be sure to go help him set them up in the front yard. Seems legit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are confusing guilty of a crime that harms society with guilty of being stopped by over zealous police while not white.Curiously, despite 20% of the people being searched being found as up to no good, you still want to play the racist card?
20% is a significant figure, enough to justify continuing to stop and search people you'd think...
You can try run that down with more hysteria about how it is picking on particular races, not really well supported by the maths either if the stats being presented by the Libertarians are correct.
My point was that "Being found as up to no good" is a highly subjective measure that often points to how people are treated by a system rather then what harm they are actually pose to society.
For example, every time I drive down the highway, traffic moves at about 60-75mph despite the 55mph speed limit. If cops only pull over the people in beat up cars or black drivers, and ticket them for speeding, then the real crime is not speeding, but driving an old car or driving while black. Note also that by spending money, and being savvy about tickets and past offenses, I can have a clear record, despite repeated violations.
If you look at who is being searched and found guilty as opposed to who is using drugs or other illegal activities, you will find vast differences in the numbers. For example, you don't see white guys in suits on wall street getting searched, (or even financially "searched") despite that facts about drug use and corporate crime among wealthy whites.
Note statics used by police and prosecutors are like those used by the military.
"100 Enemies were killed in an air strike."
"How do you know they were all enemies?"
"They were killed in in airstrike."
Curiously, despite 20% of the people being searched being found as up to no good, you still want to play the racist card?
Something illegal does not mean no good. It could be a bag of pot, or a weapon for self defense.
A weapon does not mean an illegal weapon. They take a dim view of minorities carrying so much as a box cutter. How many people here have a pocket knife? Also if all you have is a box cutter you are woefully under-prepared for some of those areas.
They are actively just stoping random minorities and frisking them and this is the policy. The only thing suspicious about them is their skin color.
Shifty, what are we talking about here, college kids or race? I'm getting a bit lost.
I think you are confusing guilty of a crime that harms society with guilty of being stopped by over zealous police while not white.Curiously, despite 20% of the people being searched being found as up to no good, you still want to play the racist card?
20% is a significant figure, enough to justify continuing to stop and search people you'd think...
You can try run that down with more hysteria about how it is picking on particular races, not really well supported by the maths either if the stats being presented by the Libertarians are corect.
@Moro,
If those illegal drugs and guns are inside someones house and not on their person whilst they roam the streets then there's significantly less risk to public safety. Makes sense yeah?@FHDM
I'm sure that a lot of college kids have got pot on them. Good on those kids, we were all young once and I hope they have a great time with that.
Happy to have a chat about drug laws in a different thread as well if that helps.@TheWhiteKnife
Cool, next time Ulahideen Dirkadirka moves next to your neighbourhood airport and orders some Stingers "to deal with a Zionist rat problem", be sure to go help him set them up in the front yard. Seems legit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@TheWhiteKnife
Cool, next time Ulahideen Dirkadirka moves next to your neighbourhood airport and orders some Stingers "to deal with a Zionist rat problem", be sure to go help him set them up in the front yard. Seems legit.
No, but what I would like is for our governments, at all levels, to stop pretending that the laws only apply to the citizens and not them. We do have an amendment process and until it is actually used, there should be no such thing as an illegal weapon, as ruling by whatever whim strikes government (even in a clear-cut case that benefits the public good, such as banning stinger missles) is all too often taken too far. Why even have a Constitution that limits government if we allow government to ignore it at its whim?!?
Edit- Or stop and frisk policies. Why do we allow authorities to spy on us, in direct conflict with our Bill of Rights? Is the Bill really so much scrap paper as to be utterly inconsequential to the police? They shouldnt be spying on us, they work for US! We should be spying on them!
No, but what I would like is for our governments, at all levels, to stop pretending that the laws only apply to the citizens and not them. We do have an amendment process and until it is actually used, there should be no such thing as an illegal weapon, as ruling by whatever whim strikes government (even in a clear-cut case that benefits the public good, such as banning stinger missles) is all too often taken too far. Why even have a Constitution that limits government if we allow government to ignore it at its whim?!?
Should Mr Dirkadirka have his Stinger or not? You said 'No', but then tell me that there should be no such thing as an 'illegal weapon' and that he shouldn't be curtailed. I note you refer to the Public Good, so I see you get the point. That said, which is it? The Right to bear arms (as an unfettered right) or are you actually in favour of putting some constraints in?
The Government is there to represent 'We, the People', so its worthwhile getting a clear grasp of your true position on the matter before complaining about whether or not they are playing like bad children.
@FHDM, the complaint was there are a lot of college kids also running around with pot who are apparently not being stopped and searched, my point was 'so what'? Where does it say these guys aren't being searched too?
@BNW, Skin colour? or is it suspicious people behaving suspiciously and in 20% of cases are actually up to no good? Now you might not like the drug laws, but they are the laws and not just 'optional guidelines', so no point complaining about the nature of the bust afterwards. Or, here's a protip, LEAVE THE DRUGS AT HOME! I know, revolutionary right?
@Fergie, or perhaps the guys not being searched on Wall St is also because they are quietly doing their thing. Perhaps the people getting frisked were setting off triggers (2am out on the street, loitering away who knows, you certainly don't), and the nice figures we got weren't just 'Govt Propaganda' I believe the source up above was from the ultra right wing conservative propagandists at the ACLU.
Should the guy have his stinger or not? By the current rules (as I understand them*), yes. Ludicrous as it is, the constraints of the Bill of Rights are being ignored if Stingers are banned without an Amendment. Without such an amendment the Bill of Rights is just so much scrap paper.
Personally I would be for an amendment that prohibits weapons of mass destruction (such as nuclear devices and such) for the public good. I am against gun restrictions on felons who have completed their sentence. (theyve already paid their debt to society, etc etc etc.) Also, personally, I am completely and utterly against warrantless searches and seizures. And before anyone asks, that includes DUI checkpoints or drug tests for welfare recipients. Freedom is a dangerous dangerous thing, but worth it.
*thejeff or someone correct me if I am wrong.
Ok so then you are in favour of an Amendment being passed?
Once that was passed would that be it?
I'd still disagree with you about the felons bit; you pay your dues for your deeds (or rather the one you got caught for, I highly doubt they got busted on their first ever offence) but they have shown themselves to be irresponsible. Same way repeat drink drivers eventually have to start taking the bus. No one wants to be killed by other peoples stupidity.
Drug tests for welfare recipients is lame, we'd be in rock solid agreement there.
Thats the thing though, felons who have served their sentences have already paid their dues. Why do we insist that we force them into second class citizen status (cant vote, cant own a firearm, probably cant run for public office, and good luck finding a job.) for the rest of their lives? And the worst part is that these things are taken away blenket style, at least in my state. Counterfeiter? No guns. Non violent drug dealer? No guns. etc etc. Sure sounds like the right to bear arms has been infringed to me, even though their sentence has already been served! If we truly believed that they cannot be trusted ever again for the rest of their lives, why dont we just execute them?
As far as DUI laws, and Im sure I'll catch flak for this, but Im against them too. We already have reckless driving laws. If someone is swerving and driving recklessly, I want them pulled over, no matter what their blood alcohol level is. If someone has a blood alcohol level of .09 or whatever and is absolutely driving fine, I got no problem with that. That is the very definition of a victimless crime. Sure they MIGHT wreck and injure or kill someone. Just like my neighbor down the street, quitting smoking and on chantix, might go crazy and kill 17 people. I'd rather wait till people actually commit a crime before we arrest them. Or in the case of the on-topic stuff, before we stop and frisk them.
Edit- at thejeff, just saw your post replying to me earlier. I think I covered most of your questions, but just to clarify: felons out on bail or parole: no, they are still serving their sentences. And as an aside, it is currently legal to possess military weapons and even tanks (john dupont, anyone?) with the right liscenses. (as it should be IMO.) nerve gas should be covered under an amendment as a "WMD" (nerve gas is indiscriminate in its effects). And explosives? depends on the explosive I guess.
Double secret edit- Shifty, yes I would be in favor of a "WMD" type of ban amendment to the Constitution.
Well, by the current rules, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in various cases, the 2nd Amendment is not absolute. It is quite constitutional for the government to limit the possession of certain types of arms.
Some areas are in contention: exactly what limitations, both in what can be restricted and what requirements can be made in terms of registration or based on criminal record, mental health status, etc.You know all this of course. Your interpretation of the Amendment simply differs from that of mainstream jurisprudence.
Which I find amazing. I cannot fathom "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" meaning anything other than not infringing in anyway people's right to keep and bear arms. I realise thats not the way it is in reality, but there are alot of laws, regulations, and interpretations that make no sense to me. It is what it is, I guess.
Edit: So licenses may be required? Can they be required for more common arms as well? Can they be set up with expensive or restrictive conditions?
Yes, a class 3 liscense is required in the US for automatic weapons, shortbarreled rifles, silencers, and some other random weapons. It takes $200 and you have to get it signed off on by your local sheriff, DA, or State Police Captain, then the BATF has to review it. This only covers above weapons made before 1986 though. Again seems like infringement to me. (citizens of Iraq have always been permitted to keep a modern assault rifle for home defense purposes, yet we are the "free" country.) As far as tanks, I dont know what it takes, other than presumably scads and scads of money. (The only person I knew of that legally had one was John Dupont, that scumbag.) As far as more commonplace weapons, a background check and a transfer fee ($20, I think) gets you out the door, in my state, and in some cases, thats not even needed. (Blackpowder weapons, antique weapons, shotguns/hunting rifles bought from private individuals, IIRC)
Should the guy have his stinger or not? By the current rules (as I understand them*), yes. Ludicrous as it is, the constraints of the Bill of Rights are being ignored if Stingers are banned without an Amendment. Without such an amendment the Bill of Rights is just so much scrap paper.
Personally I would be for an amendment that prohibits weapons of mass destruction (such as nuclear devices and such) for the public good. I am against gun restrictions on felons who have completed their sentence. (theyve already paid their debt to society, etc etc etc.) Also, personally, I am completely and utterly against warrantless searches and seizures. And before anyone asks, that includes DUI checkpoints or drug tests for welfare recipients. Freedom is a dangerous dangerous thing, but worth it.
*thejeff or someone correct me if I am wrong.
Free money is not a constitutional right, so there's nothing wrong at all in requiring welfare recipients to pass drug tests. They have the right to opt out by declining benefits.
Continue your argument.
I'd point out the FBI's statistics that show that about 45-50% of violent crime is committed by blacks (13% of the population). Further research has shown that most crime is committed by males from 16-24. This has been confirmed by independent research, if you're the type to mistrust government sources. So, you might be looking at a chicken/egg problem. Black males 16-24 are the group most likely to actually be up to suspicious behavior. The social norms amongst this group (clothing choices, loitering, etc) does nothing to discourage suspicion.
Racial profiling can easily be imagined. Tyler Perry recently came out and said he was profiled by Atlanta police, but his own telling of the story makes it clear that he had committed a violation (turning left from a right turn land across several lanes) and had acted strangely (by telling them, who didn't recognize him, that he had been followed before). He accused them of racism and rudeness because they asked him to open the passenger window so the second officer could see inside. Eye of the beholder has a pretty big part in racial profiling accusations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd point out the FBI's statistics that show that about 45-50% of violent crime is committed by blacks (13% of the population). Further research has shown that most crime is committed by males from 16-24.
Just because you belong to a group more likely to commit a crime does not absolve you of your constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Treating the individual involved as if they don't have their full rights as a citizen because they are more likely to commit a crime deprives them of their equal protection under the law.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW, Skin colour? or is it suspicious people behaving suspiciously
Its skin color. What "suspicious" activity were the other 80% up to?
Its also more than 80%, since the cops aren't reporting every stop.
and in 20% of cases are actually up to no good? Now you might not like the drug laws, but they are the laws and not just 'optional guidelines'
Ok, so the drug laws aren't a guideline you can ignore but The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated is completely optional when you're looking for a dime bag?
Why is the law the law for one group of people but not another?
Free money is not a constitutional right, so there's nothing wrong at all in requiring welfare recipients to pass drug tests. They have the right to opt out by declining benefits.Continue your argument.
I'd point out the FBI's statistics that show that about 45-50% of violent crime is committed by blacks (13% of the population). Further research has shown that most crime is committed by males from 16-24. This has been confirmed by independent research, if you're the type to mistrust government sources. So, you might be looking at a chicken/egg problem. Black males 16-24 are the group most likely to actually be up to suspicious behavior. The social norms amongst this group (clothing choices, loitering, etc) does nothing to discourage suspicion.
Racial profiling can easily be imagined. Tyler Perry recently came out and said he was profiled by Atlanta police, but his own telling of the story makes it clear that he had committed a violation (turning left from a right turn land across several lanes) and had acted strangely (by telling them, who didn't recognize him, that he had been followed before). He accused them of racism and rudeness...
While I agree that free money is not a constitutional right, that does not give reasonable suspicion to conduct a search or seizure. Besides that, it has been shown that the testing costs far more money than any amount saved. I can throw a link up in the morning if you want me too.
As far as the other thing regarding profiling, BNW hit it square on the head.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the law the law for one group of people but not another?
Exactly BNW. I am sorry that your thread was derailed by me, but to me the two topics are very similar. The Bill of Rights says one thing regarding searches. When authorities completely disregard the very rules that they are sworn to uphold, then, to me, our unalienable rights are worthless.
Thats the thing though, felons who have served their sentences have already paid their dues. Why do we insist that we force them into second class citizen status (cant vote, cant own a firearm, probably cant run for public office, and good luck finding a job.) for the rest of their lives? And the worst part is that these things are taken away blenket style, at least in my state. Counterfeiter? No guns. Non violent drug dealer? No guns. etc etc. Sure sounds like the right to bear arms has been infringed to me, even though their sentence has already been served! If we truly believed that they cannot be trusted ever again for the rest of their lives, why dont we just execute them?
As far as DUI laws, and Im sure I'll catch flak for this, but Im against them too. We already have reckless driving laws. If someone is swerving and driving recklessly, I want them pulled over, no matter what their blood alcohol level is. If someone has a blood alcohol level of .09 or whatever and is absolutely driving fine, I got no problem with that. That is the very definition of a victimless crime. Sure they MIGHT wreck and injure or kill someone. Just like my neighbor down the street, quitting smoking and on chantix, might go crazy and kill 17 people. I'd rather wait till people actually commit a crime before we arrest them. Or in the case of the on-topic stuff, before we stop and frisk them.
Edit- at thejeff, just saw your post replying to me earlier. I think I covered most of your questions, but just to clarify: felons out on bail or parole: no, they are still serving their sentences. And as an aside, it is currently legal to possess military weapons and even tanks (john dupont, anyone?) with the right liscenses. (as it should be IMO.) nerve gas should be covered under an amendment as a "WMD" (nerve gas is indiscriminate in its effects). And explosives? depends on the explosive I guess.
Double secret edit- Shifty, yes I would be in favor of a "WMD" type of ban amendment to the Constitution.
Depends on what state your in. Some states return all rights to ex-cons who served their time or finished their paroles.
Did not know that. Thanks Xabulba.