What to do after Newtown

[MaryD]

 The amazing aspect is how the city of Boston rose up to cheer those who placed them in "lockdown", i.e. Martial law for 24 hours. I guess the 4h amendment means nothing any longer in this nation. The 1st and 2nd are not far behind.

I would be most interested to know what other way than a "lock down' would have sorted the problem - they know who did it, the offenders are in the area, they have nothing to lose - surely it is the safest option to take.  Everyone in the area being confined to their home for 24 hours is surely a small price to pay for the eventual outcome.

Coming from Australia, it might be that on the odd occasion that we have a (very much smaller) need for a 'lock down', it has always seemed the safest move.

[Hemodoc]

The lockdown failed. The police did not find this creep in their unwarranted and unprecedented imposition of martial law not only in Newtown but in Boston and several surrounding municipalities.

How did they find the creep?  A private civilian found him on his property AFTER the police had already investigated his property during the lockdown. It seems allowing private citizens the right to keep their own property would have reduced the amount of time needed to find the creep.

In addition, they didn't simply tell folks to stay in their homes, they searched many homes treating the occupants like criminals taken outside at gun point and searches conducted without any warrant which is against our 4th amendment. Watch the video below and see if that is how you would want to be treated by the police when someone else acts in an unlawful manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LrbsUVSVl8

[MaryD]

I would still like to know how you would have 'solved' the problem in another manner.  We don't have as much information in Oz as you have.  The lockdown and the atmosphere it and the bombing produced, would have had everyone in the area extraordinarily alert, which is probably why the guy with the boat found the bomber.

Under the conditions prevailing at the time, being treated the way the video showed would have been rather scary.  If it had happened to me, I would have understood that it was considered necessary - someone could have phoned in with a 'tip' - and that it was a temporary arrangement.  I'm not sure how I would have got down the front steps with my hands up - I have to use the hand rail.

[Hemodoc]

I would still like to know how you would have 'solved' the problem in another manner.  We don't have as much information in Oz as you have.  The lockdown and the atmosphere it and the bombing produced, would have had everyone in the area extraordinarily alert, which is probably why the guy with the boat found the bomber.

Under the conditions prevailing at the time, being treated the way the video showed would have been rather scary.  If it had happened to me, I would have understood that it was considered necessary - someone could have phoned in with a 'tip' - and that it was a temporary arrangement.  I'm not sure how I would have got down the front steps with my hands up - I have to use the hand rail.

There have been thousands of manhunts across the years that captured the suspect without invoking martial law. It was not necessary, it did not work and it was a serious infringement of the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Unfortunately, many in America are now willing to trade freedom for security. Ben Franklin had an interesting comment about this more than 200 years ago.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[MooseMom]

Have any of the residents who had their homes searched complained?  Or sued?

[Hemodoc]

Have any of the residents who had their homes searched complained?  Or sued?

Actually, Moosemom, whether there are complaints or lawsuits is not the issue. The issue is how many people tolerated this intrusion of their constitutional rights without complaint. That is simply an indication of how little regard many people hold these rights and how easily they are cast aside. It is a fundamental change in our society that does not bode well for keeping these freedoms that America has enjoyed for over 200 years. If people are so ready to dismiss the constitution, it won't be long before it is all but gone.

[Simon Dog]

The constitution is void where prohibited by law which, unfortunately, includes many parts of the US.

[MooseMom]

Perhaps, Hemodoc, the people didn't view it as an intrusion.  Perhaps they viewed it as cooperation.  Someone had blown up people in their own turf, and that someone was still on the loose.  Perhaps finding the bomber was their top priority.

If you had been one of those homeowners, what do you think you would have done?  Do you think that Constitutional concerns would have been uppermost in your mind in that situation?

[MooseMom]

The constitution is void where prohibited by law which, unfortunately, includes many parts of the US.

What do you mean?

[Hemodoc]

Perhaps, Hemodoc, the people didn't view it as an intrusion.  Perhaps they viewed it as cooperation.  Someone had blown up people in their own turf, and that someone was still on the loose.  Perhaps finding the bomber was their top priority.

If you had been one of those homeowners, what do you think you would have done?  Do you think that Constitutional concerns would have been uppermost in your mind in that situation?

I would not submit to a search of my private home without a warrant. That is my legal constitutional right. Not sure how well you would think of having several guns pointed at your head and treated like a criminal. If that is OK with you, then not much more to talk about.  The two women in CA who were shot by anxious cops understand well how dangerous police can be. If folks think that kind of police behavior is fine, then get used to it, I suspect that will be the new norm quite soon.

In addition, you notice those folks did not do this act in a state with less gun restrictions. Good luck to those two creeps if they had tried to terrorize my town in Idaho. If wouldn't take 24 hours to subdue those creeps for sure up there. The two only had one 9 mm pistol between them. The average home owner in Idaho would have them outgunned by a large disparity. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

The right to self defense, the second amendment, is under attack since Newtown. The spectacle in Boston with police doing searches of private property for people not involved in any criminal activity whatsoever illustrates one of the fundamental reasons the founders gave us the second amendment and the fourth amendment.  Many believe that the actions in Boston are tied directly to the governments desire to restrict the second amendment as well. It does not bode well for the future of true freedom in America especially if so many readily and freely submit to illegal searches of themselves and their property.

[Hemodoc]

The constitution is void where prohibited by law which, unfortunately, includes many parts of the US.

Actually, under laws signed by Bush and Obama's National Defense Authorization Act last year, the president can suspend habeas corpus for anyone that he wishes. In other words, by the "authority" of the NDAA, what the Boston police did is perfectly "legal," although quite bothersome to anyone that delves into constitutional issues. Thus, at the whim of the government under the discretion of the president, they can enact martial law when they feel it is "appropriate." In a very real sense, yes, the constitution is null and void whenever the commander in chief wishes.

[MooseMom]

Not sure how well you would think of having several guns pointed at your head and treated like a criminal.

I don't think I'd like that one bit, but I'm not sure it is accurate to assume that the homeowners felt like they were being treated like a criminal.  It would make more sense to believe that they were all too aware of the circumstances and were happy to coorperate.

In addition, you notice those folks did not do this act in a state with less gun restrictions. Good luck to those two creeps if they had tried to terrorize my town in Idaho. If wouldn't take 24 hours to subdue those creeps for sure up there. The two only had one 9 mm pistol between them. The average home owner in Idaho would have them outgunned by a large disparity. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

I don't think they picked their target just because it was in a state with gun restrictions.  These two were familiar with the area and its customs.  They lived there and had been educated there, and they knew that the Boston Marathon would be a good target for their purpose.

I am sure the armed residents of Idaho would have been all too happy to gun down the suspects themselves...if they could have found them.  Seems like it would be pretty easy to hide in someplace like Idaho.

  Many believe that the actions in Boston are tied directly to the governments desire to restrict the second amendment as well.

Who believes this?  Anyone in Boston? 

Anyway, I'm really glad to see you back on IHD.  I'm off now, so have a terrific weekend!  We finally have some spring weather here, and I hope you have the same wherever you are.  Are you in Idaho right now?  Or are you in CA?  Are you picking up your socks like a good Hemodoc?  LOL!  Bye!

[Hemodoc]

Not sure how well you would think of having several guns pointed at your head and treated like a criminal.

I don't think I'd like that one bit, but I'm not sure it is accurate to assume that the homeowners felt like they were being treated like a criminal.  It would make more sense to believe that they were all too aware of the circumstances and were happy to coorperate.

In addition, you notice those folks did not do this act in a state with less gun restrictions. Good luck to those two creeps if they had tried to terrorize my town in Idaho. If wouldn't take 24 hours to subdue those creeps for sure up there. The two only had one 9 mm pistol between them. The average home owner in Idaho would have them outgunned by a large disparity. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

I don't think they picked their target just because it was in a state with gun restrictions.  These two were familiar with the area and its customs.  They lived there and had been educated there, and they knew that the Boston Marathon would be a good target for their purpose.

I am sure the armed residents of Idaho would have been all too happy to gun down the suspects themselves...if they could have found them.  Seems like it would be pretty easy to hide in someplace like Idaho.

  Many believe that the actions in Boston are tied directly to the governments desire to restrict the second amendment as well.

Who believes this?  Anyone in Boston? 

Anyway, I'm really glad to see you back on IHD.  I'm off now, so have a terrific weekend!  We finally have some spring weather here, and I hope you have the same wherever you are.  Are you in Idaho right now?  Or are you in CA?  Are you picking up your socks like a good Hemodoc?  LOL!  Bye!

Actually, if they go out in the boonies, the bears, the mountain lions and the wolves will make them think that option again.

Now, I didn't state - "gunning them down," I simply stated that folks in Idaho and other places like Texas take their own self defense into account personally. When you give up individual rights to the state, you may not appreciate how far the state will take that.

[willowtreewren]

In addition, you notice those folks did not do this act in a state with less gun restrictions. Good luck to those two creeps if they had tried to terrorize my town in Idaho. If wouldn't take 24 hours to subdue those creeps for sure up there. The two only had one 9 mm pistol between them. The average home owner in Idaho would have them outgunned by a large disparity. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with gun toting citizens feeling like they should take the law into their own hands? I read with great concern that if Boston had not had gun restrictions, people in the crowd would have taken care of the bombers. Really? And how many innocent by-standers would have fallen victim in the process?

[Hemodoc]

In addition, you notice those folks did not do this act in a state with less gun restrictions. Good luck to those two creeps if they had tried to terrorize my town in Idaho. If wouldn't take 24 hours to subdue those creeps for sure up there. The two only had one 9 mm pistol between them. The average home owner in Idaho would have them outgunned by a large disparity. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with gun toting citizens feeling like they should take the law into their own hands? I read with great concern that if Boston had not had gun restrictions, people in the crowd would have taken care of the bombers. Really? And how many innocent by-standers would have fallen victim in the process?

Hmmm, the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms?? Yes, that is the law of this land, or at least it is supposed to be the law of this land.

Secondly, who stated taking the law into our own hands??? The right to self defense is the law of the land still. When seconds matter, the police are minutes away.

In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no constitutional duty to protect thus putting the emphasis back on personal responsibility when you understand what that ruling truly means:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Thirdly, I heard a commentary on the radio a couple of days ago about how America has become a nation that is unable to defend itself at the individual level. Imagine, a city of over a million people shut down by two creeps. Amazing really when you think about it. My father's generation would not have been so.  People have bought into the notion that our personal safety is the responsibility of the police and the officials. Well, I would remind you of the Supreme Court decision above:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Fourthly, who said anything about going around shooting up the bombing suspects after the bombing at the marathon?? The suspects were not even identified until AFTER the Watertown and MIT shootings.

I was referring to the "lock down" that occurred after the MIT and Watertown shootings. Interestingly, I lived in that exact neighborhood for a year while in medical school and did a rotation at Mt Auburn Hospital as well.

Most folks here in Idaho are dedicated hunters who put food on the table for their families with the abundant elk, deer, moose and bear. There is also a tradition of self reliance in dangerous situations. I have friends up here in Idaho who owned ranches, were loggers and farmers. It is hard way to make a living. Almost everyone I know carries concealed guns and they have every right to do so. In many instances, they carry not because of criminals but because of what is in the woods with lots of bear, mountain lions and federally sponsored non-native wolves. Where I live in Idaho, crime is very low. 30 minutes west in Spokane WA, crime is out of control. Yet, it never seems to migrate 30 minutes away to our area in part due to the freedom to keep and bear arms we still enjoy in Idaho.

Interestingly, we have very little road rage, home invasions or other such violent crimes. It turns out as some have said, that an armed society is a very polite society.  I feel much safer in Idaho where many of the folks I encounter on a daily basis are carrying guns, some of them openly just like in the old wild west. 

In any case, most folks here in our town have dogs that serve to alert the owner if someone is on their property and most can defend their own home quite well. Sorry, that is not at all taking the law into their own hands. It used to be the way it was even back east.

Instead, we have images of people subjected to searches of their person and property without any warrant. Amazingly, people celebrated and embraced this treatment.  Such an invasion of constitutional rights by the police would never be tolerated here in Idaho or in Texas where folks actually read and understand the constitution. I have felt for quite some time that the constitutional protections would probably not outlast me. What happened in Boston did not deter that impression whatsoever. Do we really wish to surrender our rights to the government for the alleged promise of security? 

[lmunchkin]

[quote author=willowtreewren link=topic=28065.msg456527#msg456527 date=1367025477
Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with gun toting citizens feeling like they should take the law into their own hands? I read with great concern that if Boston had not had gun restrictions, people in the crowd would have taken care of the bombers. Really? And how many innocent by-standers would have fallen victim in the process?
[/quote]

Hi Aleta!  I hang around alot of gun toting citizens.  9 times out of 10 (we cant be perfect here) no innocent by standers would fall if I were to aim.  Most gun carring citizens would not be carrying if there werent criminals in our mist.  We carry for our protection only.  Law enforcement are the only ones who can carry in the open with exception of a few. I personally carry concealed (have a permit) for Protection only.  If I draw to protect from a threat from another with a deadly weapon, innocent bystanders won't have to worry for their safety.  Just saying!

God Bless,
lmunchkin

[Hemodoc]

[quote author=willowtreewren link=topic=28065.msg456527#msg456527 date=1367025477
Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with gun toting citizens feeling like they should take the law into their own hands? I read with great concern that if Boston had not had gun restrictions, people in the crowd would have taken care of the bombers. Really? And how many innocent by-standers would have fallen victim in the process?

Hi Aleta!  I hang around alot of gun toting citizens.  9 times out of 10 (we cant be perfect here) no innocent by standers would fall if I were to aim.  Most gun carring citizens would not be carrying if there werent criminals in our mist.  We carry for our protection only.  Law enforcement are the only ones who can carry in the open with exception of a few. I personally carry concealed (have a permit) for Protection only.  If I draw to protect from a threat from another with a deadly weapon, innocent bystanders won't have to worry for their safety.  Just saying!

God Bless,
lmunchkin
[/quote]

Dear lmunchkin, folks need to understand what you have to do to get a concealed weapons permit. I am not sure what state you are in, but they don't just hand them out. Fortunately, concealed carry permit holders are one of the safest group of people to be around, actually, in one study I read recently, even safer than the group comprised of law enforcement officers. In this study, the LEO's committed more crimes than the concealed permit holders. Something to think about.

In addition, concealed carry is guided by very strict definitions of when you can or cannot lawfully use a gun in self defense. There is a great misconception of "gun toting" folks taking the law into their own hands which is far from the truth. In fact, concealed carry permit holders are one of the MOST law abiding groups in America. The suggestion that anyone would shoot into a large crowd of people is simply ridiculous.

Concealed carry is for personal protection. We are not LEO's. It is not our duty to apprehend anyone. In many cases, the best thing for a concealed carry person to do is just be a good witness and that is all. The decision to use a concealed weapon in self defense is not taken lightly and there are many instances where not even revealing the weapon is the best approach. Just give them the wallet and call to cancel your credit cards. In a crowded restaurant, the ONLY time I would engage anyone is if it were an active shooter intent on being the latest on the national news scene by killing as many people as he can in a short period of time. In addition, there is the added danger that you could become the target of the police when they respond in such a situation as well. But there are several cases where a person with a concealed permit has aborted a mass shooting by engaging the shooter. Many times, once the shooter has any resistance, they will often go into their end game suicide deed.

A must read book for all that choose the lawful option of concealed carry is "In the Gravest Extreme" by Mas Ayoob, a firearms expert and law enforcement officer.  The book is over 30 years old, but still relevant today. The title states it all, In the Gravest Extreme, is the only time when lethal weapons are lawfully justified.

http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001

[Simon Dog]

The constitution is void where prohibited by law which, unfortunately, includes many parts of the US.

Actually, under laws signed by Bush and Obama's National Defense Authorization Act last year, the president can suspend habeas corpus for anyone that he wishes. In other words, by the "authority" of the NDAA, what the Boston police did is perfectly "legal," although quite bothersome to anyone that delves into constitutional issues. Thus, at the whim of the government under the discretion of the president, they can enact martial law when they feel it is "appropriate." In a very real sense, yes, the constitution is null and void whenever the commander in chief wishes.

Or, consider the case when AT&T was found to have cooperated with the feds in illegal wiretaps via equipment in a secret locked room at the San Francisco switching center that only the NSA had access to.  The government's reaction?  Pass a special law granting AT&T immunity from any civil suits brought by wiretapees.

And then there is the case of the "secret docket" system in federal courts - allowing for "secret trials" when the government decides it is harmful to let the public know of the proceedings.

Consider the concept of the "national security letter" - a letter functioning much like a warrant, with criminal sanctions upon the recipient for disclosing the receipt of said letter.

But, so far, the 3rd amendment appears to be pretty much intact.

[MooseMom]

The first 3D printed plastic gun that can successfully fire a bullet has now been created.  Under current law, all firearms must be metal-detectable, but a plastic gun does not show up on a metal detector.  Yes, a 3D printer runs about $10,000 for now, but you know how technology becomes cheaper and cheaper pretty quickly.  How do you all think this new tech will affect our guns laws?  Now that this particular genie is out of the bag, what should happen next?

Gun manufacturers make a good deal of money from selling their products, but this could undercut them tremendously.  Do you think the gun industry should be protected?

I personally think this could be a gamechanger in the whole realm of domestic weaponry.  Anyone have any thoughts?

[skg]

The first 3D printed plastic gun that can successfully fire a bullet has now been created.  Under current law, all firearms must be metal-detectable, but a plastic gun does not show up on a metal detector.  Yes, a 3D printer runs about $10,000 for now,...

I personally think this could be a gamechanger in the whole realm of domestic weaponry.  Anyone have any thoughts?

I have some students who have built a 3D printer and have been making a living using it. (They make custom action figures, e.g. My Little Ponies.) While it has been shown that it is possible to use a 3D printer to create a gun, it is decidedly non-trivial.

Just to get something as simple as a whistle printed out can take many, many hours of dedicated work.

I am certain that there are far, far easier ways to get a functional gun.

cheers,
skg

[MooseMom]

I am certain that there are far, far easier ways to get a functional gun.

cheers,
skg

But not a functional gun that can also go through a metal detector.

This 3D printing technology has been used to build a transplantable bladder, and they are hoping that it might be used to build functional, transplantable kidneys.  There's irony for you.

[Hemodoc]

The first 3D printed plastic gun that can successfully fire a bullet has now been created.  Under current law, all firearms must be metal-detectable, but a plastic gun does not show up on a metal detector.  Yes, a 3D printer runs about $10,000 for now, but you know how technology becomes cheaper and cheaper pretty quickly.  How do you all think this new tech will affect our guns laws?  Now that this particular genie is out of the bag, what should happen next?

Gun manufacturers make a good deal of money from selling their products, but this could undercut them tremendously.  Do you think the gun industry should be protected?

I personally think this could be a gamechanger in the whole realm of domestic weaponry.  Anyone have any thoughts?

Did you see how ugly that gun is??? And all that for $10,000 only??

No, I don't see them competing with the established gun makers who make some pretty impressive products. The interest in the 3D printers is to bypass gun control legislation outlawing the selling especially of hicap magazines where the 3D printing has its greatest potential. However, illegal is still illegal and I doubt 3D printing will be much more than a passing fad and fancy of the gun control environment in our current political makeup unless and until the technology makes gun making far cheaper than what they can do today. Is it a thing of the future? Perhaps, we will have to wait and see, but they have much more efficient manufacturing technology already making a better product.

[Simon Dog]

Dear lmunchkin, folks need to understand what you have to do to get a concealed weapons permit. I am not sure what state you are in, but they don't just hand them out.

You would be surprised just how many folks can legally carry concealed in Massachusetts.  The availability of an unrestricted LTC (the MA term for a concealed weapons permit) depends almost completely on one's town of residence.   Sure, Boston is a bit tough .... but if you live in the boonies you can get a permit to carry when you visit the city.      There are hundreds of thousands of concealed weapons permits in MA and criminal use, or excessive "self help", on the part of the holders thereof is almost non-existant.

But, it wouldn't have done any good in the Boston bombing.   Even those cops who instinctively drew their weapons at the boom could not find anything to shoot at.

[Hemodoc]

Dear lmunchkin, folks need to understand what you have to do to get a concealed weapons permit. I am not sure what state you are in, but they don't just hand them out.

You would be surprised just how many folks can legally carry concealed in Massachusetts.  The availability of an unrestricted LTC (the MA term for a concealed weapons permit) depends almost completely on one's town of residence.   Sure, Boston is a bit tough .... but if you live in the boonies you can get a permit to carry when you visit the city.      There are hundreds of thousands of concealed weapons permits in MA and criminal use, or excessive "self help", on the part of the holders thereof is almost non-existant.

But, it wouldn't have done any good in the Boston bombing.   Even those cops who instinctively drew their weapons at the boom could not find anything to shoot at.

Looks like it is over 200,000 class A permits as of a year ago.

Altogether, state residents held a total of 246,775 Class A licenses as of Feb. 1 - an 8.4 percent increase from April 2010, when licenses totaled 227,612.

Read more: http://www.wickedlocal.com/newburyport/news/x586055064/Gun-sales-permits-rise-in-Massachusetts#ixzz2gzKCFdwm
Follow us: 141301585931853 on Facebook

[Simon Dog]

Looks like it is over 200,000 class A permits as of a year ago.

This only tells part of the story, as only a subset of the Class A permits allow concealed carry ("restrictions: none").   Some of the Class A's are restricted to recreational and target shooting.