This is only an idea. Come on, help a brother out and tell me why it's a stupid idea. My feelings won't be hurt. The idea comes from hearing obliquely some superficial discussion about Giuliani's program of stop and frisk and the success he had with that program reducing crime in New York. Trump lauded the program and said at his rallies that he'd consider adopting the program to reduce crimes in cities nationwide that are vexed with high level of gun related crimes. Trump received much derision and counter argument about a program like that being seriously unconstitutional and most likely racist besides.
That made me think that it really would suck to be stopped and frisked. But then, in cities that have restrictive conceal carry laws why the need to stop? Why the need to actually frisk based on profiling or even just randomly? Why is it not possible to scan and do that in passing? We have technology that scoops up all kind of electronic information in passing picking up information where it rightfully belongs, so why don't we have similar technology that scans for gun-size pieces of metal, gun shape pieces of metal where they should not be? I imagined undercover police on foot or inside cruisers with technology that detects the barrel or the receiver of a gun, that density of metal, that weight range of metal while ignoring jewelry and other worn metal so that needn't be intrusive. Avoiding profiling, the individuals detected carrying the shape and weight of a barrel or receiver then stopped and their gun confiscated. I imagined a very large number of guns being confiscated in blighted cities this way while leaving alone all other innocent law abiding gun owners.
Google images [portable metal detector]
Okay, pile on.
11 comments:
It's only racist to RMPC's aka democrats in the US because chocolates and the browns are the ones who bring thuggery onto themselves. Shocker.
I am theoretically opposed to stop-and-frisk on its Constitutional merits. If there is no suggestion of wrongdoing or lawbreaking (i.e, walking down the street) then stop-and-frisk violates the 4th Amendment and becomes, in essence, an unlawful search.
I'd like safe cities, however, I am not sure it's worth compromising civil liberties to such extent, no matter how well it works.
where they should not be?
Where is that, exactly? I would argue it's still an unlawful search and an invasion of privacy, even if done with an electronic device.
I know I'll get some shit for this point of view, but my thinking extends to civil asset forfeiture and the like, where I am opposed to police being able to compromise my liberties based on nothing more than suspicion sans evidence.
Where they should not be, hidden on a person's body in a city with tight c/c laws.
I have no problem with profiling or stop and frisk. It certainly worked in Gotham until Wilhelm deBlasio showed up.
There are metal detectors all over to stop pilfering (among other things) and I have no doubt on can be calibrated to search for firearms, although the Glock IIRC is ceramic, so you'd have a problem there.
If we can put a million people on mars then why can't we can have portable stop and frisk machines.
Glocks have polymer frames, but obviously the barrel and parts such as the trigger mechanism, firing pin, hammer and shell casings are metal. Otherwise it would not function.
Just because Bruce Willis said it 30 years ago does not make it so.
Via osmosis, I read quite a lot, more than I cared to, about 3-D printing and the issues surrounding instructions uploaded to the internet for printing your own firearm receiver. Jeff Goldstein wrote this at Protein Wisdom bout it before he dropped out. (Or maybe he was writing about ordering them. I forget exactly) At any rate, it was made clear that the central portion of a gun needn't be metal. Nor the stock or the grip. I still think that a metal tube sufficiently dense for a firearm can, or could, or should be able to be detected without stopping or frisking anyone. And if not, why not? Why don't they work on that and get illegal guns off the streets? It address the real problem directly without beating around the bush and without pissing off NRA and stepping all over sensible or legal gun owners' rights.
I own several metal detectors, I use them to scan for tramp metal in logs before I saw them up. They don't work very well, especially if the metal is more than a few inches from the surface of the log.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
EMD - The key word in the 4th Amendment is "unreasonable." I would assume those who opposed stop and frisk's use during the Giuliani Administration made numerous attempts to have it declared unconstitutional on that basis and that their arguments were rejected by judges who found that there was nothing random about the cops' use of stop and frisk. Little ofd BLACK ladies had nothing to fear and in fact had less to fear as an outcome of the procedure. Which was of course a law enforcement tool based on profiling. Next you're going to tell us that profiling too is unconstitutional.
"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."
There are a few more "key words" than "unreasonable," but the policy kept the "bad" people under control and protected the "good" people so it was allowed to run despite the obvious conflict with the probable cause requirement. A good deal as long as you don't get placed in the "bad" category by agents of the state.
Metal detectors don't work well at a distance. It's the physics behind it. Something about Lenz's law and 1/r^2 IIRC
Post a Comment