NRA and the Like, Get Out Your Checkbooks

They can enter with permission from the owner. Just like a search of a car. You have the right to deny them, but a simple phone call with probable cause and the warrant will arrive.

 

In most car searches, the cop having a reason to pull you over is viewed as probable cause by a judge. In others, refusal to allow search of a car is considered enough to get a warrant.

 

Oh goody, I get to school you in two threads now.

Just pulling you over for a traffic violation is not probable cause to search your car.

They have to have some type of evidence to present that you are engaged in some type of criminal activity.

Say....the smell of pot

 

Probable cause is whatever the cop decides it is in most car searches. Judges tend to side with the cops, unless you can prove that the cop had no reason to search your vehicle, which tends to end up being your word against his, in which case, the judges, again, usually side with police.

 

You have a tainted view of the legal system.

You realize you have rights against unlawful search

I suggest if this ever happen to you. Phone a lawyer.....

 

Probable cause is an exemption to unlaw search rights, and most judges side with police when they claim they had probable cause, unless there is evidence that they did not, outside of your word.

 

I am not right-wing I use both wings. Flapping with one you just go in circles. The NRA seems to be doing pretty well the main reason they are so hated by so many. "Whistling in the dark" is much better than "peeing into the wind" from others.

http://m.smh.com.au/world/congress-...t-of-mass-shooting-victim-20140528-zrq8i.html
Both the NRA and republicans will appreciate any help people like yourself give them. Notice I do not call you left-wing because if by some slim chance this bill makes progress past California it will hurt every other left-wing issue. The majority know that which accounts for their silence.

 

That's horse (*)(*)(*)(*). Please tell me where you get your law knowledge?

 

A police officers does not need your permission or a warrant if he has probable cause, and in many cases, probable cause is left to the interpetation of the officer. He thinks you are "acting suspicious". Perhaps you are a new driver, and are nervous about getting pulled over for the first time. A cop may take that as being nervous about a crime, and that gives them probable cause.

Even if you think they illegally searched your car, a judge is more likely to side with the cop.

 

In this scenario you are correct. But they is in contrast to you saying just pulling you over is probable cause. It's a slippery constitutional slope

 

I am not a lawyer and do not research much criminal law. A good rule of thumb is if the officer ask to search he/she does not have what is required. If they do, they seldom ask from my personal observations.

 

There have been many cases where a police officer will claim probable cause just to search a car, usually this involves a racist cop searching a car owned by a black man or some other minority. Judges for the most part, have sided with the cops in these cases unless there was clear evidence that they were lying. You saying they were lying is not evidence of it. Whenever it comes down to your word against theirs, a judge will almost always side with the cop.

 

Probable cause is actually determined by the judge not the cop.

It's a fail safe to keep from being sued, if the judge determines there was actually no cause.

 

California has already been illegal confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens because of "mental health issues" without due process of law.

How are the new laws going to change anything...?

 

Actually most cases, it's determined by the cop telling a judge that he felt that the person was acting suspicious and the judge usually sides with him, unless given clear evidence to the contrary.

 

I would not be surprised if that law is deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court, on the grounds that they are basing it off of a generalization, over mental issues. Even a person with OCD, whose only problem is that he can't stop washing his hands could be banned from owning guns under it.

They will deem it unconstitutional, and the law will be rewritten to require that to prohibit someone from owning guns on the grounds of mental issues. a licensed therapist would have to vouch that the person's mental issues causes them to be a danger to those around them. That would keep people with harmless issues from being herded in with psychos.

 

Grasping for straws again I see.

 

I am very opposed to such surveillance perpetrated by the US and Australian governments. Government involvement in voluntary transactions generally is much too invasive.

 

It isn't that hard if a person has a documented history of being treated for mental illness. However I agree that judging the level of impairment, or predicting how that impairment might develop or be exacerbated, is very difficult. For example a paranoid schizophrenic whose illness is stabilised with drugs may well be perfectly safe-until and if he stops his medication. Again an illness such as paranoid schizophrenia can be genetically passed through generations and is not always evident until it develops. Then, of course, we have the issue of doctor/patient confidentiality which is sacrosanct.

 

Sure it can that's why its illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire. People can get trampled to death because of your words.
Define mental illness. Is it insomnia, anxiety, phobias, what?
Electing the wrong president can lead to certain death for many individuals should you be required to submit documentation from a professional therapist before you can vote?

 

No rebuttal I see.

 

There are the mentally ill that talk about killing themselves and eventually do.

There are the mentally ill that talk about killing others and they eventually do.

These are the ones that need extra help or attention.

 

When you apply for a driving license you must pass an eye examination which is medical...it is not unusual in many areas for people reach a certian age to be required to pass a medical in order to drive and tested at regular intervals afterwards...in some areas mds, optometrists and psychologists are required by law to report anyone who is unfit to drive to licensing authorities...pilots are required to pass medical testing at regular intervals to fly...medical records are not as sacrosanct as you believe them to be....

where I live applicants who wish to become police, even applicants to enter MD training are psychologically assessed before being accepted...

 

Living in Merry Olde, SS, why ever should it bother you, whatever we do?

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, we should have all journalists, reporters etc be given mental health exams before they can write or broadcast.