Firearms Prohibition Orders

Once it is OK to violate the civil rights of one group of people, it is OK to violate the rights of all of us. It is, indeed, the proverbial VERY slippery slope. Who gets to decide what groups are subject to such searches? What if someone gets the idea that people over 70 are banding together to do some nefarious deed -- do we then stop and search everybody over 70??

It is NOT OK to stop and search someone who MIGHT be the member of a group suspected of planning something; we don't even do that with people who are suspected of having links to ISIS, until law enforcement has a REASONABLE suspicion that that person is so connected or that they are planning something. That's not the way individual liberty works. You cannot target all members of a group because one member of that group has been convicted of a crime. You can't stop and search somebody's 90 year old grandmother because her grandson is in prison for running guns.

Yes, it is probably one way that criminals might be divested of their illegal weapons, but in doing so you would be violating the rights of a whole bunch of innocent people, and how does one determine who said criminals are if they are just driving down the road? That is not the way freedom works in this country. A person is presumed innocent by the law until proven guilty in a court of law. And conviction of a a crime does not give police the right to hassle you every time you turn around for the rest of your life, nor should it. Police have to have reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before they can even stop you. That has been well litigated in our courts and so has the meaning of "reasonable suspicion" and sham stops are not tolerated.

I would hate to live in a country where I could be stopped and searched and have a bunch of cops rummaging around in my car or my purse just for the fun of it to see if I just MIGHT have evil intentions. That's just wrong on so many levels.
 

The civil libertarians over here would agree with you Butterfly. It is a very delicate balance and when it tips too far one way or the other there is bound to be a correction because of the fuss that is made, including in the courts.
 
Our courts have been very clear on this issue, except for clarification and very small things, for as long as they go back. The Fourth Amendment is the ultimate arbiter.
 

I spent a career in sensitive positions that always required random drug testing. I submitted because I had a family and it was an excellent job with a good retirement.
I had many people tell me that it was important for me to have a test because I carried weapons as part of my job. I always countered with the analogy that all teachers should be required open their computers just in case they are child molesters
 
Moving the thread in another direction now.

We had a referendum in 1999 to decide whether Australia should become a republic. It failed for several reasons but the main reason was the model that was being put forward. It was a minimalist model where the governor general's role would be renamed President and there would be no popular vote for a presidency that would be essentially ceremonial only. Parliament would be the real power and legislative body. Many people objected because they wanted to be able to vote for the president rather than have someone appointed by either the prime minister or some committee. Although I am in favour of becoming a republic, I confess that I voted NO for this reason but have since changed my mind. After watching the 2016 presidential election in US, I am more convinced than ever that we should stick to a Westminster model of government.

Another issue that was raised at the time is whether Australia should have a formal bill of rights. Our constitution is a very dry document that spells out the relationship between the commonwealth and the states. It is silent on rights of citizens which are left to the various parliaments to enshrine into law. Since Federation in 1901, it has been quite difficult to change the constitution because it requires a vote of all citizens and the Yes case for change must be supported by a majority of voters overall and in a majority of states i.e. in 4 out of 6 states. Most referendums for constitutional change fail unless there is bipartisan support from both sides of parliament. Responding to social change is much easier to do via parliamentary processes than by constitutional change.

Having a bill of rights sounds attractive and from time to time it is suggested that Australia should have one attached to our constitution but senior members of the legal fraternity usually advise against this move on the grounds that it would remove flexibility from law making processes and become more and more of a hindrance to progress over time. What we are currently considering is a preamble to the constitution that will recognise our indigenous peoples as the first people of Australia. It will be a very symbolic statement without having any legal weight lest it bind the nation in the future to something that might no longer possess any current cultural value. Even this benign ambition will have a hard time being passed at a referendum due to the reluctance of voters to amend the constitution. There is always a tendency to distrust the politicians that favours the NO vote.

Not being all that familiar with the US Bill of Rights, I ask this question - having been framed in the eighteenth century, in the days of horse and buggy and oil lamps, is the language expressing the rights of citizens adequate for the twentyfirst century and beyond and do they still mean what the authors of the document wanted them to mean?

This is a serious question in my mind and I would appreciate serious, reflective responses.
 
Courts have taken the position that the Constitution must be "strictly construed," which means it is taken to mean exactly what it says, no more, no less, regardless of when it was written. To change what the Constitution means would mean that it would have to be amended, a long and formal process which takes forever and takes ratification by the states. We don't have the latitude to change what it says at will when we find it expedient.
 
Courts have taken the position that the Constitution must be "strictly construed," which means it is taken to mean exactly what it says, no more, no less, regardless of when it was written.
Click to expand...

Always? No examples of any interpretations of the first ten If amendments by the Supreme Court that were not strictly black letter law?
Have some interpretations of the Constitution ever been reversed at some later appeal?

I know that I am asking difficult questions but law is seldom a simple matter. If it was a simple matter then there would be no need of the SCOTUS in the first place.
 
Thank you, Warrigal, for your academically charged response.
I must admit that the balance between conflicting values of personal freedom and personal safety escape me, slightly beyond my comprehension level.
Sadly, I don't know the Fourth Amendment. (but will look it up later).
Maybe a genetic adjustment for those who can't control their murderous, killing instinct, would solve the problem?
(Or has this already been tried in Nazi Germany and deemed a ghastly, abhorrent practice?)
 
The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable search of our person or property. Basically means that you can not be searched unless the police get a warrant from a judge. Now if you are actively engaged in thre commission of a crime, naturally the police can search you the.

If you are driving your gun running cousins car, then no they can not search.

If your entire family is in prison,police can not single you out for special attention.

Yep sometimes it helps the bad guys get away, but government needs a leash as they given an opportunity will always overstep their bounds,
 
Robusta said:
The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable search of our person or property. Basically means that you can not be searched unless the police get a warrant from a judge. Now if you are actively engaged in thre commission of a crime, naturally the police can search you the.

If you are driving your gun running cousins car, then no they can not search.

If your entire family is in prison,police can not single you out for special attention.

Yep sometimes it helps the bad guys get away, but government needs a leash as they given an opportunity will always overstep their bounds,
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I think the framers of the Constitution drafted it that way on purpose -- we don't want or need the government in our faces every time we turn around, and we don't want our liberty eroded by violations of our right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Once we start allowing that, it's the proverbial slippery slope to a police state.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top