NYPD, Feds Testing Gun-Scanning Technology, But Civil Liberties Groups Up In Arms

This is a discussion on NYPD, Feds Testing Gun-Scanning Technology, But Civil Liberties Groups Up In Arms within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by mrz333 Head to NYC's East NY section, put on a uniform and sit in a patrol car at 2AM. Without restrictive carry ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36
Like Tree25Likes

Thread: NYPD, Feds testing Gun-Scanning Technology, But Civil Liberties Groups Up In Arms

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,225
    Quote Originally Posted by mrz333 View Post
    Head to NYC's East NY section, put on a uniform and sit in a patrol car at 2AM. Without restrictive carry laws NYC would not be just a jungle it would be a killing zone and LEOs would be high on the target list like back in the '70s. The NYPD is doing a great job in keeping the city just this side of sanity and, at he same time, out of the crosshairs of terrorists. It's a task unlike any in the world where a journey to the badlands is as simple as crossing a street. I would be for anything tech-wise that would help the BLUEs and all inner city LEOs to stay even an inch ahead of the BGs. This device doesn't mean the city has to turn into the largest peep show in the world.
    Chicago has even more restrictive gun laws, and more homicides. NYC had 209 in 2011, Chicago had 441. So, NYC restrictive carry laws are similar in effect to Chicago's... the restrictive laws cause more victims.

    And why, Mr. Z; aren't you reporting your information FROM the road apple rather than florida?
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Distinguished Member Array claude clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    ct
    Posts
    1,904
    so we rule out off-duty and undercover by piggy-backing a blue tooth signal from their cell phone to the "device"
    --15 feet ought to work. now we defiantly will have problems with accusations of racial profiling cause, fact is those
    illegal carrying are mostly ganger's and criminals. both groups being highly represented statistically by minorities.
    so its a lose/lose in court unless common sense prevails. not very likely.
    Be aware, be deliberate in your actions and be accurate.
    -------------------
    Why do those elected to positions of power than work so hard
    to deny those same opportunities to the same people who empowered them

  4. #18
    Senior Member
    Array marcclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado USA
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    If this happened in a free State where gun ownership is legal wouldn't they need a reason other than the fact that a person is legally armed to stop them?

    Michael
    No. (The person carrying the gun might be a terrorist or might be planning to murder his congresswoman and shoot up the crowd, e.g. Rep. Giffords.)

    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    I'm going to start manufacturing LEAD underpants.
    Or at least a lead-lined j-strap.

    Quote Originally Posted by sdprof View Post
    Here's the plan - hand out gun shaped objects to everyone, walk around the streets, and keep the cops crazy busy. After a few days/weeks of this, they gotta give it up.
    They will make it a crime to carry a facsimile of a gun to trip the sensors.
    Last edited by SIXTO; January 18th, 2012 at 05:34 PM.

  5. #19
    Distinguished Member Array DontTreadOnI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by marcclarke View Post
    No. (The person carrying the gun might be a terrorist or might be planning to murder his congresswoman and shoot up the crowd, e.g. Rep. Giffords.)
    Yeah well I may see you driving to work in the morning, but you may actually be driving to the nearest mall with 500 pounds of C4 in your car to kill everyone there. See where I'm going with this? When you start making exceptions, EVERYTHING GETS EXCEPTED.
    l1a1 likes this.
    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

  6. #20
    Ex Member Array Bullet1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    963
    ALL CWP users should Boycott NEW YORK STATE PERIOD.

    STAY OUT OF NEW YORK STATE ,,,,, they will miss your
    money,,,, as long as they have their stupid carry laws
    I will stay AWAY. Large cities have become the "badlands"
    as CR Williams says,,,, I used to go to NYC,,,, but never
    felt comfortable being there WITHOUT A GUN,,,,, so I
    DO NOT GO ANYMORE,,,,, Same goes for Chicago & Illinois.

    It would HAVE TO BE REAL IMPORTANT FOR ME TO GO TO
    EITHER CITY AGAIN.

    As I get OLDER I just WILL NOT GO UNPROTECTED anywhere
    that restricts my CWP usage.

  7. #21
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    I read about this technology being developed a few years ago. I guess it ready for the big show now.
    Lets say I'm walking down the street and a police officer using this device determines that I am armed. Is that a reason for him to detain me or ask about the weapon?

    Michael
    I would say it depends. If you are in a CCW state, does the fact that you have a firearm on you automatically mean you should be suspected of criminal activity? I am not sure it would.

    Frankly, this would probably prompt me to just open carry rather than have to deal with police.

    We also need to remember that the Supreme Court already decided that the police simply cannot drive down the street and scan people's houses for marijuna grow heat signatures.

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,822
    LEO's, really curious what your thoughts are on this.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by mlr1m
    I read about this technology being developed a few years ago. I guess it ready for the big show now.
    Lets say I'm walking down the street and a police officer using this device determines that I am armed. Is that a reason for him to detain me or ask about the weapon?

    Michael
    Quote Originally Posted by Chad Rogers View Post
    I would say it depends. If you are in a CCW state, does the fact that you have a firearm on you automatically mean you should be suspected of criminal activity? I am not sure it would.

    Frankly, this would probably prompt me to just open carry rather than have to deal with police.

    We also need to remember that the Supreme Court already decided that the police simply cannot drive down the street and scan people's houses for marijuna grow heat signatures.
    I asked a cop friend of mine about this issue last night. He said that if unless he had reason to believe a person was breaking a law or was about to break one that he could not detain that person. Does that sound correct?
    He and I both agreed that to do so would be like pulling everyone over who drives a car because it might be stolen or they might use it to speed. But maybe our cops out here in the boonies have different ideas on freedom.

    Michael

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Chad Rogers View Post
    I would say it depends. If you are in a CCW state, does the fact that you have a firearm on you automatically mean you should be suspected of criminal activity? I am not sure it would.

    Frankly, this would probably prompt me to just open carry rather than have to deal with police.

    We also need to remember that the Supreme Court already decided that the police simply cannot drive down the street and scan people's houses for marijuna grow heat signatures.
    I believe they ruled it to be a search and therefore required a search warrant. The standards for searching a person or a vehicle are less than those required for searching a home or building.

    Michael

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by mlr1m
    If this happened in a free State where gun ownership is legal wouldn't they need a reason other than the fact that a person is legally armed to stop them?

    Michael
    Quote Originally Posted by marcclarke View Post
    No. (The person carrying the gun might be a terrorist or might be planning to murder his congresswoman and shoot up the crowd, e.g. Rep. Giffords.)
    If this is true would it be correct to assume it is legal to stop or detain everyone on the grounds that they might be a terrorist, bank robber, kidnapper or possibly a sheep molester?
    Everyone might be doing something illegal.

    Michael

  12. #26
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,673
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    LEO's, really curious what your thoughts are on this.
    Its a waste of time, money and effort.
    suntzu and Rock and Glock like this.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  13. #27
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    I cannot see how this technology can be considered to be anything other than a search, which would require a warrant.
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  14. #28
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,256
    Its a waste of time, money and effort.
    And NY has so much spare money floating around, and they are so overstaffed too..........Bloomberg is really on the ball.............

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by MattInFla View Post
    I cannot see how this technology can be considered to be anything other than a search, which would require a warrant.
    The Government has granted itself much greater leeway in what may or may not be searched outside of a building. For instance around these parts know that in most cases they may not search your car. They can however inventory the contents.
    I do not see the difference but the government says that there is one.

    Michael

  16. #30
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,673
    Thinking more about this, I cannot help but think this is going to end up getting more cops killed than its going to save. Set aside all the rights issues etc., I just cannot wrap my head around this... It is far more about control than it is safety. God help us, we have become our own worse enemy.
    BigFish likes this.
    "Just blame Sixto"

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

government scanning houses for firearms
,

gun scanner dc

,

gun-scanning technology

,
ny terahertz security jan 17
,
nypd gun scan violation privacy
,
nypd imaging thz
,

nypd terahertz

,
nypd terahertz scan
,
nypd terahertz scanner
,
nypd zone 14
,
terahertz gun scan
,
terahertz gun scanner
,
terahertz imaging detector civil rights
,
terrahertz gun scanning
,
washington dc gun scanners
Click on a term to search for related topics.