DC wants to see if your house is "Safe" : MERGED

This is a discussion on DC wants to see if your house is "Safe" : MERGED within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I have heard about these types of programs in other cities. If I remember correctly one of the police depratments in the DFW area has ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61

Thread: DC wants to see if your house is "Safe" : MERGED

  1. #31
    Member Array bigiceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    491
    I have heard about these types of programs in other cities. If I remember correctly one of the police depratments in the DFW area has done this. It was actually a great idea. It is like getting a free pass from stupid criminals to catch them. You see the program I saw did not offer amnesty. The cops went to areas of high crime and went door to door politely asking if they could search the premisis. The stuff they found was both amazing and amusing.

    I am not thinking in my area that it was a means of compiling a list of suspicious people that would need to be revisited on a later date. I do think it is a waste of resources the way they propose in that article. If the parents want that, let them call. If they think the parents are too scared to call on their own, then advertise that the police are offering this service free and with the amnesty.

    Here is the real question. Cop shows at door. Parent of gang-banger answers and lets them in because they don't have control. Police find drugs, guns and other illegal contraband. There is amnesty for this visit. Now they have a reliable source letting them know that there is a drug dealer/weapons violater at that address. Any time in the future they wish to arrive with a warrant they would have probable cause in my book.
    But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
    "Baa."
    LTC(RET) Dave Grossman

    Revolutionary War Veterans Association Shooter Qualification: Cook

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Distinguished Member Array Ghettokracker71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Under a rock.
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post

    IWe live in the most free society ever constructed. I don't recall free and fair elections in Germany after Hitler took power. Do you really think there is the slightest chance that the United States will abandon our system of government without being defeated by a foreign power?

    Every four years we will vote for the President and every two years we can change the make up of Congress. It has not changed for over two hundred years and a voluntary program in DC is not an incremental intrusion on anyone's rights.

    (snip)
    What good does being able to 'chose' a president do us,if half the gunowners don't vote or don't care? AND if the majority of sheeples elect a democrat?None.(Wich is why I did everything I could to be politically active before the primaries,now I realize just how screwed we are. ) Furthermore, those democrats will do everything they can to restrict our freedoms as much as possible Believe me, we're losing our freedoms quick hard and fast.

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array obxned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OBX, NC
    Posts
    2,655
    You can search mine if I can search yours.
    "If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by mousehunter View Post
    I would have no problem with a truly voluntary program - that is if parents beg the police to search their homes, the police could volunteer to do it. Even then it is asking the taxpayers to foot the bill for a job the parents should be doing - but it might end up being in the taxpayers best interest.
    I too would have no issue with truly voluntary as in Parent X dialing 202.COP.CHEK and making a direct request and appointment to have the police stop by their residence to walk through and assess things.
    That though is not the case here.
    This will be police entering ones neighborhood and as stated going door to door in cop clothing as a group making inquiry if they can enter ones residence under the premise and for the purpose of assessing their residence for possession of select unlawful items.
    Many people do not watch the news. Others out right fear the po-po to a degree that they will do whatever they ask/suggest/state. They will open their doors and give verbal approval to enter and subject themselves to search waiving their rights toward refusal. This happens all the time on the street in folks cars and when the cops knock at folks doors (!) for what ever reason.
    The DC police and mayor know this and by offering 'amnesty' for items found they get a chance to skate one time but guess who gets an entry in their database of items collected and from where toward illegal property collection? Yep.
    Also I'll bet they go door to door using census info to know who is at where and to tabulate participants against non-participants et.al. I'd bet there will be an interview involved to which the participants will be asked about the activities and whereabouts of the non-participatory neighbors.

    This on the surface comes off as being benign and a win win for parents who otherwise assumedly have lost total control of their own homes in relation to their children and those who share space with them.
    On the other hand where does it lead to for those same participants down the road, and for their neighbors who this time choose to opt out.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  6. #35
    Member Array barracudamagoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Ram Rod View Post
    Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier says the "safe homes initiative" is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police. She gave the example of parents who know or suspect their children have guns in the home.How does stuff like this happen anyway? If everyone did their part and took control of these situations, there would be no need for government intervention. I'm going to have to throw out one of those big words on this one-----'responsibility'.
    Ram Rod, this was my first thought. If parents already suspected their child of being involved in illegal activity, they should have been already cooperating with the police. Your correct Parental RESPONSIBILITY for their children. They should have nipped it in the bud long before their child even thought of engaging in illegal activity; however, if it had already spun out of the parents control, the RESPONSIBLE parent would contact the police...not wait for them to show up (hmm...I've heard that song before).

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Agreed Barracuda.

    In fact a parent allowing them self to be searched as such under this pretense though the drugs and guns found may be ignored under amnesty, there are other laws and crimes applicable that are not covered by amnesty such as; contribution to the delinquency of a child and failure to provide a safe home to which by law DSS are required to be notified by guess who, the police (!). As well the children can and likely will be interviewed themselves about life and living in their home and community, and how is mom or dad doing at their job of being provider. See where that can go?...

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  8. #37
    Member Array Con43's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    33
    Chief of police Cathy L. Lanier said "this is aimed at people who want to cooperate with the police" Simple logic would then dictate that in LE mind people who do not consent to a search must not want to cooperate with the police. We all know how people who are thought to be uncoopertive with the police are thought of by LE.

  9. #38
    New Member Array Lensgrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghettokracker71 View Post
    What good does being able to 'chose' a president do us,if half the gunowners don't vote or don't care? AND if the majority of sheeples elect a democrat?None.(Wich is why I did everything I could to be politically active before the primaries,now I realize just how screwed we are. ) Furthermore, those democrats will do everything they can to restrict our freedoms as much as possible Believe me, we're losing our freedoms quick hard and fast.
    +1
    Can't say it any better than this:

    "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction."
    Ronald Reagan

  10. #39
    Member Array imatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    311
    When I'm at home, my house is safe for all who are invited.

  11. #40
    Distinguished Member Array Gunnutty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,508
    Allowing the police to enter and search the home is voluntary. That means that the gang bangers and dope dealers know who to blame if the police are allowed in. So who will get the blame and face the repercussions? Mom and dad!!!
    This is one of the reasons that this type of thing has failed in other cities. If mom and dad are so afraid of their child that they can't handle him or her; and amnesty means that the little darling will not be charged or sent away why then would they let them in?
    We will be much better off when we learn to deal with things as they really are, instead of how we wish them to be!

  12. #41
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghettokracker71 View Post
    What good does being able to 'chose' a president do us,if half the gunowners don't vote or don't care? AND if the majority of sheeples elect a democrat?None.(Wich is why I did everything I could to be politically active before the primaries,now I realize just how screwed we are. ) Furthermore, those democrats will do everything they can to restrict our freedoms as much as possible Believe me, we're losing our freedoms quick hard and fast.
    I keep reading this assertion that we are losing our rights and freedoms but I still haven't seen evidence that any innocent person (except one who had the same name as a terrorist) has lost any right at all. I know I havent lost any of my rights. In fact, my 'rights' (we can discuss the quotes later) have actually expanded as the people of Arizona are now protected by the Castle Doctrine. Am I slightly inconvenienced by standing in line at the airport and being wanded. Sure. But is is not an infringement on my 'rights.'

    Even those in the anti states are not having their 'rights' infringed upon by the Federal government. They have the 'right' to move to another state!

    As to the upcoming election, we have elected very bad Presidents in the past: Carter/Clinton/Grant/Taylor are among the worst. Our nation survived. We have even survived the socialist ideals of FDR. We will survive the upcoming presidential debacle whether it be Clinton, Obama, or McCain. Let's never forget that we have Congressional elections, which are even more important than the presidential election this time around.

    Back to topic, certainly the DC policy of helping the community does nothing to limit anyone's rights. It is a voluntary program! Nazi Germany, indeed.

  13. #42
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    My question is are they knocking saying that they are looking for weapons or drugs or are they knocking saying they are there for a "Safety Inspection."

    A safety inspection can mean very many things, and I would never associate that with firearms.

    Can they outright lie to get inside?
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

  14. #43
    Senior Member Array tegemu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Orange Park, Fla.
    Posts
    997
    I would think that the police would be better utilized combating the huge crime rate in DC.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence in their behalf. - George Orwell

  15. #44
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    I think DC residents should start showing up at police stations and other government offices to conduct "safety checks".

    I wonder how much cooperation they would get?

    Matt
    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.

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    Since when are the Police, whom are sworn to enforce the law, allowed to declare amnesty? They don't write laws they just enforce them. How can they, even if voluntary and momentary, suspend the laws as written. I don't think its appropriate for them to decide they can just ignore the law when they find a violation of the law in ANY circumstance. Finding illegal drugs or any other illegal activity no matter how they are allowed in, as long as legal entry is adhered too requires enforcement. They can't just decide to suspend that. This program makes their actions illegal when they do that. I don't get it. Under what legal justification do they have to suspend law enforcement? Who is authorizing this action? Or non action I should say? Did congress authorize it? I gotta wonder if this program is even legal. And since they are ignoring the law when they find it are the derelict in their duties when that occurs?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. More "safe neighborhood" & "just comply"
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2010, 12:51 PM
  2. Texas Woman shot in carjacking in "safe" neighborhood
    By nova83tx in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: February 7th, 2010, 09:29 AM
  3. "Strategic Relocation--North American Guide to Safe Places"
    By ExSoldier in forum Defensive Books, Video & References
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2009, 10:18 PM
  4. A letter I am posting on all "Pro gun law" and "Pro ban" blogs and websites. (Merged)
    By chuck2780 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 15th, 2009, 12:25 AM
  5. It doesn't matter if sheep "are safe", it just matters that they "feel" safe.
    By havegunjoe in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 20th, 2007, 12:17 AM