TexasCHLforum.com

I want my tax money to go for a bunch of Feds running around with these (see attached photo)

VMI77 wrote: In the latter case I have a hard time seeing how it will be politically possible for the feds to ignore someone with a weapon. If they don't check everyone they have identified with a weapon to determine if it is legal, then they risk the blow back of someone, like a convicted felon, passing through their checkpoint with a weapon and then using it to shoot someone on down the road.

I don’t know the legality of it.. But I'm not of the opinion there is any reality to all laws applied evenly.. From the LEO that lets you side with a warning vice a 15 over speeding ticket to a DA that chooses to only charge you with Public intoxication vice PI, Disorderly conduct and smelly feet…..
If the protocol is to only look for, and question a scan that meets specific criteria, as long as they execute the search on every event that meets that criteria.. I’d see it as a go… but IANAL

bronco78 wrote:

VMI77 wrote: In the latter case I have a hard time seeing how it will be politically possible for the feds to ignore someone with a weapon. If they don't check everyone they have identified with a weapon to determine if it is legal, then they risk the blow back of someone, like a convicted felon, passing through their checkpoint with a weapon and then using it to shoot someone on down the road.

I don’t know the legality of it.. But I'm not of the opinion there is any reality to all laws applied evenly.. From the LEO that lets you side with a warning vice a 15 over speeding ticket to a DA that chooses to only charge you with Public intoxication vice PI, Disorderly conduct and smelly feet…..
If the protocol is to only look for, and question a scan that meets specific criteria, as long as they execute the search on every event that meets that criteria.. I’d see it as a go… but IANAL

I agree with you about the application of the law in general. I was thinking more along political lines and some federal agency having to explain why they were x-raying at a checkpoint and let a bad guy through with a gun. From an official organizational perspective, versus the judgment of an individual LEO, it's difficult for me to see the organization deciding to take that kind of responsibility. It seems like the organizational response would be to check everyone, just in case --unless that just turned out to be impractical, or contrary to some other more powerful political dynamic.

It looks like they're really wanting to use it for looking for smuggling activities. It specifically referenced looking for bombs and bodies inside the vehicle body. It also said they could use it at large gatherings like sporting events (How many smugglers leave a van full of illegal aliens while they go watch a ball game?) and that they've been practicing at a random truck spot. They are talking about and already doing searches without any cause. That's scary.

VMI77 wrote:In the latter case I have a hard time seeing how it will be politically possible for the feds to ignore someone with a weapon.

The same way they ignore someone whose only "crime" is possessing a Koran or a laptop computer.

I just can not understand why some people are so worried about what might happen if they get caught not breaking the law.

bdickens wrote:I just can not understand why some people are so worried about what might happen if they get caught not breaking the law.

bdickens wrote:I just can not understand why some people are so worried about what might happen if they get caught not breaking the law.

Not breaking the law according to who.. You? What makes you think you get a vote

First a Law Enforcement officer gets a vote, ..... you will never be asked to vote prior to seeing your lawyer if you think you should have been arrested for what someone else voted you did wrong.

It is naive to not understand this happens every day. most times by honest officers who make a mistake, misjudge, mis understand...,, other times by LEO's or a DA with an agenda, Legality at the arrest site has no bearing on your arrest or trial date... Your vote comes MUCH later in the cycle... after much time and money.

"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."

What's the PC if I'm driving my car or van? The problem I have with this is it’s a band aid for not fixing the border security and this is how our rights disappear. Little by little our rights get whittled away and suddenly we have none. IMO this is nothing more than an illegal search

Great for those pregnant women randomly scanned, too. *sarcasm*

bdickens wrote:I just can not understand why some people are so worried about what might happen if they get caught not breaking the law.

Maybe you should read the thread on Erik Scott.

This concept is wrong on so many different levels.

PRO wrote:What's the PC if I'm driving my car or van? The problem I have with this is it’s a band aid for not fixing the border security and this is how our rights disappear. Little by little our rights get whittled away and suddenly we have none. IMO this is nothing more than an illegal search

I don't see how this has anything to do with border security. Your criticisms of it are correct, though.

If you do get stopped by the x ray van, be sure to request a physical search instead because i heard on the grapevine that these x ray devices are harmful to people and of high radiation output. someone in the know please verify this for me thanks.

To the question of letting someone pass. Say you ARE a felon, the "Superman Eyes" randomly scan your house/vehicle and find X-Y-Z, then under the fourth amendment/rules of evidence might it not get thrown out any way?

The thought of the government peeking at the citizens of the United States is both creepy and nauseating. This is just incredible in the most literal sense I can use.