MA Lawmaker Wants Home Inspections for Gun Owners

Barry Greenfield, c Patch

In Massachusetts, things aren’t looking very rosy for civil liberties. Already suffering under a “high capacity” magazine ban and other draconian firearms restrictions, some lawmakers don’t feel they haven’t gone far enough toward preventing another Newtown. While there’s already a “safe storage” law on the books, Swampscott Selectman Barry Greenfield believes police should go door-to-door to inspect the gun collections of his town’s residents—to see if they’re in compliance with the law. Apparently Barry isn’t familiar with the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Or maybe he feels like when it comes to guns, the word “unreasonable” has a much less strict interpretation, as evinced by his proposed implementation plans . . .

From the Swampscott Patch:

The selectman said state law requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable.

The problem, he said, is that police do not have the authority, granted by a local ordinance, to enforce the law and inspect the safeguarding of guns at the homes of the 600 registered gun owners in town.

The selectman said he has spoken with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan about this.

“We need the ability to enforce the state law,” the selectman said.

The latest interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is that any search of a dwelling requires a warrant to be issued with supporting documentation as to whether there is a high probability that a crime is being committed. It keeps law enforcement officers from barging into your home whenever they feel like it and is an effective check on the propensity for police to over-step their bounds.

Barry apparently wants to lower the bar required for a warrant to be issued to something along the line of “because they own a gun, and gun owners are inherently dangerous individuals who don’t follow the law and need to be monitored.”

After being called out on his statements, Barry threw the gear shift into reverse and gunned it.

[T]he entire discussion about whether or not MGL 140 s131L (which states weapons must be stored in a safe or locked capacity only accessible by the owner) could be enforced was asked in reference to school shootings. The research I have read states that 65% or more of school shootings are caused by kids having access to their parents guns. It would be great to avoid another situation like that.

I know most gun owners are incredibly responsible with their weapons. I also am not trying to take away anyone’s rights or guns.

I’m simply asking the question of whether an existing law can be enforced. I’m not trying to add any laws. I asked our board of selectmen whether we could look into potential methods of enforcement. Can the police conduct a investigation with due notice, similar to a building permit inspection or a fire inspection when you want to sell your home? If not, fine.

Or, in other words, “I was just asking a question! It’s not like I actually wanted to do it, even though it’s a great idea that I came up with!”

I’m in favor of enforcement of existing laws, so long as they comply with the Constitution and the enforcement is similarly carried out within the confines of that handy-dandy document. But in this case I get the feeling that the only way to enforce this law would be random spot checks, which is definitely leading down the path to a Stasi-style police state.

Freedom is scary. There is no guarantee of safety with a free society. Then again, the guarantee of safety with an Orwellian police state has historically been shown to be a false promise that usually ends in a trip on a cattle car or to Siberia for those who disagree with the ruling class. People like Barry Greenfield seem to forget that historical lesson and wants us to condemn us to repeat it. No thanks.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

150 Responses to MA Lawmaker Wants Home Inspections for Gun Owners

  1. avatarReedRothchild87 says:

    When are these folks up north gonna stop electing these liberal elitist ?

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      Probably when there are no longer valid elections. It’s easier to get what they want that way

    • avatarEagleScout87 says:

      They WANT this. Why would they stop electing them?

      • avatarMarshall R says:

        BS. I live in rural upstate NY and it’s not my regions fault that downstate controls Albany. Comrade Cuomo is a hated man in many parts of NY, including my own. NYC and the surrounding area has the population to control the rest of the state (from the State Assembly) with their liberal attitudes and they do so very effectively. Upstate NYers have more in common with mid westerners or southerners than we do with the down state NYers, so to lump us all NYers into one category is misleading and ignorant.
        …..And I’m tired of hearing the “So just move” comeback. Could you? It’s not that easy….

        • avatarPwrserge says:

          So secede and form your own state… It’s not like there’s no precedent.

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          The last successful formation of a new state from an old one, Pwrserge, was during the Civil War (see, e.g., West Virginia). I’m all in favor of trying, mind you, but the difficulties are immense.

        • avatarDr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

          I moved.

          It wasn’t easy, but it wasn’t impossible either.

          I’m much happier now, and it was most definitely worth it.

        • avatarmiserylovescompany says:

          Secession may indeed be well nigh impossible, but what’s to say we, the people of the several States, couldn’t ratify an Amendment to throw New York City out of the country? I’d wager 37 of the 50 states would very possibly ratify such an amendment out of sheer spite. Even Nazifornia.

          I happen to think that repealing those asinine laws would be better, but if those people seem so determined to make their own bed that way, then better that they be made to lie in it and not the citizens of the rest of New York.

          Tom

        • avatarBrent says:

          +1

          The same applies to MA outside the Rt 128 corridor. The further you get away from the Boston metro area, the better off you are.

        • avatarneiowa says:

          See also Cook Co/Chicago vs Illinois, Lala/SF Kalifornia vs Northern Ca, Denver area vs Eastern Colorado, Michigan, Coastal Washington/Oregon vs Eastern, etc etc etc.

          Urban hives vs real world

        • avatarggrimes2 says:

          I feel your pain. Years ago I was in upstate NY on business (Sydney) and had a couple days off becasue of weather could not secure a flight back to Arizona. Took my rental car on a drive, stopped at several gun shops and even met a guy who made high powered doubles out of Ruger Red Label shotguns. Being an FFL holder I was able to see his shop, the work he was doing (finest kind) and view many firearms he was restoring and doing repairs for. At another small shop the owner actually took me to lunch and talked at length about guns and hunting. I was NEVER treated better in my travels, returned with a new found respect and likeing for you upstate folks. I am somewhat ashamed that I had lumped you folks in with the Liberal riff-raff running the City. I now support you folks and hope you keep up the fight, maybe put a fence around the city would help, let them live with their problems and leave the rest of you alone.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        How obvious does it have to be? POTG are outnumbered in certain parts. Vote with the feet, or suck it up.
        That’s reality.

    • avatarJeh says:

      They’ll stop being elected when the majority of people actually go vote.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      They will stop electing these Liberal/Progressive/Socialist (Progressialist) politicians on the day when they figure out how to simply appoint them to the positions without your approval. Does the term “czar” ring any bells? I know the Brown Stream Media has thoroughly stopped any mention of this phenomena, but it was definitely a Progressialist testing of the political waters.

    • avatarChas says:

      It’s starting to look to me like the left is rigging the elections. Evidence has presented itself that there was voter fraud in the VA governor’s race, not to mention the last presidential election.

      • avatarBob says:

        It is public knowledge that a wealthy Democrat donated millions of dollars to the Libertarian Sarvis, hoping that he would pull enough votes away from the Republican Cuccinelli to allow the Democrat McAuliffe to win the election. Very underhanded, but completely legal, and it was very effective.

        McAuliffe got 48%, Cuccinelli got 45%, and Sarvis got 6%. McAuliffe did not win the election with a majority of the voters. He won by splitting the majority voters who opposed him between two candidates.

      • avatarA-Rod says:

        You better not look into Diebolt and the RNC. There’s rigged election concern there.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          Diebold: “When you think of rigged voting machines and white slavery, think of us!”

    • avatarjt says:

      We don’t elect them they buy their way in and rig the election. The system is corrupt to the core.

  2. avatarMothaLova says:

    And why would random inspections be enough? It is so easy to toss the guns in the safe before answering the door. No, no, we should treat gun owners as we do banks and install compliance officers in-house to allow real-time surveillance. As an additional benefit, the government could violate the fourth amendment AND the third amendment, a ground-breaking precedent that would truly be cause for celebration among the bureaucrats of the regulatory state.

    • avatarBruce L. says:

      Greenfield may be correct. I also think we should install cameras in the bed room to make sure people aren’t doing anything unlawful there. We can start with Greenfields.

      • avatarJonathan -- Houston says:

        That was my thought, too. Marital rape is a crime. So why not send in the SWAT team into this guy’s bedroom next time he’s frisky, just to make sure that Mrs. Gestapo, I mean Greenfield, is into it?

        And while I cannot cite the statute, I’m pretty sure that abusing your children is a crime, too. May we send in the Obamacare pediatricians to conduct full body spot check to confirm no one is being abused in his house?

        He would do well to take note of the old addage: be careful what you wish for………..because you just might say it out loud in an interview and reveal to the whole world what a fascist jackwipe you really are! Or something like that. I’m terrible with quotes.

        • avatarCliff H says:

          Why waste valuable pediatricians who will be in short supply after Obamacare convinces them to get a more remunerative and less regulated profession? This seems to be a job the TSA could handle – they already have the training at groping little kids.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          :)
          The truth ain’t pretty sometimes, but at least it’s the truth.

  3. avatarRKBA says:

    The NAZI’s are comming!

    The NAZI’s are comming!

    The NAZI’s are comming!

    • avatarJim R says:

      Coming? Dude, they’re already HERE.

    • avatartwency says:

      They’re comming? Talking on radios?

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        They’re “comming” to repossess three incorrectly-used apostrophes. Or, as the poster would probably write, “apostrophe’s”.

    • avatarprotective_parent74 says:

      gestapo….papers please…guns too. LMFAO

      • avatarrjoguillory says:

        …seems like more and more people are out getting fitted for their Tin-Foil-Hats….not that we haven’t been trying to explain to most of the sleeping population for decades…it seems that more and more people are simply waking up with their Tin-Foil-Hat on and running….good for them….convict these people like Mr. Greenfield and his “Selectmen” of treason…and then hang them…..all of them on some patch of Green in MA…no appeals process….just immediate execution after the guilty verdict….Let us see how Mr. Greenfield feels about just abandoning The Constitution…as he is suggesting…no appeals…just straight to the gallows upon conviction for treason…

        Regards,

        RJ O’Guillory
        Author-
        Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

        • avatarCliff H says:

          Here’s an idea for the TTAG Pro Shop, RF – baseball caps with a Mylar coating. I know it’s not tin foil, but neither is aluminum and it all looks the same. Not sure what graphics to put on them, though.

        • avatarrjoguillory says:

          …I am certain…that with the level of creativity on this site…we could easily develop some graphics that would uphold the TFH (Tin-Foil-Hat) Tradition ….only this time we could “brainstorm” and put things like the NSA Logo…or the Obamacare Logo …..The Washington Monument with an all- seeing eye…we could even have hats geared to exposing the torture the USA has been involved in over at least the last decade…if not longer…

          We could show a convicted Donald Rumsfeld or Hillary standing on a Gallows waiting to be hung…? While having have fun…we could put out a chillingly important message.. and make some funds as well…ha!

          Regards,

          RJ O’Guillory
          Author-
          Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        What’s so GD funny? :(

    • avatarDr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      The Nazi’s what? You forgot a noun to be possessive about.

      • avatarpyratemime says:

        Aren’t the Nazis already possessive enough? Must we give them all the nouns too?

      • avatarMark N. says:

        OMG! OMG! It’s a GRAMMAR NAZI! Run for the hills, literacy is coming to the ‘net!

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          No, no, a mere novitiate. He should have written: “You have forgotten the object of the possessive.”

      • avatarPatrick says:

        “You forgot a noun about which to be possessive”? :D
        I don’t care what modern grammar culture says; there’s a reason ‘preposition’ starts with ‘pre’.
        …or what MothaLova said. lol

        Still, we shouldn’t bicker about the finer points when people are out there wanting home inspections and using apostrophes in plurals. Those are both obviously bad ideas.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        It’s OK, Doc. Let him be; you can have one of mine.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      I believe in response to articles like this the proper terminology would be: “The Nazis are cumming!”

  4. avatarAnmut says:

    Another traitor that should, after due process, be hung from the lamp posts as an example.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Highway overpasses is better, I think. It gets the message to a wider audience; they can see what happened to the fascist dog in question on their commute to work.

  5. avatarMarty the Lett says:

    Didn’t tis puke take an oath to protect and defend the Constitutions of both his state and the Federal Government?

  6. avatardale says:

    Well, the politicians have done an excellent job of reaching their goals with the low information voters.

    Goal #1) Convince people that we need politicians for everything (learned dependency).
    Goal #2) Invent a “threat” with a nice, easily identified group to blame.
    Goal #3) Give a good “security theater” show so that the constituents “feel” safe.

    Put on a “serious face” interview and say “see what I’m protecting you from”, sit back and let the votes roll in.

  7. avatarDamocles says:

    I read that letter a couple of days ago at Bearing Arms. The guy is a quisling that just doesn’t get it. He should go for a long walk in the woods with Gabriel Gomez and the two could hold hands and talk about their feelings and whatnot….

  8. avatarBuster says:

    That’s a GREAT idea!! Just think of all the new, high paying G’ment jobs that would create! Ain’t nobody gonna apply for that job for minimum wage. And just think of all the children it would save!

    • avatarCliff H says:

      I was trying to think of a clever come-back for this comment but all I keep coming up with is “Think of all the new orphans it will create!”

      • avatarPatrick says:

        More orphans equals more orphan care jobs.

        This is economic stimulation.
        This man is creating employment.
        Employment brings in money.
        Money buys great things.
        Therefore this man is creating many great things.

        You’d be surprised how many people really do believe that “logic”.

  9. avatarmajor says:

    “…the 600 registered gun owners in town.”

    They force a registry. They force “safe storage” laws. They force their way into your home. The next step is obvious. These politicians do not value the Constitutionally protected rights that we hold dear.

  10. avatarTaylor Tx says:

    What is a selectman? not familiar with that title.

    • avatarKMc says:

      In this case, a douchebag.

    • avatarHobbez says:

      Same thing as a town council member. Most NE states have a board of selectmen instead of a city council.

    • avatarRad Man says:

      Here in MA boards of selectmen run town meetings, enact ordinances as necessary, and make other decisions on behalf of the locals. We don’t have mayors in small towns. Where I live they serve two year terms. My guess is that this goober is now serving his last term.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      Sounds sexist to me. Aren’t these guys Liberals? Why isn’t N.O.W. or the other feminazi groups protesting outside their meetings? Oh, wait a minute, they’re Nazis too.

  11. avatarCJ says:

    Elected officials like these are far more terrifying then guns, even unsecured guns. Of course, like legally owned firearms, they are bought and paid for.

  12. “state law requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable.” I thought that entire idea was struck down as unconstitutional in the Heller decision?

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      You are correct.

      Nevertheless, the civilian disarmament proponents will not let a U.S. Supreme Court decision stand in their way. They can pass laws in violation of that decision much faster than anyone can challenge much less overturn such laws.

    • avatarSkiballa says:

      Unfortunately the MA Supreme Court disagrees, they cited and ignored Heller in their most recent case, in part because the MA Declaration of Rights allows for “Civil Authority” to determine what’s best for us.

      ‘Article 17 of our Declaration of Rights declares: “The people
      have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And
      as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought
      not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and
      the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination
      to the civil authority, and be governed by it.” ‘

      As you can see, you can interpret quite a bit of regulatory authority out of the wording.

      • I wish there was a punishment for such blatant disregard of constitutionality.

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          One could indeed criminalize such behavior. The politicians would go nuts, since so many of them care first about their own power and privileges, but it would be only fitting since they have done so much to make criminals of the rest of us for exercising our rights. The courts would try to stop the enforcement of the law by appealing to the Constitution, but you could show as much respect for their decisions as the gungrabbers have shown. Turnabout is fair play.

      • avatarCliff H says:

        I seem to recall that the Heller decision was the final step in the phony doctrine of “incorporating” the Bill of Rights piecemeal to apply to the individual states and thereby supersede their local regulations, even their constitutions, where they were in conflict. Wasn’t this the reasoning behind the McDonald decision in Illinois?

        • avatarMark N. says:

          I’m guessing that McDonald hadn’t been decided when last the Ma. Supreme Court visited this issue, and the case was decided on state law, not federal constitutional law, grounds.

          Not that this would matter too much–San Francisco has an ordinance that requires handguns to be unloaded and locked up unless in the personal possession of the owner (or authorized user), an ordinance that would seem in direct contravention of the Heller holding. This notwithstanding, the federal district court ruled that the ordinance was constitutional. An appeal is pending–along with a whole slew of other 2A cases–before the Ninth Circuit.

        • avatarSkiballa says:

          The bottom line is that they’re an activist court, and unfortunately, the cases that have been tried to challenge these 2A restrictions have been somewhat shaky. Even so, reading the court’s decisions can be sickening, their decisions are quite a stretch sometimes.

          If you guys are bored and don’t mind raising your blood pressure a few points, GOAL has an excellent compilation of case histories. http://goal.org/caselaw.html

  13. avatarBob Wall says:

    And what happens if you’re not home? Are they going to “randomly” kick in your door?

  14. avatarExcedrine says:

    Glad I live in NC, then.

    I have a doormat that says, “COME BACK WITH A WARRANT“.

  15. avatarjwm says:

    Go back to england. They like this type of crap there.

  16. avatarDamocles says:

    Funny how politicians and criminals alike have the same modus operandi. Just ignore/break the law to serve their purpose and agenda.

  17. avatarJoe Grine says:

    Under that rationale, Police would be able to go door to door and inspect a citizen’s home to make sure there are not illegal drugs or contraband in the house. Or they could do “welfare checks” in the projects to make sure the living environment in the home is appropriate and suitable for children. Liberals wouldn’t like it if the po-po took their weed and coke.

  18. avatarHannibal says:

    Guess there’s no civics test to become a selectman.

  19. avatarDaveL says:

    “I was just asking a question!”

    Otherwise known as JAQ-ing off.

  20. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    We already have this in Westchester County, NY. Once you try to put your 5th pistol on your permit, a detective stops by your house to make sure your storage is up to snuff.

    Moving to Putnam County (or perhaps out of state) the second my son graduates high school.

  21. avatarprotective_parent74 says:

    WOW! i get it i really do. was newtown a tragedy? yes. are all school, mall, movie theater, public place in general shooting a tragedy? yes, yes they are. my heart goes out to the families and loved ones. im a 40 yr old man and i cry my eyes out. could it been prevented maybe yes maybe no. the point is know one really knows. i so wish i could. searching peoples homes will not stop it. but what does need to stop is the government local or federal need to stop this hey look at me look at what im doing to keep their jobs. they dont really care. you search my home HA you will leave with a bloody nose and a broken hand. and a though maybe i should look for a new job. and i will leave in cuffs but smiling

  22. avatarJoey says:

    Based on that logic, what prevents the cops from coming to your house to look and see what’s on your computer? Oh, wait…this administration is already doing that, sans cops…

  23. avatarRalph says:

    I’m STRONGLY in favor of this move. I’m tired of incremental government overreach and want the G to do now what it wants so desperately to do in the future. Stop and frisk on the streets without a reasonable suspicion, warrantless home searches, quashing First Amendment rights through selective IRS enforcement, tapping of phones and reading people’s emails without warrants, I want it all and I want it big.

    Let the G finally end the pretense that it’s there for our own good and let the consequences happen, whatever they are.

  24. avataruncommon_sense says:

    So how is Barry going to verify if violent criminals are storing their firearms safely?

    • avatarRalph says:

      Simple. He’ll call his friends.

      • avatarCliff H says:

        Ralph, you forgot to finish the statement, which leaves it a little ambiguous.

        “Simple, he’ll call his friends and ask them if their guns are properly stored. Then they’ll have a laugh.”

  25. avatardoesky2 says:

    If I was ever subject to this I would have a bullhorn blasting in the ears of the inspectors and I would be swearing and cussing and saying every vile thing I could think of while they were doing it.

    On top of that if I got notice that that they were coming I’d put an extra cabinet in the most obnoxious place where ideally they’d have to crawl on their belly in a snake prone area and crawlspace covered in crap for the special occasion.

    • avatarmark_anthony_78 says:

      Take a dump in the toilet, put a lock on the lid, and call that your gun safe.

      Go ahead, boys, have a look-see…

  26. avatarSpeleoFool says:

    Technically, wouldn’t “the problem” be that idiot lawmakers passed an unenforceable law?

    • avatarCliff H says:

      Idiot lawmakers OWN the force. Any law they pass in enforceable until someone forfeits enough time and money and forces the issue through umpteen layers of courts generally sympathetic to the lawmakers.

      It’s not like if lawmakers pass a law on a subject the SCOTUS has already ruled is unconstitutional the FBI shows up to force them to cease and desist enforcement. There is no enforcement branch of SCOTUS.

  27. avatarmpow66m says:

    I grew uo in Dutchess County NY and it has a lot of ranges and places to shoot,its for the most part unlike NYC and such.

  28. avatarpeirsonb says:

    Ok, before I get to my point, disclaimer: door to door searches like this are absolutely unconstitutional.

    That said, in order to enforce the safe storage law they are necessary. Therefore, logically, the law itself is unenforceable and therefore unconstitutional.

    Anti gun laws aside, state legislatures LOVE to pass unenforceable laws. Michigan recently passed a law making it illegal for teens to talk on the phone and drive if there is more than one teen in tbe car. Most LEOs I’ve heard from have stated they can’t enforce it because they can’t know if the driver is a teenager. They’d have to stop everyone, so they really can’t stop anyone.

    There’s a similar law that was recently introduced into the legislature making it illegal to smoke with a child in the car. The way the proposal is written it’s a stoppable offense, meaning they need no other reason to enact a traffic stop. I smoke (I know…) and my daughter is still in a car seat. In my 3/4 ton truck I look down cruisers. They can’t see the car seat, meaning for them to enforce the law they would have to pull me over any time I smoke and drive.

    A little off track, but still relevant. The bulk of these anti-gun proposals are unenforceable in the same ways. And any law that makes EVERYONE a criminal should be immediately declared unconstitutional.

    • avatarKCK says:

      But you don’t smoke and drive with her in the car, right?

      • avatarRalph says:

        He would never smoke with his kid in the truck. The ashes would fall into his beer. :-)

      • avatarpeirsonb says:

        No, I don’t. Honestly, thats mostly because i grew up with the joy of catching the occasional hot ash from my dad….

        Still, they would HAVE to pull me over any time I smoke and drive because she MAY be in the car.

        And Ralph, its bourbon. Give me SOME credit. A beer can won’t fit in the car seat’s sippy cup holder….

    • avatarCliff H says:

      Statist lawmakers are tricky bastards. If you call them on this being a violation of the Fourth Amendment they will go back and re-write their gun registration laws (also unconstitutional, but nobody’s calling them on that) to require that in order to get their unconstitutional permit to buy, own, keep, or look at a gun in their state you have to sign a consent form authorizing police to conduct random unannounced checks of your weapons and storage, including entering your home when you are not present. See how that works? You don’t sign the consent, you don’t get the permit. Problem solved.

    • avatarRed Sox says:

      … “That said, in order to enforce the safe storage law they are necessary. Therefore, logically, the law itself is unenforceable and therefore unconstitutional.”

      If your gun is used in a crime then it is assumed it was not safely stored leaving the law abider on the hook yet again.

      This is MA, they don’t call us Massholes for nothing and we seceded quietly a long time ago to become the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

  29. avatarIma Yeti says:

    In the 1860′s we fought a civil war to free the slaves in the South. Maybe we need another civil war to free the morons in the North? Force them to adopt The Constitution?
    For the record, born and grew up on Boston’s North Shore. When I was old and fed up enough I decided to GTFO. Much happier here in West Texas.

    • avatarMothaLova says:

      I’m with ya. But could we start by declaring war on the liberals in the cities of even otherwise reasonable states like Texas and Georgia? Houston is liberal, Atlanta is liberal. They are not so liberal as New York City,of course, but they are much closer than most people would assume, and they are continuing to move slowly and ineluctably in that direction…

    • avatarCliff H says:

      The only problem with this idea is that the negroes KNEW they were slaves and did not want to be slaves. In too many Northern states (and California) and Liberal urban areas they are voluntary slaves who keep voting these bastards into power and who would resist your attempts to free them.

  30. avatarKCK says:

    Lets divide laws into three camps, we have a name for them, lets see if they pop out at you.

    We normally rely on someone calling the police to report they have been harmed in some way, except for murder where a body is discovered. That’s type one. Malum in se.

    Type two is where legislatures don’t like something and pass a law telling you under threat of punishement you can’t do that. Malum prohibitum
    We rely on under cover investigations to reveal the crime.

    Type three is a law that doesn’t allow you to have or think something because you will violate a type one maybe tomorrow. That needs to the 4th Ammendment to be null and void.
    Malum pre-emptium ( I made that up if it doesn’t already exist)

    It is not so amazing that most legislators do no catagorize their laws so to avoid type two and three.

    • avatarKCK says:

      One more thing.
      A search warrant is obtained to gather evidence for a crime having been or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. The search is to gather evidence to prosecute.

      A very big difference in this proposal is to use searches to see “IF” a “violation of law” has taken place with out any other source or complainant.
      They just can’t see the difference can they?

    • avatarCliff H says:

      “Type two is where legislatures don’t like something and pass a law telling you under threat of punishement you can’t do that. Malum prohibitum”

      And what we saw on this site yesterday in regards to the Wisconsin Open Carry, if the legislatures or the police simply do not like something they don’t even have to pass a law against it, they just bring the power of the state down on your ass with harassment to convince you to not even consider doing it any more. The “punishment” is their ability to make your life a living hell without actually, technically, violating any laws themselves. Malum prohibitum works even without a law on the books.

  31. avatarJeh says:

    Another Liberal with a god complex.

  32. avatarBtdsf says:

    While we are at it, let’s also check all medicine cabinets to see if dangerous prescription drugs are stored in a safe manner. Let’s also check if people aren’t sexual deviants. And let’s start at Barry Greenfield’s house tonight, rummage through his bedroom dresser. if we could save only one child, it’s all worth it!?

    • avatarRalph says:

      Keep your paws off of Greenfield’s panty collection, okay? They’re needed by the court as evidence in his future trial.

  33. avatarAnonymous says:

    Barry Greenfield probably also wants anal checks for every traffic violator pulled over for any reason (such as rolling through that stop sign):

    I’ts not like they haven’t done it before:

    • avatarMothaLova says:

      Just the other day the police did this to David Eckert of NM. As a result of a traffic stop, he was legally raped – no warrant, no attorney. Mark Steyn just covered the little tyrannical episode: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363531/drift-toward-despotism-mark-steyn

      • avatarMark N. says:

        his case was particularly outrageous. The traffic cop “suspected” that the driver was carrying drugs in his rectum by the way he “clenched his (butt) cheeks. A digital exam revealed nothing. Various forms of colon lavages revealed nothing. X-rays revealed nothing. he was held for several days in a hospital against his will (yes, judge signed a warrant), and there was bupkis. And now the hospital has billed him for all of the services rendered (none of which were consensual) and threatened to sue if he doesn’t pay up.

        • avatarCliff H says:

          Counter-suit for violation of his Constitutional rights, among other things, has been filed against the hospital, the deputies, and the doctors who performed the illegal searches. What they should do is find all of these people guilty of raping this dude and put the cops and doctors on a sex-offender list for the rest of their lives.

        • avatarIma Yeti says:

          Oh great! At least when you get abducted by space aliens they throw in the anal probing for free!

        • avatarRalph says:

          Gone are the days when cops did their anal probing with a plunger handle in a holding cell. Good times.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima

      • avatarCliff H says:

        According to the limitations of the warrant improperly obtained in the first place, since the officer had insufficient probable cause that the crime he was “investigating” had occurred (not the traffic stop, a supposed hiding of drug evidence), The majority of the “anal cavity” searches were in excess of the scope of the warrant to start with and also occurred outside the time limit specified for on the warrant. As such these “rapes” were in no way legal, nor would they be legal under any circumstances where the Fourth Amendment was properly observed. The fact that the officer apparently had dealt with this individual in the past and at that time he had hidden evidence in this manner is NOT probable cause to get a warrant to search his butt every time you pull him over for a traffic citation.

        • avatarrjoguillory says:

          …not to mention that they took this poor guy out of their jurisdiction to get the “medical treatment” that they wanted…they were refused by the first Doctor/Hospital they went to in their jurisdiction…and then took the guy to another hospital….I see millions in this guy’s future…either from the Cops…the city of Deming ,NM…and the Hospital/Doctors….what fascist pigs….they should be charged with treason and when found guilty…hang them….Cops, Mayors…City Council Men/Woman…anyone guilty of violating The Constitution….hang them all…

          Regards,

          RJ O’Guillory
          Author-
          Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

  34. avatarArdent says:

    I don’t know whether to lead with a ‘pre-crime’ argument; that what he wishes to do entails the assumption that because breaking the law is possible law enforcement needs to be able to verify that such is not the case or go straight to the 4th amendment issues this raises, or perhaps, point out that this is what ‘gun registries’ are really for.

    I think I’ll tackle them serially.

    The notion that because a crime is possible to commit there should be a mechanism to ensure it isn’t being committed is contrary to liberty, the constitution and established common law. The correct assumption is that no law is being broken in the absence of evidence of a crime. While I strongly disagree, for multiple reasons practical, constitutional and liberty-wise, with safe storage laws the correct enforcement path is to begin an investigation when and only when there is evidence that such a law has been broken. How this should be different with firearms laws than any other law is absolutely beyond any legal or even rational thought. Shall we inspect homes to ensure drugs aren’t present or that spousal or child abuse is not occurring in the absence of evidence of such crimes? The 4th amendment specifically denies the government the power to do this legally and with good reason as such a step would eviscerate any real or imagined security of the person, effects and home.

    As far as the 4A is concerned this is a text book case of what it was intended to prevent; fishing expeditions and unwarranted (in the common sense of the word as well as the legal one) intrusions upon the person, effects or property of a citizen. The very thought that because a crime might hypothetically be committed access should be allowed to ensure that it isn’t it antithetical to the very nature of a free people. I submit that because this politician has access to writing materials and communications devices we ought to conduct random searches of his home to ensure that he isn’t engaged in traitorous or seditious activities (hint, he freely admits he is and thus probable cause is invoked). The logical end of such a path of thought is that no one ought to ever be free from search, observation and scrutiny under any circumstances because it might yield them opportunity to commit a crime. That’s not a country I’m willing to live in.

    I lack a clear idea of where to begin with a gun registry. My personal position is that at the point the jurisdiction in which I live requires me by force of law to register my guns the time has come to immediately and at all cost leave that jurisdiction with my unregistered weapons and return to it never again unless engaged in such activity likely to cause a change in such law. If there is nowhere left to retreat from registration of my guns the time has come to resist, by force if it be the only recourse, the apparatus which serves no purpose but identifying from whom weapons ought to be confiscated, in clear violation of the 2a and the natural and civil rights of the people.

    There are certainly those who argue (vociferously at times) that simply leaving family and friends, jobs and homes is not something they are prepared to do to ensure their liberty. I say to them if you would not abandon all this and everything else including your very life you will not have liberty. It will inevitably be taken from you, incrementally at first, and absolutely at length. This ‘reasonable suggestion’ that the suspension of your 4th amendment rights is justified by the exercise of what remains of your 2nd amendment rights is merely one example of what happens along the slippery slope to the loss of liberty and the establishment of tyranny.

    Certainly there will be those to insist that I’m be hyperbolic, that I’m extreme or radical, that I suggest for others what I’m not willing to undertake myself and that things ‘aren’t so bad’ as all that. I submit only that the founders actually fought a war against what was then a major world power over far, far less an infringement of their rights that what exists in MA, CT, NY and many other states. Perhaps things are not so bad in some states but there are these that indicate, as if the result of a socio-political experiment, that people are willing to live under tyranny not for the salvation of their lives but rather to avoid the inconvenience of simply planning and moving to someplace lacking the tyranny. It is a frightful thing to teach statists, collectivists and progressives that the mere imposition of an inconvenience is enough to gain your compliance with their tyrannical goals.
    Jefferson spoke of ‘tripwires’ that the government must not cross. These are not only crossed but obliterated in large swaths of the republic and any who remain in such locals who are not engaged in active resistance demonstrate that the strategy of incremental dissolution of liberty is safe and effective.

    During the revolution there were many who chose no side (having an opinion isn’t choosing a side; you must act on your belief). There were others who sided with tyranny and who were eventually and largely forgiven. Then there were those who chose to risk everything for liberty, we properly remember them as heroes of the republic and ought to remember that following their successful revolution set about installing themselves in power, making law and setting policy for several generations to come.
    The enemies of liberty would also do well to remember that following any revolution, political or military, there are always consequences for siding with tyranny.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      Loved it Ardent! Bravo, but…

      “The enemies of liberty would also do well to remember that following any revolution, political or military, there are always consequences for siding with tyranny.”

      This presumes that we actually win.

      • avatarArdent says:

        Not to put to fine a point on it but since losing means death or enslavement I propose that we ensure that we don’t lose!

  35. avatarAnonymous says:

    “…to enforce the law and inspect the safeguarding of guns at the homes of the 600 registered gun owners in town.”

    And this is why no one should register their guns… ever.

  36. avatarLeChat says:

    His constituents voted for him, they deserve him. This is how we got ObamaCare. Stupid people voting for stupid people.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      They may deserve him, but WE do not. To ignore even a pip-squeak Selectman like this, in a Podunk town thousands of miles away, who seems to believe the Constitution can be ignored, is to send a message that we are not firm and resolute in our beliefs and willingness to fight even this petty tyranny.

      Just like this guy can propose any sort of unconstitutional activity he wants or thinks he can get away with, his constituents can vote for any sort of tyrant they want. It is up to the rest of us to tell them NO! in capital letters, loudly.

    • avatarMike M says:

      But hold on, before you throw the whole town under the bus …. did he even mention anything like this when he was campaigning? I doubt it.

  37. avatarDougR says:

    And look what Virginia just did. Dipschits like this will be coming out of the woodwork.

  38. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    The solution to this is to strip politicians of all privacy. Post all their personal information online, publish it anonymously in various rags.

    Because, after all, the “public has a right to know.”

    • avatarMike M says:

      Yeah, like the public had a ‘right to know’ about the fantasies Jeri Ryan intentionally invented to be future poison hidden in a SEALED custody settlement with her ex husband Senator Jack Ryan in case he ever tried to breach it.

      But how none of us have a right to know anything about a sitting president’s college transcripts or tuition payments.

  39. avatarLars says:

    If the police or any government or private group came to my home demanding to inspect my home and/or firearms I would give them only one warning to leave. It’s amazing how momentum from one incident can take over the mindset of a government and in some cases the people. This proposal or bill or wetdream of this anti-gun politician is illegal and unconstitutional. I have to wonder if these anti-gun people are just throwing this crap out there knowing it won’t stick but are doing it to so when another extreme anti-gun bill is introduced that one won’t seem as bad as the one before and therefore they think it will get more support from the people. Just disgusting politics.

  40. avatarJohn E> says:

    If they started to visit your house during the day, what would happen if they received visits during the night? Theoretically speaking…

  41. avatarPulatso says:

    Said it before, but it bears repeating: If you don’t care about the 1st or 2nd, you probably don’t care about the 4th or 5th.

  42. avatarChas says:

    At some point they’ll decide that inspections are not enough, and they’ll pass a law that allows the po-po to install and monitor cameras inside your home.

  43. avatarVeritas says:

    I keep my guns loaded but stored in holsters throughout my house.

    Let the Mass Police see what they can do! MUAHAHAH!

  44. avatarPete says:

    Yeah! We SHOULD just station a cop in everyone’s home. I mean you got nothing to hide right? RIGHT?

    • avatarRalph says:

      I’d go along with the program as long as “my” cop pays for his own doughnuts and cleans the toilet.

      Okay, I changed my mind. I’ll buy the doughnuts if he cleans the toilet. That’s fair, right?

  45. avatarPowers says:

    Do these politicians hear themselves when they propose crap like this? Then they don’t want to look stupid by admitting how stupid and dangerous the proposal is so they double down and push it?..I guess..what other explanation is there? Would this guy be ok with cops in his home to monitor his notes and papers because he is a public servant, and for the good of the people he can have no privacy. He could be making plans that are dangerous. The cops would just be there to double check all writing instruments and electronics are properly stored, registered and used correctly.

    Also, what better way to let cops find “unregistered” guns or any other crap they happen to see when they walk in..this is past a slippery slope, this proposal in already on the way down the freaking slope.
    What are they thinking?
    Morons.

  46. avatarMike M says:

    I think he’s partially wrong about MA law requiring guns be rendered inoperable when stored. One of the SCOTUS gun decisions negated that part of the MA law for when the gun owner is at home. Can’t wait to see what GOAL has to say about this twerp.

  47. avatarMike M says:

    Powers says: ” this is past a slippery slope, this proposal in already on the way down the freaking slope.”

    I’d contend it missed the ‘slope’ altogether and went right off the cliff.

  48. avatarjirdesteva says:

    The selectmen needs to go FOAD with all haste and speed. Along with every last ANTI who would preach that the RIGHTS of any American citizen be taken away without warrant or at minimum probable cause. How about this lets do warrantless searches on them for writing implements just cause we think they are writing this crap. Turn about is fare play. Search DiFrankensteins house first then Buttbergs and on down the line see what they think about warrantless searches.
    REMEMBER THIS when the government infringes on the rights of any persons it does so at the peril its own rights being infringed or worse, lost.

  49. avatarZebulon Pike says:

    What Greenfield will say in his next interview: “And if I like the guns we find in your house, you can keep them.”

  50. avatarbgreenea3 says:

    Last thing 99% of cops care about it what you have when it comes to guns. And we do not want to do “inspections”.there is that 1% that just don’t get it,

    the only time I care if someone has firearms in their house is if I’m going to a call that its involved somehow. I work in a rural area and several times my dispatcher has told me “caller thinks soeone is breaking in to their house, they had they firarm out but I told them to put it away” and I respond “tell them to get it back out, I’m still a ways out. ‘ (dispatchers hate this by the way)

  51. avatarDave S says:

    Washington State tried that idea this last year, until they heard the pitchforks tapping the ground.

    With the right ordinance and a lack of State preemption, you could see PD getting an administrative search warrant, (fire inspection type, or bldg inspection type, they do exist!) and doing as this guy proposed.

    This guy should be recalled on general principal, and definitely not re elected!
    600 owners should be sharpening the pitchforks and lighting the torches before someone thinks this is a dandy idea!

  52. avatarSouthern Cross says:

    In Her Majesty’s colony of New South Wales, having the police inspect your firearms is a condition of ownership. In nearly 20 years, I’ve had TWO. On in 2000 and another in 2010 after I moved house. In both cases I was given plenty of time (over 8 weeks) to make sure everything was done properly.

    In the more recent inspection, all they did was make sure the safe was secured to the structure and the serial numbers matched their list.

    The only objection I have is the officers turned up in a marked police car and probably radioed their position.

    But having firearms properly secured is every gun owner’s responsibility.

    • avatarMothaLova says:

      We agree that “having firearms properly secured is every gun owner’s responsibility” (so long as you mean by “properly secured” placing a loaded gun in every handy spot in the bathroom, living room, kitchen, and bedroom from which I could grab and fire it within one second or less when needed, assuming I’ve somehow forgotten to home carry at the moment).

      Lovely wine down your way. My sincere thanks for that. And for the fine music station, Classic FM.

  53. avatarPat says:

    Mr. Greenfield (secular atheist Jew, perhaps) must inwardly wish for suicide. We must stop these insane libtards (democrats) at any and all costs. They will murder us all, or make us kill others to defend our lives and nation.

  54. avatarMark says:

    Classic Communist Democrat party (statist) behavior.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.