License Plate Readers. Smart Guns. Connect the Dots

Topeka po-po defends license plate scanners (courtesy cjonline.com)

“Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department [not shown] refused to release data about what license plates police cameras had captured on the grounds that every single car seen is under investigation. All of them. And a judge bought that argument,” reason.com‘s J.D. Tuccille writes. “Now, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Southern California are looking to the California Court of Appeals for a dose of sanity (yes, that strikes me as a Hail Mary pass, too) and a ruling that the public has a right to know how many people’s movements are being monitored by the police, whether deliberately or through incidental data gathering.” TTAG Reader JB makes a good point about that . . .

Just wait until all guns are required to be SMART guns, and all guns are under investigation at all times . . .

I nearly drove off the road when a friend of mine suggested that it would be a great thing if every gun could be tracked in real time, using GPS chips. “That way could see a pattern of dots converging on a school or bank, etc. and either deactivate the gun or send police units just in case.” The guy works for a Fortune 500 company and is a graduate of one of the “top” universities in the South.

Coming soon to a California near you?

comments

  1. avatar Craig says:

    Who needs California when we have Jersey?

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Who needs law enforcement or code/safety when you can have lots of data. They better collect all that data! Data is really really really bad. That Sh_t can kill you.

      & if they can’t shut your gun off, they can’t protect you.

  2. avatar Gabe says:

    Someone filed a patent on that very technology. (tracking guns near schools) Wasn’t it reported on this blog within the last year?

    1. avatar anonymous says:

      It doesn’t take a criminal mastermind to figure out all you need to do is put said firearm in a lead-lined box and remove it right before whatever they are planning….I really don’t see the point in all this RFID / GPS tracking non-sense; it’s easily defeated.

      1. avatar John Lilburne says:

        Yeah, easily defeated for sure. But the point isn’t to do anything except harass gun owners.

        There will always be a certain percent of sheep that will comply.

        Our public schools are indoctrinating kids with comply, comply, comply.

  3. avatar Scrubula says:

    It’s not like a smart gun couldn’t be modified to require no outside signal and to emit no signal by one of the millions of electronic savvy people on the earth…

    1. avatar GWHNick says:

      And it’s not like no one has ever made a zip gun in their garage before either…

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        Or the fact that there are 300 million “dumb” guns already in the US…

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          Easy enough.

          Just outlaw dumb guns.

          “If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ’em all in — I would have done it.”

          Just like they outlawed certain types of:

          *toilets
          *lightbulbs
          *gasosline cans

    2. avatar int19h says:

      It’s not like it cannot be made to forcibly self-deactivate if it doesn’t get the signal.

      1. avatar John Galt says:

        Be assured the gun-controllers will pile on to the “smart gun” technology.

        Here’s a rough sketch from their playbook.

        It will all start “innocently” enough with a requirement that “smart guns” have a mandatory kill switch in case a gun is stolen. The precedent is already there in California with the mandatory kill-switch law for smart phones.

        There be howls of protest from the NRA, gnashing of teeth by gun owners, campaigns to prevent the law’s passage, etc. However, the steamroller of totalitarianism in California will roll over any objections.

        Then the law will be expanded to protect children by having guns automatically disabled in school zones, as well as in other “sensitive” government-owned property.

        It will grow from there to include the ability for anyone in a domestic situation to report a gun owner as being “unfit,” whereupon the gun is temporarily deactivated for a mandatory period. The owner will then need to appear before a judge, magistrate, etc. to prove they are fit to have a gun. If not, it’s permanently deactivated.

        Then a budding entrepreneur will market technology to Chipotle, Starbucks, Target, etc. that automatically deactivates any unauthorized guns in their stores.

        As the price for the technology drops, consumer gun-jammers will become available so that you can create your own personal gun-free zone.

        And of course, the penalty for having a “dumb gun” will be harsh. For example, Massachusetts currently has a one-year mandatory sentence for an “illegal gun.”

        Cases will be brought before the Supreme Court, but it will rule that no rights are being infringed since there’s an “interest-balancing test” which must be considered. It will be shown that the interest of The State in protecting lives through “smart guns” outweighs the individual interest in owning a “dumb gun.”

        1. avatar Jandrews says:

          I hate you for being plausible. Hopefully we can contain this cancer to the Socialist states.

        2. avatar Chris says:

          Somewhere in all of that “smart gun” mess the electronics have to trigger a mechanical action. It wouldn’t be hard to just remove the “smart” parts and replace them with dumb parts or non-invasive electronics. It’s not like a firearm has to be electronic to work the way a smart phone does.

        3. avatar John Galt says:

          Maybe the legislation wouldn’t go as far as mandating GPS chips and deactivation codes for each gun.

          ——————

          Here’s another scenario:

          Every gun, including “dumb guns,” requires federal registration.

          As a condition of registration, guns must have an RFID chip attached, much the same as there’s an RFID chip already attached to my home’s electric meter.

          The meter-reading truck just drives through the neighborhood pinging all the meters, and downloads the meter reading.

          The State could equip police cars (or any other government vehicle) with a device that pings gun-registration RFID chips.

          So, like with cars, The State could establish a database of the location (both historical and forecasted) of all firearms.

          When the day comes for confiscation, they’d have a pretty good idea where most of the guns are (or will be) located.

        4. avatar Jim Jones says:

          However, your scenario ignores the complete impossibility of retrofitting 300 million “dumb” guns. Sure they can outlaw them as well, but that will just send most of them underground. They won’t show up at your local range anymore, but they’ll still exist. As was seen last year, not everyone is on board with NYC’s or CA’s cockamamie schemes.

  4. avatar fuque says:

    Our news just reported they have these shiny new cameras installed on cruisers.. able to read a plate up to 150mph.. of coarse it’s all in the name of car theft recovery.

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      No, no.

      It’s for the (abducted) children.

    2. avatar 16V says:

      These have been in semi-wide distribution for the last 5+ years. They are getting exponentially better, and the scary thing is that there’s tens of thousands of private ones and almost no rules apply to them (varies by state). Like many other evil toys, the Feds will find a way/excuse to funnel them down to local PDs, via the zee aptly named DHS.

      https://www.aclu.org/alpr

      Here’s the fun part (and by “fun” it;s the kind Orwell couldn’t even dream of) – it all gets transmitted over the web, so the NSA already has it. Can they manage it in real time like on TV shows? Only if they’ve picked “you” in advance. Within the next 2 to 4 years? The algos will be completed, the computing power and storage are already at Bluffdale. It’ll be a few keystrokes by the “right” person and your entire electronic life (and I mean all) will be right there for government scrutiny.

      They moved Narus (and a few others) into Boeing and various Agencies to stem the flow of white papers and speaking engagements by the progs/devs who write this stuff over the last few years. They haven’t stopped, and the stuff they talked about 5 years ago? It’s already here. The predictive stuff is the favorite angle, and they are charging full steam ahead, Constitution be damned.

      1. avatar anonymous says:

        the scary thing is that there’s tens of thousands of private ones and almost no rules apply to them (varies by state)

        Why do you hate capitalism?

        1. avatar 16V says:

          You gotta remember the /s tag…

  5. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Let’s make a clear distinction.

    Operating a motor vehicle on the public roadways is a privilege, not a right. It’s always been interpreted that way by the courts. Hey, I get as uptight as the next guy when there’s a police car behind me, but that’s the way it is.

    We’ve discussed “smart” guns before. They don’t belong in the same conversation.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      I think many americans would take issue with the “driving is a priviledge” thing if it were ever actually voted on. Certainly our founding fathers never talked about riding a horse as if it were a “priviledge” – the right of free travel in a “free” society is as necessary as free speech. It’s time for some push-back on the right to privacy in this country.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Leaving aside the 2A, rights are not absolute and are subject to regulation under the police power. You have a right to travel, but the state can regulate that travel for the purposes of public safety by requiring training and licensing for motor vehicles. So said the US Supreme Court just about 100 years ago.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          No, they did not.

    2. avatar John Galt says:

      Driving is not a privilege!

      The fundamental right to travel is not a privilege!

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Funny, I don’t find that in my copy of the Constitution. The “right to travel” is a limitation on the sovereignty of the states. One state cannot require a passport or other authorization for a citizen from another state to travel there or through that state, notwithstanding that each state is a sovereign territory, i.e., each citizen has the right to freely cross state boarders without hindrance. The right ensconced says nothing about the manner of travel.

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          And the Constitution and 2nd Amendment says nothing about:

          * silencers
          * 50-cal rifles
          * fully-automatic rifles
          * semi-automatic rifles
          * revolvers
          * semi-automatic handguns
          * semi-automatic shotguns
          * 30-round magazines
          * 10-round magazines
          * 7-round magazines
          * detachable magazines
          * collapsing stocks
          * folding stocks
          * bayonet lugs
          * pistol grips on rifles
          * forward grips on handguns
          * laser sights
          * hollow-point bullets
          * short-barrel rifles
          * short-barrel shotguns

          I’m pretty sure the bayonet lug is the only thing in the above list that existed when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

          Therefore, The State should have the power to very tightly regulate (if not outright ban) everything in the list except bayonet lugs.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          You’re right, the 1A says nothing of radio, tv, or computers, guess they are all a privilege, eh?

          The Constitution was written deliberately vaguely to allow for new technologies to be applied to our guaranteed human rights. Although the right to free travel was enumerated in Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, it was seen as so established and fundamental they felt they could leave it out of The Constitution. It was covered by the 9th in their minds…

        3. avatar Mark N. says:

          Last I checked, you needed a license to operate a TV or radio station (or in fact any radio transmitter above a certain power level) and to broadcast over the airwaves–which airwaves the US government claims are its sovereign property which it licenses to users. The government cannot, mostly, regulate what you say, but they have control over some of the media on which you say it.

        4. avatar Paul G says:

          Apples and oranges, but again, commercial radio and television.

        5. avatar Paul G says:

          http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm
          Notice that scotus decisions are included in the information.

    3. avatar Paul G says:

      You need to do some research. Look under “right to travel”. Plenty of legal rulings supporting the right to drive, even in Illinois.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Really? I’d like to see that cite. You said it, you prove it. Generally you have a “right” to drive motor vehicles on public property (streets and highways) only when you have obtained a license to do so. Therefore it is a privilege to drive on public roads and highways. No license is required for private property and for off road vehicles used off road.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Your google-fu sucks. There are literally dozens of cases supporting the right to travel upon public (taxpayer funded, remember?) thoroughfares using the common method of the times. Just like in the old days when it was horses and carriages, and only professionals needed to be licensed, because they were commercial drivers. It is still as such today, just not well known. Your ignorance is not research.
          http://freedom-school.com/travel/no-law-requires-you-to-record-pledge-your-private-automobile.pdf

          “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.
          (“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.)
          “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 179.
          It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
          “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
          “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
          As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.
          Government, in requiring the people to file for drivers license, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, roadblocks, etc. are restricting and therefore violating the peoples’ common law right to travel.
          Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association, in conjunction with the U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is that of the citizen’s right to travel. A spokesman stated in an interview:
          “Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the ‘right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways’ is and always has been a fundamental right of every Citizen.”
          This means that the beliefs and opinions of our state legislators, the courts, and those of us involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming. To restrict in any fashion the movement of the individual American, in free exercise of the right to travel upon the roadways (excluding commerce, which the state legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, as well as most state constitutions.
          Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
          Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
          Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling in mind before issuing citations:
          “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.
          Reprinted from a special edition of “Aid and Abet” bulletin #11, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, AZ. 85066, by Officer Jack McLamb.

        2. avatar doesky2 says:

          @MarkN….If my property is bordered by other private property and sits on a public road can you tell me how the heck I am supposed to go to my father’s house down the road? Are you making the argument that our founding fathers would be OK with the premise that free citizens can’t travel on a public road without permission from the government? The idea is preposterous.

        3. avatar 16V says:

          MarkN apparently got here via a HuffyPo link…

    4. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

      If it’s a privilege can I opt out and not be forced to pay for the construction, maintenance and upkeep of those roads?

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Don’t purchase any motor fuel and drive on your property, no road taxes…

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          Roads get funding from other taxes besides fuel taxes.

        2. avatar Paul G says:

          Yep, and gas taxes have nothing to do with your license. There are people who legally travel by car, unlicensed, but it can be a hassle. The biggest hurdle for many is having a loan on your car, which stipulates you be licensed.

      2. avatar John Galt says:

        If it’s a privilege, do I need to register my horse and buggy?

        1. avatar BlueBronco says:

          In California, NY, NJ etc. they have to register their guns. Is that a privilege?

      3. avatar John Galt says:

        And what about my bicycle?

        Do I need to get permission from the rulers to pedal my Raleigh down the road?

    5. avatar fuque says:

      You are correct,
      and it needs to be taken back to court and reversed..But that will never happen because it is how citizens are controlled.. and BOTH parties support that.

    6. avatar BlueBronco says:

      The 9th Amendment says otherwise. Bureaucrats and police leadership have brainwashed people to believe this. DL are a shall issue in every state. I would like to see you or and State Trooper Commandant tell George Washington, Patrick Henry, Andy Jackson, Robert E. Lee or Teddy Roosevelt that riding their horse was a privilege and then snatch them off the horse.

  6. avatar George says:

    What bothers me more is under the meme of “what do you have to hide?”, we have abdicated the Fourth Amendment. To many you now have to justify your right to privacy.

    That isn’t accidental…….

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      You do not have a “right to privacy” in a anything which is visible by the public, and that most certainly includes your license plate affixed to your vehicle. Same as officers who claim that it is illegal to film/video them without their consent–nonsense, said the Supreme Court, there is no right to privacy in what police officers do in public, and any law limiting the right to film them is per se unconstitutional. Not that that has stopped officers from illegally arresting people or confiscating their property. If you are out in pubic and someone takes your picture, you cannot (in most circumstances) assert a right to privacy to prevent that picture from being published on the interwebs (with some limitations applied to aggressive paparazzi).

      1. avatar John Galt says:

        But when The State compiles a 24/7 dossier on you without a warrant, that’s a 4th Amendment violation.

        The Constitution wasn’t established to “grant” anyone rights.

        As the Founders understood it, your rights are inalienable, natural. It was so obvious to them that some of them objected to The Bill of Rights on the grounds that it would be too limiting and other natural-born rights would be abused.

        Hence, the 9th Amendment.

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          You didn’t know you were guilty of something until you are checked out and proven otherwise?
          Welcome to Amerika.
          More about right to travel:
          http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?88509-OUR-RIGHT-TO-TRAVEL-Defined-Legal-style
          http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml
          https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/travel.htm

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Utter nonsense. The FBI has been doing it for years, attending “opposition” protests and rallies, photographing the participants, and investigating the participants, all without warrants. They can come onto your property, spy on you from the air, all without warrants, they just can’t enter your house, although they can peer in the window, should they so choose. The police can ask you any question, or anyone about you all that they want, all without a warrant, though it also true that they cannot compel anyone to answer. The police do NOT need a warrant to gather PUBLIC information, including but not limited to information on the internet and following you wherever you go (as long as the latter is done in person. A warrant is required to put a tracker on a car.) Get real. And if you want to get really ugly, read the Patriot Act. You can spout all that sovereign citizen nonsense you want, but it will get you thrown in jail. If you want to know what the police can and cannot do, I suggest that you talk to a criminal lawyer.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      John G, forums and articles written by nonlawyers (the last you referenced being written by a police officer) are meaningless. You should try, just maybe, real legal research and not just Google Fu. This is what the California Supreme Court had to say, in Hernandez v. DMV (1981) 30 Cal.3d 70:

      Past California cases, however, provide no support whatsoever for plaintiff’s contention. Over 30 years ago, in Escobedo v. State of California (1950) 35 Cal.2d 870, 222 P.2d 1 (overruled on other grounds *79 in Rios v. Cozens (1972) 7 Cal.3d 792, 103 Cal.Rptr. 299, 499 P.2d 979), our court while acknowledging the great importance of driving at the same time explicitly emphasized that “it is well established that usage of the highways is subject to reasonable regulation for the public good. ‘The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its constant dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. Any appropriate means adopted by the state to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.’ (Citations).” (Italics added.) (Id., at p. 876, 222 P.2d 1.) (See also ***571 Watson v. Division of Motor Vehicles (1931) 212 Cal. 279, 283, 298 P. 481; **922 Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 U.S. 610, 622, 35 S.Ct. 140, 142, 59 L.Ed. 385.)8

      More recently, in a series of cases reaching back more than a decade, the California Courts of Appeal have uniformly rejected the application of “strict judicial scrutiny” to challenges mounted against section 13353. In Spurlock v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 821, 830, 82 Cal.Rptr. 42, the earliest of these decisions, the court explained: “The interest which the Legislature is attempting to regulate by Vehicle Code, section 13353, is not one protected by specific guarantee of the United States Constitution; neither does it affect the integrity of the political process, nor does its impact fall most heavily upon a discrete and insular minority. (See United States v. Carolene Products Co. ((1938)) 304 U.S. 144, (152-153,) fn. 4 (58 S.Ct. 778, 783-84, fn. 4, 82 L.Ed. 1234) ) Thus the standard to be applied in determining its conformity with the requirements of due process is that enunciated in Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma ((1955)) 348 U.S. 483, (487-488, 75 S.Ct. 461, 464, 99 L.Ed. 563): ‘ the law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional. It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it.’ ”

      One of the cases cited is a US Supreme Court decision, which is of course binding on every court i the nation unless overruled, had this to say:
      Plaintiff in error maintains that the act is void because-it discriminates against residents of the District of Columbia; attempts to regulate interstate commerce; violates the rights of citizens of the United States to pass into and through the state; exacts a tax for revenue-not mere compensation for the use of facilities-according to arbitrary classifications, and thereby deprives citizens of the United States of the equal protection of the laws.If the statute is otherwise valid, the alleged discrimination against residents of the District of Columbia is not adequate ground for us now to declare it altogether bad. At most they are entitled to equality of treatment, and in the absence of some definite and authoritative ruling by the courts of the state we will not assume that, upon a proper showing, this will be denied, The record fails to disclose that Hendrick had complied with the laws in force within the District of Columbia in respect of registering motor vehicles and licensing operators, or that he applied to the Maryland commissioner for an identifying tag or marker,-prerequisites to a limited use of the highways without cost by residents of other states under the plain terms of **142 § 140a. He cannot therefore set up a claim of discrimination in this particular. Only those whose rights are directly affected can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute, and invoke our jurisdiction in respect thereto. New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 161, 51 L. ed. 415, 422, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 9 Ann. Cas. 736; Williams v. Walsh, 222 U. S. 415, 423, 56 L. ed. 253, 256, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 137; Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 295, 296, 56 L. ed. 439, 443, 444 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 286; *622 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642, 648, 58 L. ed. 1135, 1137, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 678, and cases cited.The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves. Their success depends on good roads, the construction and maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive; and in recent years insistent demands have been made upon the states for better facilities, especially by the ever-increasing number of those who own such vehicles. As is well known, in order to meet this demand and accommodate the growing traffic the state of Maryland has built and is maintaining a system of improved roadways. Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the state put into effect the abovedescribed general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses. A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential, and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious.In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens; and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce. The reasonableness of the state’s action is always subject to *623 inquiry in so far as it affects interstate commerce, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 30, 31, 28 L. ed. 923-925, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 480, 31 L. ed. 508, 513, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 136, 38 L. ed. 385, 388, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628, 631, 41 L. ed. 853, 854, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 392, 42 L. ed. 780, 791, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 298, 43 L. ed. 702, 707, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549, 568, 55 L. ed. 328, 338, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 259; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280, 291, 58 L. ed. 1312, 1317, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829.

      Hendrick v. State of Maryland (1915) 235 U.S. 610, 621-23 [35 S.Ct. 140, 141-42, 59 L.Ed. 385]

      1. avatar Paul G says:

        The case you cite deals with interstate commerce, no personal locomotion. Nobody is arguing against the right to require licensing of those operating for commercial purposes.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          You obviously did not read the case. The plaintiff was pissed that he was arrested and convicted for driving on Maryland roads without a license, and he raised every constitutional argument he could to void the Maryland statute, including the right to travel, due process, and the commerce clause. And the Supreme Court very distinctly states that the States may require licensing of vehicles or drivers for the use of public roads under the police power. In the old days, Supreme Court decisions were short and to the point, unlike the lengthy tomes we read through now. Perhaps you should read it again, or go back and look up the whole case; I only posted the last half.

          When you figure out that inalienable or not, most of our rights are not absolute, and are subject to restrictions (under various measures of review), maybe you will be able to understand this stuff. Of all of the rights, only the Second is described as “shall not be infringed.” Meanwhile, I wouldn’t represent myself in court if I were you.

        2. avatar Paul G says:

          I read the opinion, and it was careful to construct the answer so as to cover only commercial purposes.

          I also have shown plenty of other rulings, from scotus.

          Maybe reading is fundamental. Try harder.

          You indict yourself with the claim that the 2A is absolute, and it alone. Can’t have it both ways.
          The right to travel was so fundamental it was considered a given.

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          The same courts you quote have also ruled that no right, including the 2A, is absolute, regardless of it saying so.
          They are wrong, and of course, they do not actually the power to rule on constitutionality, but they do it. Either all rights are absolute, or none are.
          The case you cite does relate the ability to license and regulate in the purview of interstate commerce, i.e. commercial driving, Hendrick opened himself up to this with his poor choices in arguing his rights.
          Maybe you should read more carefully.
          Also, the cases I have cited as support post-date yours anyways. For instance:

          .”The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.” Thompson vs. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 at 583.

          “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
          Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

          In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Supreme Court noted, “It is a
          right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”

          You likely already know this, but just in case:
          Title 18 USC 31
          (6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every
          description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by
          mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the
          highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and
          property, or property or cargo.
          (10) Used for commercial purposes. – The term “used for
          commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any
          fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or
          directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other
          undertaking intended for profit.

  7. avatar Phil COV says:

    My response to that guy would be…

    California and the fed will keep pushing for a gun registry. And wifi and GPS are already in phones and pvehicles. So in actuality, why track the gun when you can just track the owner all the time? And bonus, harass private citizens at will.

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      And in case you whip out your phone to film the police, Apple has an app to stop that.

      Apple patent could remotely disable protesters’ phone cameras
      http://www.zdnet.com/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-protesters-phone-cameras-7000003640/

      It’s clear that although Apple may implement the technology, it would not be Apple’s decision to activate the ‘feature,’ such as a remote-switch — it would be down governments, businesses and network owners to set such policies.

      Those policies would be activated by GPS, and Wi-Fi or mobile base-stations, which would ring-fence (“geofence”) around a building, a protest, or a sensitive area to prevent phone cameras from taking pictures or recording video.

      This sort of ‘feature’ would not bode well for journalists taking photos and citizens recording acts of state violence or police brutality in areas where ordinary people are facing increasing crackdowns on civil and human rights.

      1. avatar Nick D says:

        On the plus side, if Apple has patented it, wouldn’t that mean that anyone who uses an android phone couldn’t have that app, due to copyright violations? Or would there be some knock off app made by android that does the same function, and is equally mandatory in phones. Tin foil hat time, this may be a circumstance where the USG rescinds the patent and makes the app mandatory for all phone OS, regardless of maker.

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    Welcome to 1984. Seriously with 300million guns good luck. Look what one lunatic cop killer in Pennsylvania has done. Or a ragtag band of militia in Nevada. And SOME cops would defect to the good guys.

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      I wouldn’t be so smug. Progressives play for time. They’ve been at this for over 100 years. The rest of us are playing catch-up.

      The chains will continue to be forged slowly and inexorably. The U.K. and Australia are good examples.

      Only because of Obama’s overreach during his first two years did he get the smack down in 2010.

      Only that election in 2010 stood between us and major gun control following Sandy Hook.

      Imagine if Obama hadn’t been quite so radical during his first two years, and hadn’t scared the crap out of Liberty lovers.

      If he had played his cards much closer, had been more weasely and subtle, and played for time, he likely could have held on to the House.

      If he had the House, we would’ve seen the absolute destruction of the 2nd Amendment.

  9. avatar neiowa says:

    You’re going to love Firstnet.

    If the feds weren’t already working on it would have to invent it so the “conspericy nuts” and the statist libtards could have an argument.

  10. avatar Full Cleveland says:

    Cops no longer protect and serve. They stalk and harass.

  11. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Should the state choose to go this route it will not go well for them (or us). The cat and mouse game that cops and criminals play with technology always leaves the cops a step behind the criminals. As soon as they close off one avenue of criminal behavior the criminals find a way around it, even the meth addicts. There is and will never be a tamper proof tracking system. Criminals will quickly learn how to be able to fool the cops into thinking the gun is sitting in the safe at home, while they’re off robbing liquor stores with it.

    Meanwhile, whenever there’s a manhunt, in addition to ‘shelter in place’ orders they will arbitrarily shut off every civilian owned firearm in an entire metropolitan area, leaving every civilian defenseless against a dangerous fugitive until the cops pin him down in someone’s boat and turn their giggle switches on him and the whole neighborhood. The people will be less safe, not more.

    The real problem, as I see it, is the proliferation of police. The fact that we have enough cops to shut down an entire city is troubling and the fact that we’ve given them the hardware to do it even more so. If this power goes unchecked it will result in a totalitarian state which will not end without violence.

  12. avatar Accur81 says:

    We have an LPR (license plate reader) car at our offense. It doesn’t work.

    There is, however, a tracking and reporting system of license plates in other departments (and I presume supported by our offices with functional LPR cars). You can enter a license plate and get a probability tracking map of a license plate and its former and predicted locations. It’s supposed to be only in response to a criminal inquiry, but the technology is definitely scary 1984 kind of stuff.

  13. avatar Bob72 says:

    Let me respond to the final comment in the article. I work for a fortune 500 company and I am surrounded by people with advanced degrees. These people may be experts in their area of study, but they are often dumb as rocks on most other subjects. They have spent many years isolated from reality in order to concentrate on their specialty. So, do not be surprised that most people with advanced academic prowess often fail to comprehend concepts that are very basic to most others. They can be trained though. Take one for a fun day at the range, and they may get hooked.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email