|
|
01-17-2012, 07:41 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 270
Likes: 2
Liked 22 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
"Gun-Scanning" technology to target concealed carry firearms
NYPD Testing Gun-Scanning Technology « CBS New York
I don't conceal carry in NYC, but as a person with a lawful CCW Permit, I would have a big problem getting stopped and having my license demanded by police (presumably at gun point?) every time a cruiser equipped with this technology happened to drive past me on the street. Lawfully concealed means concealed... from the public as well as the police.
Last edited by s&wchad; 01-17-2012 at 08:53 PM.
|
01-17-2012, 08:01 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains
Posts: 434
Likes: 63
Liked 46 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
What will they think of next?
|
01-17-2012, 08:38 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Coastal Missouri
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 899
Liked 977 Times in 467 Posts
|
|
"Up to 16 Feet".............how useful is that?
|
01-17-2012, 08:48 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 7,437
Likes: 13,465
Liked 8,496 Times in 2,835 Posts
|
|
Well, you have to think outside the box.
I think it's a good thing.
__________________
Jorge
|
01-17-2012, 08:56 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,811
Likes: 4,241
Liked 15,209 Times in 4,164 Posts
|
|
The Supreme Court has held that you do not have an expectation of privacy on a public street. A more conservative court may see it differently, but if you are carrying legally I fail to see the problem.
|
01-17-2012, 09:25 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Matsu Valley, Alaska
Posts: 881
Likes: 146
Liked 1,003 Times in 349 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bratastic007
NYPD Testing Gun-Scanning Technology « CBS New York
I don't conceal carry in NYC, but as a person with a lawful CCW Permit, I would have a big problem getting stopped and having my license demanded by police (presumably at gun point?) every time a cruiser equipped with this technology happened to drive past me on the street. Lawfully concealed means concealed... from the public as well as the police.
|
Couple of assumptions there: At this point in the technology, a cruiser would have a very difficult time detecting weapons as it passed you, especially given the crowds in NYC. More importantly, pat downs, physical or virtual, can only take place in the presence of articulable reasonable suspicion. However, it is possible under litigation that the courts could rule that the public's right not to be threatened by firearms outweighs an individual's rights not to be scanned without reasonable suspicion. This kind of ruling is similar to why law enforcement is able to conduct vehicle checkpoints where everyone has to show drivers licenses and so forth even though the police don't necessarily have reasonable suspicion to ask for them: the court's specific ruling went something like, the public's right to be free from driver's under the influence outweighed individual's rights not to be stopped without reasonable suspicion.
Last edited by dwever; 01-17-2012 at 09:32 PM.
|
01-17-2012, 09:31 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Matsu Valley, Alaska
Posts: 881
Likes: 146
Liked 1,003 Times in 349 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old cop
The Supreme Court has held that you do not have an expectation of privacy on a public street. A more conservative court may see it differently, but if you are carrying legally I fail to see the problem.
|
I would assert that an expectation of privacy is not exactly what would have standing in this issue; rather, it is the 4th Amendment right and protection from unreasonable search or seizure.*
*(the part of the Bill of Rights which, among other things, guards against unreasonable searches and seizures; "reasonable" searches are generally understood to be supported by probable cause).
Last edited by dwever; 01-17-2012 at 09:37 PM.
|
01-18-2012, 01:05 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 30
Liked 700 Times in 392 Posts
|
|
Get a jacket with a "space blanket" liner, such as the Columbia "Titanium" line. By "terahertz" technology, they refer to far infrared into the microwave region. It may look like tin foil (hahaha), but the multi-layer metal/dielectric composition reflects infrared almost perfectly. Properly deployed, a space blanket is camouflage against FLIR too.
Bloomberg is hot on this scanning technology. It's part of his scheme to arrest everybody, then let the criminals go free (or run for re-election).
Last edited by Neumann; 01-18-2012 at 01:09 AM.
|
01-18-2012, 01:31 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: between beers
Posts: 8,890
Likes: 4,778
Liked 6,940 Times in 3,309 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJEH
Well, you have to think outside the box.
I think it's a good thing.
|
more like think outside the state
__________________
it just needs more voltage
|
01-18-2012, 09:48 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 465
Likes: 48
Liked 31 Times in 21 Posts
|
|
Basically, it's a warrant-less search without probably cause. Another erosion of our Constitutional rights in the name of "expediency" or "public safety."
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It's the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves -William Pitt"
If there it probable cause, the LEO can pat down the suspect.
Last edited by chp; 01-18-2012 at 11:47 AM.
|
01-18-2012, 10:25 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 270
Likes: 2
Liked 22 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
The problem I have with it is that there is no way for the police to distinguish from 15 ft. away whether the person carrying the concealed weapon is doing so lawfully (permit holder, plain clothes cop, etc.) or unlawfully (criminal). To determine this, the police will have to approach, stop, and question the individual. Police being police, they'll treat everyone like a criminal until that person can prove otherwise. The police do this based on their training and for their own safety.
If I were a lawful permit holder, I think being stopped on the street by police at random and treated like an armed criminal would get old really quickly. Especially in a gun-unfriendly city like NY. I'm sure you won't receive the white glove treatment.
And I wouldn't want to have to wear a space blanket under my shirt 365 days a year, either.
|
01-18-2012, 10:57 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 4,310
Likes: 1,039
Liked 2,358 Times in 1,117 Posts
|
|
Is CC even legal in NYC? I thought only crooks and politicians (oops, same thing) can carry guns in NYC.
I don't like it. I can see pro-gun people carrying tin foil cut-outs of weapons under their shirts, maybe glue a tin foil Uzi on an undershirt.... It would drive the cops nuts and hopefully they'd ditch the new invasive technology.
|
01-18-2012, 11:41 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 17,822
Likes: 7,853
Liked 25,742 Times in 8,697 Posts
|
|
The only people who can "qualify" to get a CCW in NYC are retired LEO's, Celebration, Actors, and FRIENDS OF THE MAYOR. Other than that, unless you have an unlimited amount of money to sue the City and an Attorney that will be willing to do it, GOOD LUCK!
|
01-18-2012, 11:50 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 589
Likes: 15
Liked 63 Times in 45 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by venomballistics
more like think outside the state
|
I like that. No one has mentioned the 'slippery slope' that we've seen destroy this country for the last 50 years. Many consider the idea of slippery slopes 'conspiracy theory', but think about them having to register pistols in CA- speaking of states- and how they now must also register handguns. This one-step-at-a-time government intrusion is real, not a conspiracy.
|
01-18-2012, 12:19 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orlando / middle Tenn
Posts: 208
Likes: 63
Liked 24 Times in 13 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chp
Basically, it's a warrant-less search without probably cause. Another erosion of our Constitutional rights in the name of "expediency" or "public safety."
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It's the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves -William Pitt"
If there it probable cause, the LEO can pat down the suspect.
|
Actually reasonable suspicion is the threshold. Less than full blown PC.
|
01-18-2012, 01:13 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: south central missouri
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 987
Liked 2,270 Times in 654 Posts
|
|
Hmmm, Constitution...Bill of Rights, where have I seen those, Oh yeah, now I remember, don't they use those for door mats at the white house?
Peace,
gordon
__________________
better have that checked
|
01-18-2012, 03:11 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 589
Likes: 15
Liked 63 Times in 45 Posts
|
|
GT you are so right- it's amazing how they all take the oath- when they run for election they want to represent us to PROTECT US. But soon as they say those words- "I swear to defend and support" that promise flies out the window. Sooner or later we're gonna have to stand up and fight for it- or continue to complain - and end up like Greece...or worse.
|
01-18-2012, 04:33 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 466
Likes: 2
Liked 39 Times in 29 Posts
|
|
Why am I not surprised that this is happening in Bloomberg City.
|
01-18-2012, 04:52 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14,661
Likes: 7,937
Liked 20,623 Times in 5,958 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bratastic007
The problem I have with it is that there is no way for the police to distinguish from 15 ft. away whether the person carrying the concealed weapon is doing so lawfully (permit holder, plain clothes cop, etc.) or unlawfully (criminal). To determine this, the police will have to approach, stop, and question the individual. Police being police, they'll treat everyone like a criminal until that person can prove otherwise. The police do this based on their training and for their own safety.
If I were a lawful permit holder, I think being stopped on the street by police at random and treated like an armed criminal would get old really quickly. Especially in a gun-unfriendly city like NY. I'm sure you won't receive the white glove treatment.
|
I wouldn't be surprised if NY wanted to start requiring permit holders to have an RFID bio-chip implant that can be read from a distance. When a gun is detected the authorities will already know who the person is and that they're permitted, or not. Public safety... convenience... roll up your sleeves fellas...
Last edited by ChattanoogaPhil; 01-18-2012 at 04:55 PM.
|
01-18-2012, 06:37 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 270
Likes: 2
Liked 22 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil
I wouldn't be surprised if NY wanted to start requiring permit holders to have an RFID bio-chip implant that can be read from a distance. When a gun is detected the authorities will already know who the person is and that they're permitted, or not. Public safety... convenience... roll up your sleeves fellas...
|
Sure, why not. Just keep passing more and more laws to make life more difficult for law-abiding citizens who, for some crazy reason, choose to exercise their Constitutional rights. Eventually, you'll turn them into criminals too, and differentiating between good and bad people with guns will become a non-issue.
|
01-18-2012, 07:17 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SC
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Don't worry, it's NYC. After realizing that the technology costs too much the city will pass a law requiring all pedestrians to be naked.
|
01-18-2012, 07:53 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 465
Likes: 48
Liked 31 Times in 21 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24spenser
Actually reasonable suspicion is the threshold. Less than full blown PC.
|
Thank you. Good spot.
|
01-18-2012, 08:03 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 465
Likes: 48
Liked 31 Times in 21 Posts
|
|
This technology is somewhat analogous to drug sniffing dogs used in traffic stops. Specifically, the question is - is the use of this technology/drug sniffing dogs a "search" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
For drug dogs, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not a type of search protected by the Constitution. FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: The Supreme Court Upholds Suspicionless Dog Sniffs [An erroneous decision IMHO, but I'm a libertarian . . . ]
I fail to see how these are not searches, but admittedly I've not read the whole opinion of the case.
|
01-19-2012, 12:20 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 377
Likes: 83
Liked 101 Times in 65 Posts
|
|
From the article:
"Police Commissioner Kelly said the scanner would only be used in reasonably suspicious circumstances"
Which means anytime they felt like it.
|
01-19-2012, 09:06 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: C-Bus
Posts: 6,335
Likes: 4,311
Liked 4,916 Times in 2,086 Posts
|
|
To think I used to laugh at the guys with the tinfoil beanies.
Turns out they weren't so far off after all.
|
01-19-2012, 11:48 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 270
Likes: 2
Liked 22 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chp
This technology is somewhat analogous to drug sniffing dogs used in traffic stops. Specifically, the question is - is the use of this technology/drug sniffing dogs a "search" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
For drug dogs, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not a type of search protected by the Constitution. FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: The Supreme Court Upholds Suspicionless Dog Sniffs [An erroneous decision IMHO, but I'm a libertarian . . . ]
I fail to see how these are not searches, but admittedly I've not read the whole opinion of the case.
|
The differentiating factor in my mind is this: there is no legal reason why a person would be carrying unlawful drugs. Any "positive" identification that a drug dog correctly makes will be a person breaking the law.
On the other hand, there are people who may lawfully be carrying weapons (CCW permit holders, off-duty or plain clothes officers, etc.). This scanner cannot differentiate between criminal and non-criminal concealed weapons. As a result, citizens who are lawfully carrying will be treated as armed criminals until they can prove otherwise. Not that Bloomberg will have any problem with that, mind you.
|
01-19-2012, 12:44 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 589
Likes: 15
Liked 63 Times in 45 Posts
|
|
|
01-19-2012, 01:39 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14,661
Likes: 7,937
Liked 20,623 Times in 5,958 Posts
|
|
I'm not sure I fully understand what the Commissioner means.
According to the story, the Commissioner says the scanner is only to be used if the circumstances are reasonably suspicious. But then he says it will reduce the number of stop-and-frisks on the street. It sounds like the Commissioner is saying that if the cops knew someone did not have a gun then they would not stop-and-frisk them under suspicious circumstances. So what would be the suspicious street circumstances... 'Oh look at what that guy is doing... very suspicious [Scan] everything must be ok since he doesn't have a gun. Drive on.'
Last edited by ChattanoogaPhil; 01-19-2012 at 01:55 PM.
|
01-19-2012, 01:48 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,470
Likes: 804
Liked 3,061 Times in 1,014 Posts
|
|
I'm going to start an internet rumor that one side effect of this side scan radar is sterilization and the real purpose is mass sterilization of certain population groups. It must be true, I just read it here.
|
01-19-2012, 02:12 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 270
Likes: 2
Liked 22 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by walnutred
I'm going to start an internet rumor that one side effect of this side scan radar is sterilization and the real purpose is mass sterilization of certain population groups.
|
If by "certain population groups" you mean smug New Yorkers, I'm all for it.
Last edited by Bratastic007; 01-19-2012 at 03:30 PM.
|
01-19-2012, 02:13 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 202
Likes: 1
Liked 11 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
I grew up in Brooklyn , NY. Haven't lived there in almost 30 years. Yet another reason not to move back.
|
01-19-2012, 04:03 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Arnold, Missouri
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 7,179
Liked 6,595 Times in 2,117 Posts
|
|
Tinfoil hats, tinfoil hats! Get your tinfoil hats right here!
You know, I read somewhere that that machine causes sterility.
__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner
|
01-19-2012, 05:00 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Liked 33 Times in 29 Posts
|
|
all the more reason to avoid new york at all costs, new york, new york, its a hell of a violation of your rights as a citizen of the united states!
|
01-19-2012, 05:20 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
|
"If it's for our safety, blah, blah, blah...".
And the sheep trade more freedom for the illusion of safety. Un-freakin'-believable.
|
01-19-2012, 07:37 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Littleton, Colorado
Posts: 238
Likes: 18
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bombsaway
"If it's for our safety, blah, blah, blah...".
And the sheep trade more freedom for the illusion of safety. Un-freakin'-believable.
|
I made that same arqument on a FB 2A group and was told to basically shut up!
__________________
SW40VE AF
2000 rounds so far
|
01-19-2012, 09:07 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Liked 33 Times in 29 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bombsaway
"If it's for our safety, blah, blah, blah...".
And the sheep trade more freedom for the illusion of safety. Un-freakin'-believable.
|
sounds like the nazi's behind the sopa and protect IP act right now, how we allowed such people to be alowed to control our goverment ill never know.
|
01-19-2012, 11:24 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: MI.
Posts: 295
Likes: 56
Liked 113 Times in 56 Posts
|
|
Just great something else that will be abused.
|
01-20-2012, 03:36 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Our mayor Bloomberg is on a personal vendetta to get ALL guns off the streets and would love to disarm all law abiding citizens if he could this is just another means to the end. When will it ever end?
|
01-20-2012, 04:05 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 3,043
Liked 1,791 Times in 932 Posts
|
|
Just stay out of BLOOMBERGVILLE, GOD is going to fix city that with global warming, and put it to rest underwater forever.
__________________
NRA Pistol/Rifle Inst. RSO
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|