U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-12-2011, 11:08 AM
 
Location: GLAMA
16,584 posts, read 33,669,032 times
Reputation: 16825

Advertisements

The Brown supporters are eerily quiet on this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2011, 11:25 AM
 
25,631 posts, read 30,318,456 times
Reputation: 23111
I can understand Browns legal point given his background on not wanting to sign off on this measure. It really is a legal issue that needs to be decided by the courts and/or congress. Many decades of legal precedence that supports the inclusion of warrantless searches of personal property under the immediate control of citizens in custody.

As for the 4th amendment erosion it really pisses me off. What really irks me is that it puts me into the same philosophical alignment on this topic as SJC Ginsberg. *shudder*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Sacramento, Placerville
2,487 posts, read 5,099,412 times
Reputation: 2172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
It really is a legal issue that needs to be decided by the courts and/or congress. Many decades of legal precedence that supports the inclusion of warrantless searches of personal property under the immediate control of citizens in custody.

As for the 4th amendment erosion it really pisses me off. What really irks me is that it puts me into the same philosophical alignment on this topic as SJC Ginsberg. *shudder*
The court made a decision earlier this year.

Red Tape - Court: No warrant needed to search cell phone
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 01:31 PM
 
25,631 posts, read 30,318,456 times
Reputation: 23111
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC6ZLV View Post
The court made a decision earlier this year.

Red Tape - Court: No warrant needed to search cell phone
One of many going back decades on warrantless searches.
Both State and Federal
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Escondido, CA
1,504 posts, read 5,459,803 times
Reputation: 878
At those majorities, the Legislature should easily be able to overturn the veto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 03:11 PM
 
25,631 posts, read 30,318,456 times
Reputation: 23111
Quote:
Originally Posted by esmith143 View Post
At those majorities, the Legislature should easily be able to overturn the veto.
The problem will be that the piece of legislation in question appears to be at odds with recent Supreme Court rulings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Escondido, CA
1,504 posts, read 5,459,803 times
Reputation: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
The problem will be that the piece of legislation in question appears to be at odds with recent Supreme Court rulings.
That's not a problem, as long as the piece of legislation is not unconstitutional.

If this were going the opposite way, with the Supreme Court ruling that warrantless cell phone searches violate the 4th amendment and the legislature trying to get them back in, then we'd have a problem.

Laws are passed to get around inconvenient court rulings all the time. To take one random example. In 1990, Bush Sr. signed a federal law banning possession of a firearm within 1000 feet from any school. In 1992, a 12-grader in Texas was convicted under this law. He appealed, the appeal went all the way to the Supreme Court, which, in 1995, overturned the conviction and voided the law. The Congress then had to go back and rewrite it. Today it's still a federal crime to carry a gun in a school zone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Coachella Valley, California
15,564 posts, read 36,473,016 times
Reputation: 13177
Quote:
Originally Posted by esmith143 View Post
That's not a problem, as long as the piece of legislation is not unconstitutional.

If this were going the opposite way, with the Supreme Court ruling that warrantless cell phone searches violate the 4th amendment and the legislature trying to get them back in, then we'd have a problem.

Laws are passed to get around inconvenient court rulings all the time. To take one random example. In 1990, Bush Sr. signed a federal law banning possession of a firearm within 1000 feet from any school. In 1992, a 12-grader in Texas was convicted under this law. He appealed, the appeal went all the way to the Supreme Court, which, in 1995, overturned the conviction and voided the law. The Congress then had to go back and rewrite it. Today it's still a federal crime to carry a gun in a school zone.
The Lopez case. SCOTUS invalidated the statute (GFSZA) because the feds were trying to enforce it through the commerce clause, which they had no authority to do. There may be some STATE law prohibiting firearms within a certain distance from a school, but there is currently no federal law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 05:10 PM
 
25,631 posts, read 30,318,456 times
Reputation: 23111
Quote:
Originally Posted by esmith143 View Post
That's not a problem, as long as the piece of legislation is not unconstitutional.

If this were going the opposite way, with the Supreme Court ruling that warrantless cell phone searches violate the 4th amendment and the legislature trying to get them back in, then we'd have a problem.

Laws are passed to get around inconvenient court rulings all the time. To take one random example. In 1990, Bush Sr. signed a federal law banning possession of a firearm within 1000 feet from any school. In 1992, a 12-grader in Texas was convicted under this law. He appealed, the appeal went all the way to the Supreme Court, which, in 1995, overturned the conviction and voided the law. The Congress then had to go back and rewrite it. Today it's still a federal crime to carry a gun in a school zone.
It would still be a problem because of all the previous precedent Rulings in favor of the warrantless searches.

I am fully aware of legislative tactics especially when the Feds utilize the commerce clause. Guess that useless act didn't help those kids at Columbine or Virgina Tech. It also has not been challenged yet by SCOTUS.

Don't get me wrong I think it stinks and these searches are diametrically opposed to the spirit of our 4th amendment liberties.

Last edited by Bulldogdad; 10-12-2011 at 05:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Escondido, CA
1,504 posts, read 5,459,803 times
Reputation: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinkle Toes View Post
The Lopez case. SCOTUS invalidated the statute (GFSZA) because the feds were trying to enforce it through the commerce clause, which they had no authority to do. There may be some STATE law prohibiting firearms within a certain distance from a school, but there is currently no federal law.
The statute was reenacted with minor changes in 1996.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:36 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top