NationStates Jolt Archive

I remember when no-knock warrants were in their heyday, during the first term of the Clinton Administration, and how the White House argued that they were necessary, and how people (mostly gun owners, who were the target of no knock warrants by the ATF) objected to the idea. It was meat and potatoes for gun rights observers to discuss no knock and object to them.

Looks like the current Administration is philosophically in tune with the previous Administration, and has won a Supreme Court victory supporting their position.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_searches;_ylt=Al02Bh6P07KYW.td706JwXNMEP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

No knock warrants are a great way for law enforcement agents to get shot.

If someone I don't know just barges into my house, what reason do I have to believe that he's benevolent? Pretty much none.

This is sort of the whole point of having guns in the house - to shoot invaders.

So much for security of person.

So much for security of person.
What are the rules for this in Sweden? Do they have to announce that they are the police, and then wait a specified amount of time to see if you're going to answer?

IU don't know exactly what a no knock warrant is, but if it is what it sounds like, then it seems a stupid idea in a country that holds gun onwership for the gerneral populance in high regard.

As far as I can see this would result in two things

A) people who would shoot right away if they knew it was the police might not get the chance to shoot

and

B) People who wouldn't have shot if they knew it was the police might shoot now that they don't.

However, since I'm think there's probably more of the people in category B than in category A, I don't think it will balance out.

Bad president, bad supreme court picks, bad law.


Pretty clear

IU don't know exactly what a no knock warrant is, but if it is what it sounds like, then it seems a stupid idea in a country that holds gun onwership for the gerneral populance in high regard.

Let's say they get the wrong house (as they did in the 1990s when the Feds got excited about using these).

If they entered my house like that, obviously, just before they enter, I am not a criminal, nor am I suspected of being one.

But after they enter, if I shoot at unidentified men in the dark, I'm suddenly a criminal, because I'm shooting at the police (and don't even know it).

Bad president, bad supreme court picks, bad law.


Pretty clear

This policy has been around since Janet Reno, who thought it was a great idea.

What are the rules for this in Sweden? Do they have to announce that they are the police, and then wait a specified amount of time to see if you're going to answer?

"Art. 6. Every citizen shall be protected in his relations with the public institutions against any physical violation also in cases other than cases under Articles 4 and 5. He shall likewise be protected against body searches, house searches and other such invasions of privacy, against examination of mail or other confidential correspondence, and against eavesdropping and the recording of telephone conversations or other confidential communications."

If they've a warrant, they must announce it. There are cases when they don't need a warrant, though, such as when there is a clear and immediate need.

"Art. 6. Every citizen shall be protected in his relations with the public institutions against any physical violation also in cases other than cases under Articles 4 and 5. He shall likewise be protected against body searches, house searches and other such invasions of privacy, against examination of mail or other confidential correspondence, and against eavesdropping and the recording of telephone conversations or other confidential communications."

If they've a warrant, they must announce it. There are cases when they don't need a warrant, though, such as when there is a clear and immediate need.

I imagine that Sweden has "hot pursuit". A criminal running from the police runs into a large warehouse. The police probably don't need a warrant to look for him in the warehouse.

No doubt the gunrights activists won't give a rats ass now, but otherwise this is fucking bullshit. This is what happens when political polarization, ignorance, and poor voter turnouts align both the White House and Congress politcally.

I imagine that Sweden has "hot pursuit". A criminal running from the police runs into a large warehouse. The police probably don't need a warrant to look for him in the warehouse.

Naturally. Going indoors does not shield one from having been seen by the police earlier.

Let's say they get the wrong house (as they did in the 1990s when the Feds got excited about using these).

If they entered my house like that, obviously, just before they enter, I am not a criminal, nor am I suspected of being one.

But after they enter, if I shoot at unidentified men in the dark, I'm suddenly a criminal, because I'm shooting at the police (and don't even know it).


Exactly, I live in the UK, so gun onwership here is not such a big thing(or it is, depending on how you want to see it) but if somebody started to break down my front door, I would pick up the big lump of wood and go to protect my wife and kids, before I meekly asked "yes, who is it?"

This policy has been around since Janet Reno, who thought it was a great idea.


Well, that's nice to know.

Janet reno hasnt been in government for a long time.

Better supreme court justices which a better president would have picked would have made a better decision.

Nothing to do with Janet Reno that I can see.

Well, that's nice to know.

Janet reno hasnt been in government for a long time.

Better supreme court justices which a better president would have picked would have made a better decision.

Nothing to do with Janet Reno that I can see.

Sure does. It means that whether you vote for a Democrat or Republican President, they both want to shove the government up your ass in the middle of the night with no warning.

No doubt the gunrights activists won't give a rats ass now, but otherwise this is fucking bullshit. This is what happens when political polarization, ignorance, and poor voter turnouts align both the White House and Congress politcally.
Unfortunately it was historically high voter turn out that put this horse's ass in power.

No doubt the gunrights activists won't give a rats ass now, but otherwise this is fucking bullshit. This is what happens when political polarization, ignorance, and poor voter turnouts align both the White House and Congress politcally.
You'll notice that I'm a gun rights activist.

I remember when no-knock warrants were in their heyday, during the first term of the Clinton Administration, and how the White House argued that they were necessary, and how people (mostly gun owners, who were the target of no knock warrants by the ATF) objected to the idea. It was meat and potatoes for gun rights observers to discuss no knock and object to them.

Looks like the current Administration is philosophically in tune with the previous Administration, and has won a Supreme Court victory supporting their position.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_searches;_ylt=Al02Bh6P07KYW.td706JwXNMEP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
All I have to say is, nobody who opposed the Alito filibuster has any right whatsoever to bitch about this ruling. Your chickens are coming home to roost.

Sure does. It means that whether you vote for a Democrat or Republican President, they both want to shove the government up your ass in the middle of the night with no warning.


Except for the liberal justices who voted against it, who would probably have voted it down without right wing ideologues like scalito on the bench.

posted in duplicate

posted in triplicate

Except for the liberal justices who voted against it, who would probably have voted it down without right wing ideologues like scalito on the bench.
Sandra Day O'Connor, while she did oppose it, isn't exactly a "liberal" judge, nor would she pass muster on the 9th Circuit Court, where the standard of "liberal" is made.

Neither would any of the other justices on the Supreme Court.

Sandra Day O'Connor, while she did oppose it, isn't exactly a "liberal" judge, nor would she pass muster on the 9th Circuit Court, where the standard of "liberal" is made.

Neither would any of the other justices on the Supreme Court.

You should hear the "judicial activism" Mark Levin &al. crowd tell it.

You should hear the "judicial activism" Mark Levin &al. crowd tell it.
The closest thing we have to "judicial activism" (on the supposed left) is most of the members of the Ninth Circuit.

I would consider Scalia a "judicial activist" (on the right).

Just more evidence that this president and court are not conservative. Conservatism means limiting governmental power, not increasing it.