Tags

Well stop saying it can’t happen here, or it won’t happen to me…

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/dad-this-picture-of-my-son-holding-a-gun-triggered-a-visit-from-nj-police-family-services/

Here’s what Moore alleges on the Delaware open carry forum:

  • NJ’s Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) came to his home, accompanied by police officers. They claimed to be responding to a call about a photo of a young boy holding a firearm. (photo above)
  • Without a search warrant, DYFS demanded entry into Moore’s home and access to all of his firearms. Moore was not initially there, but his wife called him.
  • With his lawyer listening to the exchange on the phone with police and DFYS, Moore denied entry to his home and access to his safe where he stores his guns.
  • When Moore requested the name of the DFYS representative, she refused to give it to him.
  • After threatening to “take my kids,” the police and Family Services worker left — “empty handed and seeing nothing.”

In an exclusive interview with TheBlaze, Mr. Nappen — the attorney who was listening to the entire incident via Moore’s speaker phone — added more details:

A good primer on where the 4th Amendment came from and the case (law) including Search and Seizure and Warrant Clause, can be found at the Heritage site link below:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/4/essays/144/searches-and-seizures

On the other hand, considerable historical evidence supports a different hypothesis about original intent. Based upon their experiences with British “general warrants,” the Framers outlawed such devices in the Warrant Clause. By requiring probable cause and a particular description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized, the Framers prohibited rambling intrusions and rummages into people’s belongings. Because courts were in the business of issuing warrants, they would naturally take charge of enforcing this provision, gauging the adequacy of the “probable cause” alleged and the particularity described.

On this view, the first part of the Fourth Amendment—the Searches and Seizures Clause—did not authorize courts to do anything. It was a statement of political moral principle, understood by the Founders to be merely declaratory, an explanation or justification for the Warrant Clause, which followed it. On this view no broad “common law” of search and seizure was invited or envisioned by those who enacted the Fourth Amendment. “The right of the people” was a collective right of the political community, not an individual’s immunity against intrusion by agents of that community.

I think there needs to be a formal refresher of our Founding Documents.

Advertisements