Orlando, Florida has a little problem with shootings lately. They have a bigger problem with the Constitution.
Checkpoints. Weapons screening. Metal detectors. On public streets.
Orlando to implement checkpoints downtown after 7 people injured in shooting
In light of the shooting, Dyer said the city will implement checkpoints on weekends. People who want to visit the area of Orange Avenue from Washington to Pine Streets will have to walk through one of six pedestrian checkpoints. This is an example of the city’s most recent controlled access map.The city said people should expect to see more officers, K9s and metal detectors. There will also be a voluntary weapons screening at the checkpoints.
[…]
While the weapons screening is voluntary, Dyer said he thinks it will make a difference.
“I think if there are people that are carrying weapons and intending to come downtown, they will certainly think twice about that before they do so. I think it’s a deterrent for some people to have to go simply go through a checkpoint,” he said.
Mayor Buddy Dyer tries to rationalize these checkpoints as “voluntary,” but note that he repeatedly stresses that people “have to” go through them.
Where are your warrants, Buddy?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Or maybe we should look to the Florida constitution.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized,
Possibly Dyer is confused enough to believe that public streets are some sort of sensitive area, rather like the secured portions of airports accessible through TSA checkpoints and metal detectors.
One word, Buddy: Bruen.
For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.
Mayor Dyer did not respond to a request for comment on the constitutional issues with his plan.
Anybody want to take a trip to Orlando to establish standing to sue?
Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options) |
Ohhhh, my dream! Get Gov DeSantis and his protection people to go challenge it….refuse to walk through it. Marion Hammer is down there, or was, not sure it’s up her alley or if she’s still around but that could be fun!
I’m sure Hammer is too busy banking unreported consulting fees to make excuses for the Vichy NRA and LaPierre to bother with defending rights. As usual.
The easy alternative is to identify, prosecute and “quarantine” those who commit crimes. Much of the violence seems to come from “repeat offenders”, so quarantine would limit violent attacks on individuals. Dis-arming the likely victims is not necessary nor is it useful.
“Dis-arming the likely victims is not necessary nor is it useful.”
It is, if you’re a Dimocrat whose actual, practical constituency is the criminals.
I am uncertain about the ultimate disposition of the so called stop and frisk tactic that NY, NY followed, when Giulani was running the show. But in.my mind, there can be no argument that the entire idea is wrong. The Constitution addresses this quite adequately.
I firmly think that the constitution is still the law of the land, and that it is just as relevant today as when written. The leftists are the ones who have always been guilty of trying to change the rules to suit themselves. It looks like this time it has once again come back to bite them, with Supreme Court decisions reining several areas back to the constitutional side.
Of course the looney left is all over it, saying that the.court is political and considering making new rules from making term limits to packing the court, in order to impose their will on all of America. And while it is unlikely to become law, the mere idea that they are willing to make such horrible changes is stunning, to the point of unimageinable.
It renamed to be seen whether or not they actually have the incredible hate for America to the point that they will destroy our republic.by changing how the Supreme Court Justices are appointed to the court, and how they they are confirmed.
What happens with these next Biden appointees will tell a lot about how they plan on using the Senate’s own rules to push President Biden’s agenda.
NYC’s Stop & Frisk bit the dust.
The judge was always dubious of the 4A issues. And when she reviewed the city’s own data on the results…
1. It did not have an impact on crime rates.
2. 98% of the frisks resulted in no weapons found.
3. Blacks and Latinos, over-represented in the frisks, were even less likely to be found with weapons.
…it was painfully obvious that it did not work according to the city’sown metrics, failing the then-current government need and effectiveness scrutiny test.
They’ve tried to resurrect it from time to time, but last I heard gave when the Ferguson/defund the police crap started, and cops were unwilling to risk their jobs. It can’t have improve since with the city’s no-bail revolving door policy.
It should not matter whether or not the unconstitutional policy was allowed to remain in place. In the city of Chicago with the inner city having a large number of gun violence, committed by mostly non white populations, they could simply arrest and detain any minority, to a large tent city in the desert. That would be a sure way to stop a very large portion of violent gun crime. But it would also be very unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter that by removing any possible criminal element, you also cut down on crime, because you simply cannot do away with people’s constitutional rights. The ends never can justify the means.
We’re visiting Orlando Friday, will let you know. Since we are traveling by air, obviously not packing but not submitting to an illegal search either.