XPost: or.politics, talk.politics.guns, az.politics   
   From: meso@mer.ica   
      
   On 5/2/2014 9:22 AM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   > Mayan Stonebird wrote in news:ljusrj$88b$4@dont-email.me:   
   >   
   >> On 5/1/2014 6:04 PM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>> Mayan Stonebird wrote in news:ljukrt$t48$1@dont-   
   > email.me:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 5/1/2014 5:17 PM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>>>> GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote in   
   >>>>> news:mkj5m9tdgf5bv3ngpc5onhjev4fq355klf@4ax.com:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 16:33:40 -0500, RD Sandman   
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote in   
   >>>>>>> news:gnc5m9tvp8vb6jkbkuoio1kl7ekdc7hjde@4ax.com:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 13:02:17 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude   
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 08:33:53 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall   
   >>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 07:56:16 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude   
   >>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 07:35:21 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall   
   >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 06:46:15 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:53:44 +0000 (UTC), Baxter   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democratic Representative Steven Horsford says people are   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> living in fear, under the constant presence of armed   
   > militia   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> [chuckle]   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, we're all petrified.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Armed gangs roaming the streets might not bother you but it   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> does bother Bunkerville residents who want their town back.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> LOL   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Did they take a vote?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> They certainly didn't take a vote in these creatures crawling   
   >>>>>>>>>> out of the woodwork and invading their community did they?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> But you're OK with feds stopping and searching on lonely   
   > highways   
   >>>>>>>>> miles from he border, right?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> If there is reasonable suspicion of course.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Just what do you consider "reasonable suspicion"? Driving a car   
   >>>>>>> while hispanic?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Of course not.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> profiling is only allowed at the actual international border.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Border search exception   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct   
   >>>>>> suspicionless search and seizures within 100 miles of the border,   
   > [5]   
   >>>>>> the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the   
   >>>>>> border search exception applies only at international borders and   
   >>>>>> their functional equivalent (such as international airports).[4]   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, U.S.   
   >>>>>> Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agents, and U.S. Coast   
   >>>>>> Guard officers (E4 grade and above) who are all customs officers   
   >>>>>> (those tasked with enforcing Title 19 of the United States Code)   
   >>>>>> with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, are permitted to   
   >>>>>> search travelers and their belongings at the American border   
   > without   
   >>>>>> probable cause or a warrant.[6]   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Pursuant to this authority, customs officers may generally stop   
   >>>>>> and   
   >>>>>> search the property of any traveler entering or exiting the United   
   >>>>>> States at random, or even based largely on ethnic profiles.[7]   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, addressing a challenge to   
   >>>>>> Customs' authority to search electronic files in United States v.   
   >>>>>> Ickes, held that there is no First Amendment exception to the   
   > border   
   >>>>>> search doctrine for expressive materials .[11] The Court based its   
   >>>>>> finding in part on the demands of protecting the nation from   
   >>>>>> terrorist threats that may cross the American border in expressive   
   >>>>>> materials.[12] in its analysis, the Court stated:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The border search doctrine is justified by the longstanding   
   >>>>>> right   
   >>>>>> of the sovereign to protect itself. Particularly in today's world,   
   >>>>>> national security interests may require uncovering terrorist   
   >>>>>> communications, which are inherently “expressive.” Following   
   > Ickes's   
   >>>>>> logic would create a sanctuary at the border for all expressive   
   >>>>>> material-even for terrorist plans. This would undermine the   
   >>>>>> compelling reasons that lie at the very heart of the border search   
   >>>>>> doctrine."[   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The Supreme Court expressly did not rule what level of suspicion   
   >>>>>> would be necessary for a strip, body-cavity, or involuntary x-ray   
   >>>>>> search,[21] though they did say that the only two standards for   
   >>>>>> Fourth Amendment purposes short of a warrant were "reasonable   
   >>>>>> suspicion" and "probable cause" (rejecting a "clear indication"   
   >>>>>> standard).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> In the border search context, reasonable suspicion means that the   
   >>>>>> facts known to the customs officer at the time of the search,   
   >>>>>> combined with the officer's reasonable inferences from those facts,   
   >>>>>> provides the officer with a particularized and objective basis for   
   >>>>>> suspecting that the search will reveal contraband.[22]   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> To form a basis for reasonable suspicion, a customs officer may   
   > rely   
   >>>>>> on his training and prior experience, and may rely on entirely   
   >>>>>> innocent factors, if the totality of the circumstances provide the   
   >>>>>> officer with reasonable suspicion.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You can read all that crap you wish, but that isn't how the BP is   
   >>>>> acting. Residents of Arivaca and Sahaurita and even Green Valley are   
   >>>>> fed up with them and want the checkpoint abandoned. They have little   
   >>>>> or no problem with activites down around the border. Most of them   
   >>>>> feel that is where the Border Patrol should have its checkpoints,   
   > not   
   >>>>> 70 miles away with open country all around.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> Do they still have that checkpoint up by Tubac?   
   >>>   
   >>> Yep....that is the one bothering Arivaca, Sahaurita, etc...   
   >>   
   >> Ok, a real PITA for vacationers, btw.   
   >   
   > Yep   
      
   Especially if you have a camper or motorhome - they love to "tour" those...   
      
   >   
   >>> The one I   
   >>> mentioned 70 miles (by road) is between Elfrida and Kansas Settlement.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|